 |
| 
BADGERVOL
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 27
| Posted 4/21/2004 4:01 AM (GMT -6) |   | I was thinking about how Calvinists get to be so pompus (sp?) in their belief about their position and sort of "look down" upon anyone who holds another view. This hasn't been the case with ALL Calvinists so far, but the VAST majority in my experience. I think I have a theory.
The idea that God is controling us like puppets is not very appealing for anyone. Calvinists will say that it won't be to our prideful selves! Well, I have found that Calvinists appear to think that because they have gone against their desires and have adopted a view "purely on scripture alone" that they "must be right" and are very "sure of their position." It's like...(from the Calvinists perspective) "Look people, I was strong enough to follow the Bible alone and abandon my feelings and what appears to be the case in reality so I'm the strong one hear. The rest of you keep trying to make something that is 'clearly' not there appear for your own benefit." Well, with an attitude like that (and I'm not saying that this is ALL Calvinists, but a lot) is it any wonder that they are not willing to even hear alternative views, or consider the entire breadth and depth of scripture to see where the OV comes from?
I guess I just don't have a lot of patience for people who are arrogant in their beliefs about things. Heck, even John Calvin I was told, mentioned that the greatest theological thinkers in the world will probably only be correct on about 70% of all theological positions (yet he was willing to condemn people to death for their beliefs that differed from his and all of this was "predetermined since before time occured"). Another great quote I live by is in the book "Habits of the Mind" by James W. Sire. It was by some ancient intellectual. "When someone is honestly 55% right, that's very good and there's no use wrangling. And if someone is 60% right, it's wonderful, its great luck, and let him thank God. But what's to be said about 75% right? Wise people say this is suspicious. Well, and what 100% right? Whoever says he's 100% right is a fanatic, a thug, and the worst kind of rascal." What a great quote.
I want people who are willing to discuss and are open to new things. Who are not willing to switch positions at the drop of a hat, but are willing to think things through clearly and go where the facts lead REGARDLESS of where they lead. This way of handling things has led me to hold positions that I really don't like to emotionally, but that appear to be the truth.
I realize this isn't a meaty post. Just venting about people I know and people I get into discussions with about this stuff. Thanks. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 4/21/2004 5:33 AM (GMT -6) | | Calvinists suffer under the assumption that, right or wrong, whatever they preceive gives the most glory to God is what is truth. A Calvinist friend of mine once said that, even if he were wrong and we could resist and choose against God, his view still gave the most glory to God. To which I replied that truth is gives the most glory to God.
It is sad because I believe Calvinists follow what they believe is most glorious to God, rather than what scripture dictates. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/21/2004 11:44 AM (GMT -6) | | Maybe that's true of the Calvinists you know. But if I start with the description and begin trying to find just anyone that fits it, it seem to fit a lot of groups. Doesn't Indepentdent Bible churches fit BADGERVOL's description, and OpenView posters feelinahole's description.
Seems like a bad case of human nature.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/21/2004 11:48 AM (GMT -6) | | A friend of mine sent this e-mail:
quote:
Re: Max Weber
Happy birthday to you, happy birthday dear Ma-a-ax, happy birthday to you!
We Calvinists ought to honor Max much more than we do. He ought to be right up there in our pantheon alongside St. Calvin, for it is due to him that Calvinism gets noticed at all in history courses, sociology courses, lit courses, etc, etc.
He's the one who gave us credit for inventing the mindset that made
capitalism possible, and capitalism is what shrunk the world into a happy neighborhood of satisfied consumers who can have breakfast with coffee from Africa, orange juice from Israel, corned beef from Australia, muffins from England and cookies from Denmark -- a healthy breakfast indeed.
I always had a hard time figuring out how he managed to root the thinking of Benjamin Franklin in the Puritans, but that's a mark of his genius.
Since the whole world is being integrated (or chewed up) by the great
capitalist order, we may say that the whole world is becoming more Calvinist now -- except for the U.S., which has renounced its inner-worldly asceticism for the credit card.
Viva Max! Long may he be a subject for dissertations and keep the name of Calvin alive!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/21/2004 11:51 AM (GMT -6) | | Another friend rejoined:
quote:
H____, care to expand on this? I think private ownership of capital and free markets have been around longer than Calvin. Modern capitalism seems to me to have its roots more in Enlightenment Rationalism than in Calvin's theology.
It seems to me Calvin seems to be one of those guys that has been a favorite subject for revisionist deconstruction these days. Calvin the Great has become Calvin the Monster. Luther has taken a beating recently in the same way. Its time we realize that these men, as talented and Godly as they were, were also sinful and flawed just as we all are. God used them and their talents despite their own weaknesses.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/21/2004 11:53 AM (GMT -6) | | INTERESTING (CALVINISM AND CULTURE, AND THROUGH THAT EFFECTS ON INDIVIDUAL LIVES AND COMMUNITIES.)
quote:
M_______ wrote:
>H_______, care to expand on this? I think private ownership of capital and free markets have been around longer than Calvin. Modern capitalism seems to me to have its roots more in Enlightenment Rationalism than in Calvin's theology.<
I think you're right. I read a book long ago by Macfarland (sp?) who showed that many of the things often attached to Protestantism (individualism, free enterprise, etc.) were already quite widespread in England in the 14th century. And I believe Braudel has shown forms of capitalism emerging in the far east apart from Calvinism. But these and many others were addressing Weber's thesis that made a connection between Calvinism and capitalism, a thesis still discussed despite the numerous attacks made on it.
Weber argued basically that before Calvinism came along people worked only long enough to get what they needed to live. Calvinism by glorifying vocation and hard work motivated people to produce surplus. But at the same time it forbade people to spend surplus on their own pleasures (Innerweltliche askese). But they had to do something with the surplus, so they reinvested it, and Presto! we have capital producing more capital.
It became a popular explanation because it was able to closely link cultural explanation with economic explanation, and offered an alternative to (then) Marxist reduction of religion to an epiphenomenon of the economic base.
H________
| | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 4/21/2004 6:07 PM (GMT -6) | | | POW: not really. Its a basis description of most Calvinists I've met. | | Back to Top | | |
|
joneames
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 21
| Posted 4/21/2004 6:27 PM (GMT -6) | | I'm currenty in a calvinist forum debating universal love, I am all for it, and cited 10 references including II Pet 3:0 and I Tim 2:4 to support it, everyone claims I am not exegeting the passage ,and if I was I would arrive that God desires the elect to be saved, not all men. I can't find an exegesis of these passages. Can anyone here help? I really am disgusted by the efects calvinism has on people, not the people themselves, and want to do my part to see that peole change. Any help is apperciated, thanks.
Jon | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/22/2004 12:09 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
POW: not really. Its a basis description of most Calvinists I've met.
Granted. I did not question that. THAT is the population you observe such traits being common.
I just said that I've seen it present in other groups too. (It is common in grups of converts to just about anything.)
quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
Seems like a bad case of human nature.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/22/2004 12:27 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
POW: one out of four actually contains your own opinion, without quoting extensively from someone else. Your batting average is going up! 
Honestly, I don't know what "" means.
There seems to be a great gulf of non-communication in this mysterious post of feelinahole's. If he intends to imply that posting one message of my own and gathering three others from two different people who are engages in a conversation. Conversations are a literary device. Many books are even written with fictional conversations, so as to help the reader both acquire new information AND prepare to digest it. (I read at least one book recently that used that device. Other books use real dialogues to illustrate matters in ways that simple examination cannot accomplish--sometimes enclosing both manners under one cover.
But here were two people HUMBLY examining their own tradition, circumspectly, and in mutual, brotherly regulation. I thought it was GREAT. And that it was (is) well worth considering.
Obviously it is not a continuation of the beginning theme of "what bugs me about Calvinists I've known." But eventually that will (and should) peeter out.
Looking at Calvinism as a social, cultural, devotional historical phenomena is well worth exploring. Otherwise we will never understand each other, work with each other, appreciate each other, or pray intelligently for each other.
If for you reading posts that do not invite personal attacks on the one individual responsible for posted words doesn't provide entertainment, then that is something that you will have to (perhaps) stew about.
But for me, I just LOVE the Proverb that says:
quote:
Proverbs 11:14 "In the absence of wise counsels the people fall, but safety is in abundance of counselors."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/22/2004 12:41 PM (GMT -6) | | | You would do well to not "answer" posts that you don't feel engaged by. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/22/2004 12:54 PM (GMT -6) | | Reflecting on:
(Max) Weber argued basically that ... Calvinism by glorifying vocation and hard work motivated people to produce surplus.
Here's an anecdote:
In the Sioux Falls, SD area psychologists requested local Reformed and Presbyterian pastors and youth workers attend a conference they were calling. Many came. When the meeting began they were confronted by the single question of "What are you guy's doing?" It was evident to the social scientists that something in the Reformed and Presbyterian culture was making their youth (especially the females) try to acheive and "be" more perfect than was normal -- at least physically, if not in other ways.
The cultural notions attached to their Calvinism manifested in real ways. "Elect" or at least responsibile to give evidence of their election over-imaged notions of success that God did not intend.
INTERESTING.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
chiefofsinrs
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 29
| Posted 4/22/2004 6:45 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I'm currenty in a calvinist forum debating universal love, I am all for it, and cited 10 references including II Pet 3:0 and I Tim 2:4 to support it, everyone claims I am not exegeting the passage ,and if I was I would arrive that God desires the elect to be saved, not all men. I can't find an exegesis of these passages. Can anyone here help? I really am disgusted by the efects calvinism has on people, not the people themselves, and want to do my part to see that peole change. Any help is apperciated, thanks.
Are you wanting a Calvinist exegesis of the passages, or others? I know that James White covers those in depth in "The Potter's Freedom," but he's definitely from a Calvinist perspective.
I, personally, don't know that I fully agree with many extremes I have seen from Calvinists on these.
2 Peter 3:9 -- The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.
I think this verse squares well with the phrase that "God takes no delight in the destruction of the wicked" (Ez. 18:23, 33:11). A typical Calvinist interpretation reads the subject as "you," referring to individuals to whom Peter was writing. With "you" as the subject, God does not desire that any of "them" should perish, but "desires" or "wills" all of them to reach repentance. Later, in verse 15 he says that God's patience means salvation. Earlier (1-7) he is referencing those who are mocking at their belief that the promise is coming. But, the point of the passage, I believe, is that God is patient, and we should live like He will be back at any moment (14-18).
1 Timothy 2:3-4 -- This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.
I think this verse goes well with the previous. A typical Calvinist interpretation reads "all men" as "all types of men," which is consistent with many other uses in Scripture of the word "all." Verses 1 & 2 are referring to prayers being made for "all types of men" (kings and those in authority). In context, the next verse explicitly states that Christ is the mediator between God and men. But, for which men is He the mediator? Obviously, Christ is only the mediator for those who put their faith in Him. I think the "for" at the beginning of verse 5 makes the previous more clear. Then, verse 6 states that Christ gave himself as a ransom for "all men," which could be read "all types of men." I think the only options I have seen that make sense, to me, are those of Reformed or universalist bents. Either way, we should also desire to live lives "worthy of the gospel" and tell everyone about our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.
I honestly don't know which arguments are "correct", but hopefully that gives you some insight into typical Calvinist ones. | | Back to Top | | |
|
saintpaulrez
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 20
| Posted 4/23/2004 11:32 AM (GMT -6) | | Sorry, Badg, I'm not an open theist and don't want to be. I never want to bear that name. I'm also not Calvinist, but I think it's posts like yours that help Calvinists, and other Christians like myself, see that open theists are rude and think their beliefs are the only right way.
Is it any different than your gripe re: Calvinsm? You say Calvinists are a "pompous" because they hold to their position and look down on anyone with another view??? Do you not see the hypocrisy??? Every open theist I've ever "met" here or elsewhere thinks their view is the only right view and they look down on others who hold another position. Half the debates here are just that... Calvinists are evil, Calvinists are stupid, Calvinists are idiots. Why don't they think like us? They think God's a puppetmaster. Yada, yada. Does that not sound totally arrogant, rude, and unloving to you? Does to me and I'm not even a Calvinist. But it's "okay" to say here since you all are open theists and think your way's the right way. Total double standard.
Wrong for a Calvinist to think he's right or to knock open theism, but okay for an open theist to think he's right and knock Calvinism. HYPOCRISY and it's just one of many reasons why I am so utterly and completely turned off of Open Theism, far more than I ever was when I only knew about it but didn't actually read what what the open theists thoughts, said, and how they said it.
Go reread what you wrote and maybe you can see it how I see it. You ask, "is it any wonder they are not willing to hear alternative views??" Are open theists "willing" to hear alternative views? Hardly. Yah, they'll "hear" them and then they'll argue and argue and argue and won't back down until finally, you just gotta get out of there and let them think they're right. YOu seem to think that they should "consider" open theism and accuse them of not knowing the depth and bredth of Scripture. Why don't you "consider" Calvinsm? Or is it because you think that you DO know the depth and bredth of Scripture.
I've been a Christian for a looooong time, read the Bible through many times, gone to a Christian college, taught in Christian schools and colleges, read many books, studied, etc. (still though I'm treated like I'm a total ignoramous person here). I know very studied, godly men and women who vehemently disagree with open theism (like I also do). Go ahead and keep believing that it's based on a "misunderstanding" of Scripure, but understand, that we'll never see eye to eye, because in my opinion (and theirs) it is open theists who not only misunderstand Scripture, but also "twist" it and misinterpret it. Now, every time I say something like that here, I get blasted, but yet, you can say that about open theists and you get a standing ovation.
I guess I would expect double standards/hypocrisy on other boards, etc. but open theists seem to pride themselves on their "outrageous love" outlook on life and people, but I have yet to actually see it in action because when it comes to their dear, beloved open theism theories, no disagreement is allowed without thier being some type of thought of the open theist that either you are stupid, haven't read the books, don't understand, or don't know the Bible.
You want people willing to discuss and open to new things? Then what are you doing here? Or do you mean that you want people willing to disuss open theism and open to open theism? People here aren't willing to "discuss" opposing viewpoints. They are willing to slam them, treat them as utter stupidity, argue with them til they're blue in the face... but "discuss" and open to them? Hardly.
You'll notice that the board is very one-sided. Very, very few non open theists. Hard to have a true discussion when you all think the same and slam the ones who disagree with you.
To repeat YOUR words and use them as my own, "I realize this isn't a meaty post. Just venting about people I know and people I get into discussions with about this stuff." | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 4/23/2004 5:53 PM (GMT -6) | | Badger: be forewarned: Saint has an axe to grind. Anyone who is associated with open theism is evil. Pray for him/her. The need for healing is great there.
I would ask that all who read this message lift Saint up in prayer. May God's grace bring him/her peace and comfort. | | Back to Top | | |
|
saintpaulrez
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 20
| Posted 4/23/2004 8:46 PM (GMT -6) | | Feelingahole, I think Badg can probably think for himself. Even if I do have an "axe to grind," I make some very valid points (things that have been said here before by others who no longer hang here). Does it really matter if I have an "axe to grind?" Maybe I do and there's good reason for it. Maybe I don't but you see me that way 'cause you don't like what I say and how I say it.
I've never said, nor will I, that everyone associated with OV is "evil." I don't view you as "evil." I view someone like Hitler as "evil" and that is not a word I lightly toss around or use for someone that I simply disagree with or don't like the way they ineract, etc. (which is the case in here). I've never said any OV'ers are "evil." I've said that I THINK they are rude (in here- the "regulars") and arrogant (in the same way that you view Calvinists as being arrogant) and defensive (in here... the "regulars")but not "evil." Please don't put words in my mouth. (okay for you to say Calvinists are rude, arrogant, or defensive, but doesn't work the other way, does it?)
By the way, don't alot of you have an "axe to grind" with Calvinism? Couldn't I say the same thing with all the Calvinism posts posted here? Or how 'bout Bruce Ware? John Piper? Others who don't "like" open theism? I've read a whole heck of alot of "slamming" done towards them and think that could definitely qualify as an "axe to grind." You see why I see this as hypocritical and a double-standard? Now, see, you can get away with saying I have an "axe to grind" (gasp! no! how could it be?) but if I say that about you, well, I'm one step away from being banned. Hmmmm... interesting how that dynamic works in here. Interesting, how you as an "outrageous lover" of God and others (as open theists claim to be) can get away with bashing Calvin or Piper or others, but if I do it, I'm mental or hurting or in "need of prayer" or "Prozac" (as you recently told me that I need to take). DOES ANYONE HEAR WHAT I AM SAYING???? Or will you just continue to deny it and defame my character so that you don't have to address what I have said?
I may have an "axe to grind," but I'm not stupid and I know that what I am saying is the way it is but you refuse to see and acknowledge it. You think it's okay to bash, slam, and demean Calvinists but not okay for anyone to do it to you. You got an axe to grind with them, but anyone who's got an axe to grind with you disqalifies their opinions. Totally double standarded.
(BTW "Feelingahole," I think you are either the old "Honorman" or you are "Mayflower." You sound just like both of them and I KNOW there are people here with multiple names.) | | Back to Top | | |
|
BADGERVOL
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 27
| Posted 4/24/2004 3:29 AM (GMT -6) | | Potonwheel,
I think your description of the arrogance factor just being human nature is absolutely true. I apologize for lumping people into groups. I always try to resist. I think we can see some generalizations of people, and yes I have had bad experiences with Calvinists so far in my life, but heh, I have you admit, I haven't always handled things with "gentleness and respect" (1 Peter 3:16).
I guess more accurately I am more surprised at the lack of a willingness to even dialogue much about the issue with a lot of my Calvinist friends. Many will share their point of view at the drop of a hat, but when it comes to listening to anyone else, it's heresy before we even exmine the facts. I'm only 27 years old, so I am not about to declare that I've met 100's of Calvinists. Just that the ones I've met have left a bad taste in my mouth. | | Back to Top | | |
|
BADGERVOL
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 27
| Posted 4/24/2004 3:44 AM (GMT -6) | | Saint,
You're absolutely right. I can think for myself. Name calling and personal attacks are simply logical fallacies and nothing else. I don't put merit in them.
I've heard the Calvinist side. I sat under a Calvinist professor in seminary (as many have who go to seminary). I've heard what he proclaimed as "the best arguments." I sat thinking, "man does this not add up." I thought, "My gosh is there a lot of reinterpreting scripture in light of other scripture and forcing things to be the way that my professor wants them to be." I also thought that things weren't all adding up logically. I was determined to try and find a system that made the MOST sense (intellectual honesty suggests that none of the positions are air tight) out of ALL of scripture. My professor mentioned Open Theism for about a minute in one class and straw manned it to death and was done with it. I knew almost nothing about the OV, but recognized that no intelligent human being would hold a view that was defeated that easily. So I looked into it and first came to this site. I was AMAZED at how unfairly the OV had been represented. So I continued to read and fell in love with a system that finally attempted to embraced all of scripture as it is written. Not taking it's favorites and then using those to force interpretations on other verses (which is what I have found Calvinism to do). So now I would say I am mostly an open theist, but always searching.
I appreciate voices like yours on boards. Even if brash, if people can look past that there are arguments being made that must be addressed. I don't like arrogance on either side my friend. And it's on all sides and invite you to call me on it if you sense me getting that way. Let's pray God can give us the truth if we truly seek it with open minds.
However, as for all of us, no matter what position we hold, we have to understand that if we hold our position firmly, then obviously the other position is going to appear to be doing serious damage to the faith.
My first challenge to you Saint, is that if your position is true (assuming you are a Calvinist) then how can you or any Calvinist be alarmed about a position such as OV being proposed when God is dictating it as we speak? It seems the supporters of the OV (if true) are the ones who should be trying to launch a crusade against the "false teachings" (note the quotes) of Calvinism. For if they are right, Calvinism is not only misrepresenting God, but it's also damaging Christian's view of God. If the reverse is true, and God is holy good, then there is some really good reason he is making all of the OV people believe this view. Thoughts? | | Back to Top | | |
|
lastly
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 2
| Posted 4/24/2004 11:05 AM (GMT -6) | | Badger, I'm really not supposed to be here because my other name (saintpaulrez) isn't allowed anymore, which I fully understand and really am not upset about and the moderator was so gracious in how he/she handled it, that I don't want to "sneak around" under different names.  But I really wanted to reply to what you wrote, and didn't know any other way but to create another name. So I'll just reply but then will go because I don't think I can participate on this board w/o feeling really upset/offended and speaking my mind about it, thus offending others.
But anyways, thank you for how you replied. I know that my reply to you was pretty blunt and it was "on the heels" of other posts here in which I felt I was treated rudely, and it was also past experience of seeing people talk about John Calvin and Calvinists very rudely, etc. (in a "better than thou" type fo way). (kinda like the way I talk about open theists.  ).
I don't know why your Calvinist friends don't want to dialogue with you but maybe they don't know enough about open theism to do so? I know when I first moved to MN and heard about this Boyd vs. Piper debate and open theism, etc., it sounded strange but I really didn't know much at all about it. I did buy a book but never read it. I am really not super interested in majorly theological discussions like this (well, when they get to the point of being so in-depth that I can't even understand them), but I do want to know enough that I know what I believe and why, etc. and know how to answer others.
It wasn't really until I came here (a long time ago) and then both read some of Greg Boyd's stuff and also read here and listened to others, and to be honest, I rejected open theism based mostly on the teachings but also on the demeanors of the people and my experiences with them. Although I am fully aware that Christians of all beliefs are sinners and can be rude, etc (myself included) and we shouldn't really base our beliefs on that but more weight them in the light of God's Word and examine whether or not they are true based on that. And that's what I did and have done. And I basically reject open theism based on that.
I really don't consider myself Calvinist, but maybe I am. I do think that many people (open theists) misinterpret Calvin's teachings. I honestly don't know of any person of sound mind who beleives that we are puppets, and I see people here who say that alot about Calvinsits (in a very mocking way, like "Oh, yah, so much fun to be a puppet.). I don't think Calvinists believe their every move is controlled like that. I do believe in free will and beleive that Calvinsits do to, but to an extent. I don't believe it in the same way you do because I don't agree with things like God choosing not to know the future and giving us so much free will that our fate is in our hands. I don't know how it all works though. I can't explain God and many things I don't understand and simply chose to believe. Like I don't understand how a dead man could come back to life and then go up to heaven! That blows my mind away. But I believe it. Same thing with free will vs. God's control. I believe He does control all things but at the same time, we have free will. I don't know how it works. I know that we reap what we sow and we are allowed to make choices, etc. but I think there's so much we can't see in the "big picture" and I think God controls things far more than we realize, but it doesn't mean we are puppets or that He doesn't love us.
I suppose that maybe your Calvinist friends maybe don't listen because they are so firm in their beliefs. ? Maybe. I know that I have a father who belongs to a religion that is a cult and I can only "listen" so much. I can't exactly shake my head and say, "Oh yes, that's so true" when what he believes is so not true. Maybe that is how your friends feel. I don't know, but I know that many open theists are the same way in that they maybe will dialogue with a Calvinist, but not with an "open mind" but more of a desire to prove that they are right.
I guess that is how we are as people and we can only be responsible for our own self and how we act and treat others. I don't think though that you should lump all Calvinists into the same pile, just like I need to try not to lump all open theists into the same pile, because there are some who I've known who haven't been rude, etc.
I was once actually told that maybe I wasn't a true Christian because this person thought I was so heathenistic to disagree with open theism and to not care for Dr. Boyd's church or teachings. I was treated like a leper for my opposition. So it does work both ways as far as people viewing others as the "wrong" one.
I guess what it comes down to is that all I can do is to really be certain, as much as I can be, that what I believe is true. And I can do this by being in the Word and really praying about it and examining/studying Scripture. I do feel that I've done that and I don't reject every open theist teaching, but most of it and the basic premise of it. And then, if I feel that open theism truly is a harmful or heretical teaching, then I will want to tell others... just like if you think Calvinsm is that harmful, that you want to tell others.
It's like we have to respectfully agree to disagree.
Anyways, I need to get but it was truly refreshing to read your post and to hear you say you can think for yourself and to dialogue wiht me, a non open theist, in just a normal, neutral way. Thanks. :)
I apologize to you for being as emotional/harsh as I was in my first post to you. It wasn't so much just you, but more abuot how I feel alot of open theists talk about Calvinists (as being arrogant, etc) when they themselves do the very same things (think they are right). Thanks too for being humble enough to say that you invite me to call you on any rudeness. This is going to have to be my only post (my last one), but you are not being rude.
I think just as you see the open view being represented unfairly, I beleive that open theists are unfair in their representation of Calvinism and that they say things that simply aren't what Calvinists truly believe (like that people are puppets and God controls our every single move).
I don't really know if it's even a possibility for a Calvinist and an open theist and a non-Calvinist-non-open theist (like me!) to ever really see I to eye and even to be real close that way because they view each other's beliefs as "threats." I don't know if it's even really possible for that to be reconciled. You know?
I think about launching a crusade against Calvinsm, I think open theists have done that some in here. Open theism really is not widely accepted though. In my experience, I knew people at Woodland Hills Church (Greg Boyd's church) who didn't even know what it was. And when I first talked with my varios friends and family, those who've been Christians for a long time and are even in leadership roles in churches, even they were unfamiliar with it! I kinda was surprised thinking that they'd have heard of it. The only person I knew who had was a friend who had first "warned" me. When she heard I was going to WHC where Greg Boyd is pastor, she "warned" me. She is the dean of woman at a particular Christian college and she was familiar with it as her college is a very outspoken opponent of open theism (the president has participated in speaking and book writing opposing it).
To be honest, I wish I had listened to her because my life changed in so many ways and I brought upon myself so much suffering. If I had never entered the doors of WHC or ever came into contact with open theism, or if I had knew more about it to the point of saying, "No, I don't want to be a part of this," without a doubt, I would have saved myself and others from things that happened. I wish I could be more specific with you, but I honestly don't "trust" alot of peple here and know that they can't stand me and I don't feel comfortable going into detail at this particular site.
But anyways, in my opinion, our lives are always going to be a journey and a struggle of examining our beliefs. We are sinners and God is not a man. He is soooo far above us (above as in, His ways are not ours), that we simply will never know all there is to know. As a child, I remember thinking "Where did God come from" and I'd try to figure it out and my mind would just be stumped. I'll never really know I guess. Does it matter? Not really. I know of people who will outrightly reject God altogehter (atheists, etc) because they can't explain all the things. They can't accept anything based on faith but have to have "proof" and evidence and explanations, and sometimes I see open theism trying to give that "proof" and evidence and explanations, when in reality, there simply is none in certain areas. Like the whole suffering thing. Does God allow suffering? Yes. Does He know it's going to happen beforehand and still allows it? In my opinion, yes and I think their are Bible stories (like Job for instance) that testify to this. Have I ever struggled with "Why God did you or do you allow this?" Yes. But the open theist explanations that God didn't know it was going to happen in all honesty offer me no comfort. They actually cause me to feel fear because if God didn't know, then this world is kinda like "on its own" and a victim of fate and no on is in control (except maybe Satan).
Anyways, I am rambling and I really hope the moderator will allow this post. I've tried to be kind and polite. :) And I won't post anymore. But I did want to reply to you and thank you for being willing to interact with someone who has an "axe to grind." And I really don't think open theists OR Calvinists are evil. I personally think "evil" is a word reserved for Satan and for people who joyfully, intentionally, and consistenly delight in hurting people. Most of us hurt others but don't delight in it, don't do it with joy or intent, etc. Now people like Hitler-- he was "evil" because he boasted and delighted in killing innocent people. That to me is evil.
I also can't answer your question about God "making" people believe something because I don't believe God "makes" us believe something like that and I don't even think Calvinists view it that way. I don't believe that He controls our every move like that. And I don't think that true Calvinism teaches that He does. I think that open thiests misinterpret Calvinists, and I guess there are some "extreme" Calvinists who maybe think that way, but I don't think there are many.
I beleive that we have free will but yet at the same time God IS in control and I think our free will is somehow, someway "harnessed." I am not the greatest of explaining beliefs, and that's not the greatest explanation but I believe that we do make choices, do have free will, but in the large scheme of things, God does "control" in ways we cannot see or even fathom. Because ultimately, it's not really about us. It's about Him, and it's about His plan and His purposes (people being saved before Christ returns), and I don't believe that we humans can thwart that plan but I do think that we can definitely make choices that hurt ours and others lives and we can make choices that weren't his will but I am also a believer that God is beyond time and knows the future because time is not a constrait or limit on him the way it is with us, and that's another thing I don't understand but do believe.
So anyways, God bless you and I will possibly read your reply but I really shouldn't post anymore. I do want to respect the moderator and I don't think I'll be able to post on this site w/o eventually feeling angry/upset/offended and saying something about it and then causing an uproar.
I was wondering though. Was it you that mentioned that you go to a Calvinist site? I don't know if you would mind sharing, but I was wondering what site it is. I would be interested in visiting it. Thanks.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BADGERVOL
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 27
| Posted 4/24/2004 11:40 AM (GMT -6) | | I truly appreciate your reply. I have to admit that I don't agree with some of your logic as it applies to Calvinism, but since you aren't going to post anymore, then I won't get into it. I appreciate your attitude in your reply the most.
The only thing that I would mention to you (if you are even able to read this reply) is that you really do have to trust in what is most reasonable. I believe that this is exactly what the Bible tells us to do. I'm preaching a sermon this Sunday at my church titled "A Call to Reason." There is such a great theme throughout scripture of examining things and using the brain God gave us to decide what the most reasonable thing is for us to do. God invites us to "Reason" with him (Isaiah 1:18). Paul instructs us to "Test everything" and "Hold onto the good." (1 Thess. 5:21) We are called to love God with our "minds" as well as our "hearts and souls," and this is mentioned TWICE in scripture and stated that it is the GREATEST commandment of all (Matthew 22:37 and Mark 12:30). There are plenty of examples of Old Testament prophets arguing with God about things when they are trying to figure out the truth about things. Paul Reasoned in the Synagogue with unbelievers (Acts 17:17), and Jesus set up an apologetic for himself in explanation for those who were trying to understand who he was.
I can go on further. Biblical "faith" is composed of three components.
1. Notitia (understanding the content of the Christian faith)
2. Fiducia (trust)
3. Assemsus (the assent of the intellect to the truth of some proposition)
[this is all from Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview which is a great book written by JP Moreland and William Lane Craig. It's also mentioned in other books as well.]
The bottom line is this. Biblical Faith is not "blind faith." There are many who try to pit faith and reason against each other, but in reality they go right arm in arm as they discover what truth and that is exactly what Christ claims to be. "Faith and Reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth..." [Supreme Pontiff John Paul II in Encyclical Letter Fides et Ration; one of the greatest works ever written on the relationship between faith and reason.]
We are fallen creatures my friend, and because of that we will never be certain of much of anything. But we are still made in God's image and do still have a Biblical responsibility to try our best through prayer, research, and testing to determine what we really think is most true in each and every position we hold. That won't guarntee us the right answer, but it's a process we must be committed to the rest of our lives.
That ends my rant now. I'm sorry, I didn't mention anything about a Calvinistic website. I was the one who sat under a Calvinistic Prof. in Seminary and have read my fair share of books about John and his teachings.
God bless you in your quest for the truth. Let's pray that we can try to view things as clearly and rationally as possible.
Rock on! I'm out! | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 4/24/2004 7:46 PM (GMT -6) | | Saint (Lastly, or Bobbie, Or Christian, is this really your "last" post, actually sticking to your word or will there another incarnation?): Yes, Badger can think for himself, but it doesn't hurt to give him a heads up.
The term I used "evil" was an exaggeration. You have had nothing good to say about anyone associated with open theism. You have constantly berated it and open theists, basically doing what you condemn them for. Evil may have been overboard, but I still think it describes you fairly.
A couple other general points that need to be cleared up:
I have had three names here: writerdad, honorman and now feelinahole. I do it primarly cause I tire of the name (though I never post at the same time). I like to have a different name every once in awhile (no, I am not Mayflower btw).
Second, I have never trashed, abused or said any bad words or the like about John Piper, Bruce Ware, etc. Desiring for God by Piper is an excellant book, one that profoundly impacted my life. Ware's book on open theism made some excellant points (though I thought the book was weak itself). There is a great difference between disagreeing strongly with the beliefs of a person and attacking the person. I have never attacked any of these men. From what I know of them, they seem to be loving men of God. I simply believe they are wrong about open theism and have not given it a fair shake.
It is obvious from your former posts that you have strong negative feelings towards open theism Saint. That is why I ask that those who read this continue to pray for you. If an open theist harmed you, may you forgive them. But anyone with such negative feelings, needs the healing of God. My prayers are with you. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/25/2004 1:23 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by feelinahole
Second, I have never trashed, abused or said any bad words or the like about John Piper, Bruce Ware, etc. Desiring for God by Piper is an excellant book, one that profoundly impacted my life. Ware's book on open theism made some excellant points (though I thought the book was weak itself). There is a great difference between disagreeing strongly with the beliefs of a person and attacking the person. I have never attacked any of these men. From what I know of them, they seem to be loving men of God. I simply believe they are wrong about open theism and have not given it a fair shake.
GOOD POINT, "FEEL'N." | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:49 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|