 |
| 
BADGERVOL
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 27
| Posted 4/20/2004 4:47 AM (GMT -6) |   | So I'm a youth pastor, and I am reading a lot on Open Theism. I've read this entire website (on the OV that is), along with the Four Views of Divine Foreknowledge, God of the Possible, and the book by Sanders...something like The Divine Risk-Taker (Not quite done with it yet). Anyway, my senior pastor is a really nice guy and allows me to think for myself but is a converted Armaniast (sp.?) of over 20 years and crossed over to Calvinism for the past several years. I just started my job and we are getting to know each other and the talk (not the birds and bees) came up about divine foreknowledge and all of that. I told him that I am searching for my position, but that I would have to state that I am a OV lean at this point because it is making the most sense of ALL of scripture. We discussed for a while and here are the two areas of frustration I have so far that I want input on.
1. It seems everytime I talk with a 5 point Calvinist I rightly pin them into a state of total determinism, and then they simply wiggle out by saying they aren't "that" deterministic. My pastor will say, "God controls ALL things." Then when I start extending that logic to passages in the Bible and things in life, I hear, "Well, that is pretty deterministic isn't it? I don't think I'm that deterministic." WELL WHAT ISN'T DETERMINISTIC ABOUT THE STATEMENT "GOD CONTROLS ALL THINGS?!" I'm beginning to pick up the trend that many Calvinists want it both ways. Calvin even admited that God truly can't want all people to go to heaven because what he wants WILL happen. So I'm confused and frustrated. (Side Note: I'm not debating this trying to convince him to join me, and we aren't even really arguing about it, but we are discussing it and I'm learning as I go.)
2. He asked me a good question that I haven't read that much about yet. How does prayer work in the OV? If two Christian people are praying for the same pastor position and people are praying for them on both sides, who does God answer?
OK, sorry for being so long winded. I'm sure there will be more questions from me in the future as I hammer this sucker out. I think I have eliminated all middle views from making sense and am left with Calvinism and OV. I've got a long way to go. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 4/20/2004 5:00 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by BADGERVOL
How does prayer work in the OV? If two Christian people are praying for the same pastor position and people are praying for them on both sides, who does God answer?
The best qualified.
Badgervol, welcome to this site.
I've been OV for over twenty years so I've had to been quiet on numerous occaisions just to maintain "peace". I have had a few arguments with calvinists, they are particularly annoyed when the illogic of their systems is shown up. However, I currently am doing volunteer work for an old friend who is a 3.5 point calvinist, it is possible to work together. I just told him I'd be the 0 point calvinist on his staff.
You can make your case and then be gracious to let them go their robotic way. If they are Christian enough, they should allow you the freedom to believe what you want and to teach it without making too many waves.
At times, it is sad. I was witnessing once to guy who brought up the evil argument, "how can God, who knows the future, allow Hitler to be brought into the world" and started to answer it the correct way and the calvinist lady with me interrupted, "oh no! God knows everything". She confirmed the unbelievers' idea that Christians are illogical dolts! Those are the times I get really irked, them driving the intellectual unbelievers away by their illogical, medieval thought patterns.
Go easy on your pastor, unload on this site. 
inside you the time moves and she don't fade
the ghost in you she don't fade | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 4/20/2004 5:42 AM (GMT -6) | | Theirs is one of insistance, that of wanting God to control all things, yet we are still responsible for our sins. Most give themselves over to the "mystery" of God (this also applies to how God can love yet create millions for hell), yet insist that your theological views remain logical.
By and large, it is almost senseless to argue with a true Calvinist because, from my view, they aren't honest enough (probably with themselves) to admit the to their own inconsistancies. I did have one admit to the apparent contradiction bewteen how he viewed God controlling all things, yet insisted that he had choice in his every day life. He understood it, but still believed God controlled all things. He attributed it to "mystery." I replied that I could accept that, if he could accept why some see that as a genuine contradiction and couldn't accept such a thing from scripture. He never wrote back.
From my view, its best to be honest, state your position and hope the person you are talking with has enough of the love of God not to insist on you accepting their position.
But that doesn't always happen. Be careful; particularly if your employment is involved. | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 4/20/2004 5:46 AM (GMT -6) | | | There is a section in "The Openness Of God," on prayer. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 4/20/2004 6:49 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by BADGERVOL
It seems everytime I talk with a 5 point Calvinist I rightly pin them into a state of total determinism, and then they simply wiggle out by saying they aren't "that" deterministic. My pastor will say, "God controls ALL things." Then when I start extending that logic to passages in the Bible and things in life, I hear, "Well, that is pretty deterministic isn't it? I don't think I'm that deterministic." WELL WHAT ISN'T DETERMINISTIC ABOUT THE STATEMENT "GOD CONTROLS ALL THINGS?!" I'm beginning to pick up the trend that many Calvinists want it both ways. Calvin even admited that God truly can't want all people to go to heaven because what he wants WILL happen. So I'm confused and frustrated.
Hi Badgervol,
You ask, "what isn't deterministic about the statement 'God controls all things'?" Well, it depends on what you mean by "control". The word could mean "meticulous manipulation" or it could mean "providential management". The difference is important because in the latter sense an open theist could affirm that God controls all things--one doesn't have to orchestrate and determine all the details in order to manage the universe, to guide it in a certain general direction, and to keep it from getting all out of whack. In other words, for the open theist the universe is never "out of control" - God is providentially managing it - but He does so without micro-managing in the sense of minutely manipulating and determining all things. Calvinists, on the other hand, ultimately think of control in the former sense as meticulous manipulation. They seem to think that this is necessary for God to exercise providential management. Anyway, you might want to ask your pastor what he thinks it means to "control" something? Does God "control" the world like a pianist controls his piano or a surgeon controls her scalpel (meticulous manipulation), or does God "control" the world like a good teacher controls a classroom or a good father controls his children (providential management)?quote:
He asked me a good question that I haven't read that much about yet. How does prayer work in the OV? If two Christian people are praying for the same pastor position and people are praying for them on both sides, who does God answer?
The simple answer is that God answers whoever He wants to answer. Prayer doesn't "force" God to do anything. Open theists believe that prayer can really make a difference. As James says, "you have not because you ask not". In other words, there are things that God would do and blessings that He would pour forth IF and ONLY IF someone prayed, not because He needs the prayer to do it, but because He wants us to learn to ask Him and to take some initiative in our relationship with Him.
God bless,
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 4/20/2004 6:59 AM (GMT -6) | | Welcome, Badgervol,
You asked, "He asked me a good question that I haven't read that much about yet. How does prayer work in the OV? If two Christian people are praying for the same pastor position and people are praying for them on both sides, who does God answer?
First, even if you can't answer this question, it has nothing to do with whether the Open View is true or not; you simply don't know the answer, that's all. Second, the Open View does not attempt to answer questions that God has reserved only for Himself to know. He has not told us the mechanics of prayer on either our side or His. It's God's business how He goes about answering prayer.
Finally, Open Theism is very theologically appealing (to the mind that is willing to work through it), because it is as life is, as we are, as Scripture reveals God to be (mind you, not without it's challenges, though. But what's new; any theological position can be challenged).
You've stumbled into the nuts and bolts of life being open as well as the future being open; you've found a Calvinist who has a hard time dealing with his own position when pushed to its ultimate conclusion. There's just something about life and relationship with God that tells us that it can't be that determined ... well, for most people, anyway. Others aren't going to budge. Move on, then, as hard as that can be sometimes.
Hope that helps,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 4/20/2004 2:38 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Badgervol,
quote:
It seems everytime I talk with a 5 point Calvinist I rightly pin them into a state of total determinism, and then they simply wiggle out by saying they aren't "that" deterministic.
The OV people have had the floor, I'll take the chimney...
I'm a four point Calvinist, who spells TULIP without the L, just by way of introduction. First of all, I do have a problem when Calvinists go all Arminian about judgment, and say God doesn't send anybody to hell, people (freely?) choose to reject God. This won't do.
I believe that God does form people for his own purposes:
RO 9:21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
And there are Scriptures that I think give us reason to hope that God's purpose may be to save all men:
RO 11:28 As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs.
These are just the people Paul had previously described as being passed over.
RO 11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
And about free will! I believe that unbelievers are slaves to sin and the devil, that they don't have free will. And I think also that believers have real freedom, that there are real choices within God's will that believers can make:
1CO 7:38 So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does even better.
Here Paul doesn't say the better choice is the only choice! Both, apparently are in God's will, you can choose!
Now, about the Open View!
What about heaven? Do people give up their free will in heaven, according to the Open View? I have heard people say that free will becomes "compatibilistic free will" in heaven (peoples' choices are based on their strongest desire), but this, I think is just Mr. Determinism wearing Free Willie's bow tie.
What about the invincible chess master analogy (that God can always win, regardless of how people choose)? If God's plan for salvation of people depends critically on peoples' freewill choice, then how can God "win", if most people do not choose him?
Most people are choosing sin and self, and perishing in unbelief, how then is God winning? How is the chess master invincible, regardless of how people choose?
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 4/20/2004 5:37 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by BADGERVOL
So I'm a youth pastor, and I am reading a lot on Open Theism. I've read this entire website (on the OV that is), along with the Four Views of Divine Foreknowledge, God of the Possible, and the book by Sanders...something like The Divine Risk-Taker (Not quite done with it yet). Anyway, my senior pastor is a really nice guy and allows me to think for myself but is a converted Armaniast (sp.?) of over 20 years and crossed over to Calvinism for the past several years. I just started my job and we are getting to know each other and the talk (not the birds and bees) came up about divine foreknowledge and all of that. I told him that I am searching for my position, but that I would have to state that I am a OV lean at this point because it is making the most sense of ALL of scripture. We discussed for a while and here are the two areas of frustration I have so far that I want input on.
1. It seems everytime I talk with a 5 point Calvinist I rightly pin them into a state of total determinism, and then they simply wiggle out by saying they aren't "that" deterministic. My pastor will say, "God controls ALL things." Then when I start extending that logic to passages in the Bible and things in life, I hear, "Well, that is pretty deterministic isn't it? I don't think I'm that deterministic." WELL WHAT ISN'T DETERMINISTIC ABOUT THE STATEMENT "GOD CONTROLS ALL THINGS?!" I'm beginning to pick up the trend that many Calvinists want it both ways. Calvin even admited that God truly can't want all people to go to heaven because what he wants WILL happen. So I'm confused and frustrated. (Side Note: I'm not debating this trying to convince him to join me, and we aren't even really arguing about it, but we are discussing it and I'm learning as I go.)
2. He asked me a good question that I haven't read that much about yet. How does prayer work in the OV? If two Christian people are praying for the same pastor position and people are praying for them on both sides, who does God answer?
OK, sorry for being so long winded. I'm sure there will be more questions from me in the future as I hammer this sucker out. I think I have eliminated all middle views from making sense and am left with Calvinism and OV. I've got a long way to go.
Hi Badge,
I am involved in pastoral care in our church and there is only one other there who embraces the open view - mostly because almost no one here has heard of it! But I have discovered something interesting (and by the way, you're right...it made the most sense to me as well). What I have discovered is that even though people claim to be "deterministic" that they live like they hold to the open view. For example, they pray for protection but still lock their doors at night.
I've come to understand that the open view is about the future and we all (pretty much) live like we believe the future is partly open and partly settled. Many people claim that God is all controlling and that things are determined, but they pray fervently for God to change His mind, or change something else. They plead with God. I know I did.
I have a much clearer perspective about my part in all of this now. The choices that I make and even how I pray - affect eternity.
And whoever said that sovereignty was to be equated with total control? We have no respect for leaders who are controlling, yet want God to be controlling. Interesting isn't it?
I have found that I need to tread softly in sharing about this view. What has been most effective is communicating what difference this has made in my life positively as a believer. I pray more. I am able to understand that the problem of evil is a problem of free will (of humans and others), and about the complexity of creation. I also understand that there could be no freewill without the problem of nightmarish evil. God really did take a risk, but He did it because He wanted us to genuinely partner with Him and be free to choose love. Love that is coerced isn't love at all.
Have you read God at War or Satan and The Problem of Evil? I loved Most Moved Mover and Is God To Blame.
Clark Pinnock's Flame of Love and Sanders' God at Risk are good books.
The first reaction that I had to sharing what I believed was that I was "whacked" I learned to walk softly after that (and carry a big stick...just kidding!)
God Bless. Hope you find something helpful here. If you would like to talk directly with a pastor (friend of mine) who holds to the Open View and is very insightful...just let me know and I will send you his e-mail (after checking with him first of course). But he loves to discuss it and I'm sure would be glad to share his insights with you.
Jo-Anne 
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 4/20/2004 5:54 PM (GMT -6) | | | Excellant excellant intro book: Does God Have A Future, by Sanders and Hall. | | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 4/20/2004 6:42 PM (GMT -6) | | Take it for what it is worth.
"From my earliest acquaintance with the Old School Baptists I have heard all the Arminian tribes calling them Fatalists, and the doctrine preached by them Fatalism. When an enemy of the truth desires to bring odium upon the doctrine of Predestination, and to calumniate maliciously those who believe in salvation by grace, the choicest word that his vocabulary can afford him is Fatalism. I find of late that some of our brethren have caught this favorite Ashdod word, and wield it with as much enthusiasm, skill and self-satisfaction as the most hot-headed Arminian in his rashest, bitterest and most malicious invectives against the truth. I have never been in favor of striving about words, but I cannot allow this use of the term Fatalism to go unnoticed any longer.
There are no two words in our language more directly opposite in their meaning than Predestination and Fatalism. The one is the strongest antithesis to the other. The most astonishing thing to me is that classical scholars, or even men of general intelligence, would weaken their claim to reputation as scholars and men of intelligence by confounding the meaning of these terms. I shall, for the benefit of the candid reader, endeavor to inquire into the origin, nature and import of the doctrine of Fatalism, and leave each one to draw his own conclusions as to the fairness or the correctness of the use of this term as a calumniation of the doctrine of Providence or Predestination.
Fatalism as a doctrine, system of philosophy, or religious belief, originated among those nations of antiquity that knew not God; hence it is of purely heathen origin. The idea of fate must have been evolved in the following manner. Observing men of all nations, and especially the shrewd, intellectual, ever watchful Greeks and Romans, discovered in the vicissitudes of every day life, both of individuals and of nations, things of great import transpire over which kings and sages had no control. They saw plagues, pestilence and famine consume and waste men, as winter cold blights, withers and scatters the leaves of the summer forest; they saw storms and earthquakes do their work of wholesale destruction, sweeping away men as grasshoppers, and swallowing up cities as ant hills; they saw the weak perish before the strong, as the morning mists melt away before the advancing sun; they saw the overthrow of kingdoms, the downfall of nations, the laying waste of empires. Against all such things they found themselves utterly powerless, and in their helplessness were swept away in the bosom of destruction. In the midst of distress they resorted to their temples, they sacrificed to their gods, they invoked their patron deities, but all in vain; no help came, no deliverance from their dire distresses. Under such circumstances it was perfectly natural for men to conclude that there are either no gods, or that the gods themselves had no power to help and protect them. Some came to the conclusion that there are no gods, and that all events come upon men inevitably by a blind destiny. This is original Fatalism. Others who could not give up their traditional deities, and the charms of a delusive worship, were driven to the conclusion that there is a power above the gods, to which the gods themselves are subject. This is the secondary phase of original Fatalism. This view was held by many prominent men, among whom was Cicero, who defined fate as the power that the gods themselves are subject to. This last phase of the doctrine of fate developed until finally an imaginary trinity was invented, called by the Latins, Parcae, and by the Greeks, Moirae. This trinity was composed of three women, called by the English reader the Fates, whose names were Clotho, Lachesis and Atropos, and who controlled the destinies of gods and men after the most irregular, vindictive and capricious manner. Shrines were consecrated to them and temples built in their honor in many parts of Greece and Italy. The worship and doctrine of this imaginary female trinity was called Fatalism. Fatalism in its various ramifications formed the prominent feature of all ancient literature except that of the Jews. So clear was this people of the idea of fate that there is no word in the Hebrew corresponding to the fortune or Parcae of the Latin and the Moirae of the Greek. The reason of this is that Moses and the prophets taught them that one supreme God ruled this universe.
In Sophocles and some others of this time the term fate became synonymous with the word chance. At first glance it seems that these two words are directly opposite in meaning; but a little reflection will make it plain that chance and blind destiny are about the same thing after all.
It will now be seen that Fatalism is first the belief that all things come inevitably upon the human race by blind destiny, with no God to send, direct or avert them. Second, the belief that there is a power above the gods to which they themselves are subject. And third, that all things come by pure chance. Now, who ever saw any one purporting to be an Old Baptist who believed any of the foregoing phases of doctrine? Who ever saw an Old Baptist who believed there is no God, and that all things come by a blind and necessary destiny; that all events are fortuitous or by chance? Who ever saw a Baptist who believed there is a power above the gods, and that Clotho spins the thread of life, Lachesis determines the length, and Atropos with her inevitable shears cuts the thread? Then how silly, foolish and impertinent is this cry of Fatalism in Baptist pulpits and periodicals.
Now, if any one will consider the difference between events coming to pass that God Himself cannot hinder, but on the contrary is bound to permit, suffer or endure, and events coming to pass as He Himself has ordained by His own determinate counsel, such a one can see the difference between Fatalism and Predestination; he can see how ignorant a man must be of the meaning of his own language when he calls a Predestinarian a Fatalist. Strange as it may seem, those very Arminians who are most vociferous in charging Old Baptists with Fatalism are really Fatalists themselves. It is true that they do not think so, but they think that the ground of this charge is far from them; but upon a very slight analysis of their doctrine it will appear most clearly that the sin justly lies at their door. One sentence from their daily teaching will establish the truth of this assertion. Do they not persistently proclaim that men go to hell against the will of God? that God desires all men to be saved and has done all He can to save them, and yet men go to hell? that Christ made a full and complete atonement for the sins of all the world, and yet men go to perdition? If all this be true what takes men to hell but fate? Is there not some power that God Himself is subject to? I once heard Bishop Wilson, of Baltimore, say that when the will of man makes its choice, that God Himself cannot change it. Bishop Wilson may very justly and correctly be called a Fatalist upon the authority of his own expression. Numerous quotations might be given from representative Arminians of all ages, as well as from the populace, to show the likeness of their doctrine to ancient Fatalism.
Again the Arminian rejects the decree of election on the ground of the certainty of the result decreed, and at the same time admits the foreknowledge of God. Is not the result as certain by foreknowledge as by the decree? There is nothing gained by denying the decree and substituting for it the divine foreknowledge. This denial involves the objector in a greater difficulty than that which he sought to escape, and which he imagined was chargeable upon predestination alone. By rejecting the decree, and admitting the foreknowledge of God, he has shut himself up to the dread alternative of blank Fatalism, which rules God out of the empire of human history, including even the divine redemption. The question which now arises for all Arminians and partial predestinarians to answer is, as the whole future is known to God, and therefore certain, therefore determined, by whom or by what has it been determined and rendered certain? The objector has ruled God out, let him bring forth his substitute. He has now dethroned the eternal Jehovah, will he leave the throne of the universe vacant, or whom will he place upon it? He here places himself in a dilemma from which he cannot escape. He has on the one hand a vacant throne, and on the other an absolutely certain future. He has to account for a determined future, while his principles will not allow him to admit an intelligent personal determiner. Here it can be easily seen that outside of God’s decrees as the determining cause, all must be attributed to the soulless, passionless, unintelligent idol, Fate.
It is not so much the Arminian that I desire to deal with in this article, as those of our own brethren who, when they wish to dispute the doctrine of predestination, call it Fatalism. It has just been shown that Predestination and Fatalism are terms of directly opposite meaning, and it may now be positively asserted that Predestination is the only thing that can rule Fatalism out of the universe. Wherever Predestination stops fate steps in. There is no place between to be occupied by any other species of events. History is full of instances where the fortune of dynasties, the downfall of nations, the course of empire, depended upon what seemed to be the most trivial matters, mere trifles, which came without the agency of the leading spirits, or even in defiance of their wills. Oliver Cromwell was about to emigrate to this country, when the departure of the ship in which he was expected to sail was hindered. He remained and assumed the leading part in affairs at home. Had he not remained, Charles the First might have retained his head, and Blake certainly would not have laid the foundation of the maritime supremacy in England. The treaty of Utrecht, which materially affected the social and political life of great nations, was occasioned by a quarrel between the Duchess of Marlborough and Queen Anne over a pair of gloves. The difference between one color and another in the livery of horses begat two most inveterate factions in the Roman Empire, the Prosini and the Veneti, which never suspended their hostilities until they ruined that unhappy government.
The negotiations with the Pope for dissolving Henry the Eighth’s marriage, which brought on the “Reformation” in England, are said to have been interrupted by the Earl of Wiltshire’s little dog biting the Pope’s toe as he held it out to be kissed by that ambassador. The Tory ministry, which gave a new shape to all Europe, was brought in by the Duchess of Marlborough spilling a pail of water upon Mrs. Masham’s gown. Mohamet, when flying from his enemies, took refuge in a cave, which his pursuers would have entered had they not seen a spiders web over the entrance; but on seeing this they concluded that there was no one within, and passed on. Thus a spider’s web changed the history of the world. The turning point at Waterloo, one of the great decisive battles of the world, resulted from the singular circumstances that prevented the arrival of General Grouchy. The well-planned attack of the Barbarians upon Rome was averted by the cackling of a goose. A series of most trivial events ended in the overthrow of Antony. Louis the Sixth cut his hair and shaved his beard to obey the order of his Bishop. Eleanor his wife found him very ridiculous in this condition, and avenged herself as she thought proper, and Louis obtained a divorce. She then married Count Anjou, who afterward became Henry the Second of England, and thus gave rise to those wars that afterward ravaged France for three hundred years, and cost the French three hundred thousand men. Was the prevention of Cromwell’s departure from England a mere fortuitous event, or was it the intervention of an active, working, ruling providence? Did blind destiny spread the spider’s web upon Mohamet’s cave, or was it provided by God, who works all things after the counsel of His own will? Was the biting of the Pope’s toe by the little dog a mere caprice of the Fates, or was it one of all the things that work together for good to them that love God? We must here strike the balance between Fatalism and Predestination. If nothing is predestinated, then all things are by fate. If all things are predestinated, then there is no such thing as fate. If some things are predestinated, and others not, then the government of this universe is divided between God and the Fates. The man who does not believe in predestination at all is in reality a Fatalist. Let him deny it as he may, and reason as he will, there is no other subterfuge for him. The dilemma has but two horns, and one of them he must take. Then just in the proportion that a man divides the affairs of this world between Predestination and that which is not Predestination, just in that proportion that man is a Fatalist. This article is not intended for a defense of the doctrine of Predestination, but is merely meant to submit to the reader a fair presentation of Fatalism, and to show the difference between it and Predestination, and to point out the inconsistency and confusion of those who confound the one with the other. Those of us who insist upon a limited Predestination, and who call our brethren who place no limit upon Gods decrees, Fatalists, are really much nearer the borders of Fatalism than our brethren whom we thus inconsistently stigmatize.
Again, if the term fate by modern usage means unalterable destiny, all Predestinarians, whether contending for limited or unlimited decrees, are alike Fatalists; for they all believe in the fixed destiny of the human race. Then why should the pot call the kettle black?
A minister passed through the churches of my care, railing against Fatalism, as he called it; but many of the brethren could not tell what he was driving at. They had heard Methodists talk that way, but thought rather strange of a Baptist to speak so. At one place his argument was that a certain man who was a member of a church believing the Predestination of all things, was caught in very disorderly conduct, wicked, outbreaking conduct; and when brought before the church in discipline, he put them all to silence by gently reminding them that it was all predestinated, and he could not help it; and they could not exclude him for something that, according to their own doctrine, he could not help.
Now, this is very poor argument against Predestination; but I suppose that in the absence of better it is often used. In the first place, I do not believe such a circumstance ever occurred, but that this is a lie concocted by some Arminian three hundred years ago, to bring odium upon the doctrine of grace. In the second place, if such really did occur, the man did not love the doctrine he professed; it was not the doctrine of his heart, but was mere tradition; perhaps not so much as tradition with him. Instead of exposing the doctrine and the church, he exposed his own vile hypocrisy and insincerity in the truth he professed. This is about as pertinent argument against Predestination as the old saying, “If God has ordained me to salvation, I will take my fill of sin, and be saved anyhow,” is pertinent as argument against unconditional election. The terms are off the same piece.
Where does Predestination cease to be a wholesome gospel doctrine, and become a baneful Fatalism? Where is there any well defined line setting forth the limits of one and the beginnings of the other? What proportion of the affairs of this world can a man believe is predestinated, and not be a Fatalist? If predestination of all things is Fatalism, is not predestination of some things some Fatalism? If the whole of anything is poisonous, is not any part of the same thing poisonous? Is it true that a quarter of lamb is wholesome food when only a quarter is taken, but becomes putrid carcass when all the body is taken? Those that call Old School Baptists Fatalists, in order to be consistent with their principles, should call Christ a Fatalist, for He said, “Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?”-Matthew 6:27. Or when He also said, “Not a sparrow falls to the ground without your heavenly Father.” Paul subjects himself to their odium by testifying that he will have mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth.-Romans 9. Peter is also guilty of a like offense against their zeal for God’s honor when he said, Herod, and Pilate and the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together against Christ to do whatsoever God’s hand and God’s counsel determined before to be done.-Acts 4. Also when he declared that those who stumbled at the stumbling-stone being disobedient, were appointed to it.-I Peter 2:8. James places himself in the same company when he said, “For ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and to this, or that.” Jude identifies himself with the same kind of Fatalists by saying, “There are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation.” Jeremiah must also be classed among them, for he said, “I know, O Lord, that the way of man is not in himself, it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.” Solomon belongs to the same company, for he has declared that, “That which is to be hath already been, that which hath been is now, and God requireth the past.” Upon the same ground these objectors must stigmatize all the divine writers as Fatalists, and call the Bible itself a book of fate. The charge of Fatalism against Predestinarians is no new thing. The Pelagians were loud against
Augustine in this charge, the Arminians against Calvin, and all manner of workmongers against men who held the truth in every age."
H.M. Curry
Blessings,
Borg
"So it is a more glorious work of power to uphold a soul in a state of grace and holiness, and to carry it on till it is brought to glory, when there is so much sin remaining in the heart resisting, and Satan with all his might opposing, than it would have been to have kept manfrom falling at first, when Satan had nothing in man." Edwards | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/20/2004 7:40 PM (GMT -6) | | Lee: What about the invincible chess master analogy (that God can always win, regardless of how people choose)? If God's plan for salvation of people depends critically on peoples' freewill choice, then how can God "win", if most people do not choose him?
Tom: God is determined to win in the end even though some choices during the game constitute a loss for him. You’d have to actually deny that Kasparov can be guaranteed to win if he played me (though I know how to move the pieces and that’s about it) if you want to do away with the analogy. But it makes perfect sense of the combined truths of “limited exercise of control” on the part of Kasparov (i.e., he actually losses sometimes during the game) and “guaranteed ultimate victory.”
Secondly, God doesn’t “win” when a person chooses against him. That's a loss. But the victory that we claim is guaranteed ultimately for God is not that no person will choose against God, it’s that across the board some people will choose for God.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 4/20/2004 8:14 PM (GMT -6) | | | Wow, Borg, did you read that whole article? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 4/21/2004 1:09 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Tom,
Just to clear the air a bit, I do believe that God is quite invincible, nor do I think it is a good idea for the OV to give up the invincible chess master analogy. I don't see how the OV can maintain this analogy, though, that is my question.
quote:
Lee: If God's plan for salvation of people depends critically on peoples' freewill choice, then how can God "win", if most people do not choose him?
Tom: Secondly, God doesn’t “win” when a person chooses against him. That's a loss. But the victory that we claim is guaranteed ultimately for God is not that no person will choose against God, it’s that across the board some people will choose for God.
But now do we have to propose a threshold? Or is this saying that God must simply take whatever turns out? I don't see how it can be said that God wins, or is invincible, if that is the situation...
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 4/21/2004 2:37 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Lee Merrill
What about heaven? Do people give up their free will in heaven, according to the Open View? I have heard people say that free will becomes "compatibilistic free will" in heaven (peoples' choices are based on their strongest desire), but this, I think is just Mr. Determinism wearing Free Willie's bow tie.
Not clear what your objection is here, Lee. Perhaps you can make your argument explicit.
quote:
What about the invincible chess master analogy (that God can always win, regardless of how people choose)? If God's plan for salvation of people depends critically on peoples' freewill choice, then how can God "win", if most people do not choose him?
Tom has already chimed in on this one, but I'll add my two cents as well.
If God's "winning" requires that some or a lot of people be saved, and if salvation depends on freewill choices, then to guarantee a win at the outset God must be prepared if necessary to override and/or limit the freedom of people in such a way that their choosing otherwise is not possible. In other words, God would have to be prepared to give irresistible grace in the Calvinist's sense to some people should that be required. But God would have to resort to that only if people did not sufficiently freely cooperate with his objectives. If people do sufficiently freely cooperate with God's objectives then the mere possibility that they might not have done so becomes moot.
The difference between Calvinism and open theism in this regard is that Calvinism insists that God has to "foreordain whatsoever comes to pass" to ensure that his objectives are fulfilled. Open theism, in contrast, says that God's objectives are, for the most part, quite general--there is more than one way in which they might be fulfilled--so that God doesn't have to enforce the occurrence or non-occurrence of every little event in order to achieve his purposes. So God can guarantee a "win" at the outset, but he doesn't necessarily have to settle everything by executive fiat to do so.
quote:
Most people are choosing sin and self, and perishing in unbelief, how then is God winning? How is the chess master invincible, regardless of how people choose?
The assumption being made here is that God's primary concern is the quantity of souls that he gets into his kingdom and that whether God "wins" or "loses" the game depends on how that quantity compares with the quantity of lost souls. This assumption is questionable in several respects. First, God may be at least as much interested in the quality of souls that get into heaven as the quantity, and that may require that God countenance having fewer souls in heaven. Second, God's primary objectives may not have as much to do with the human enrollment in heaven (quantity or quality) as we often suppose. Third, even Calvinists acknowledge that "small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it" (Mt 7:14). So if God is "losing" on the open view, he is also "losing" on the Calvinist view as well. The proper conclusion, I submit, is that you're applying the wrong standard of winning and losing.
God bless,
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
joneames
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 21
| Posted 4/21/2004 4:51 PM (GMT -6) | | hi
Totally new here. Right now I am doing (trying to) do some debate at a calvinist forum (message board) and would request someone (anyone's) help here. Right now it's a universal love debate.
I am for God's universal love, and it's me on everyone. I used about 10 references to support it, and without surprise, I am getting the "all doesn't mean all" everyone doesn't mean everyone, "who is the "all men" referring to etc.. Well I cannot find an exegesis of
2 peter 3:9, and I Tim 2:4. Can anyone in here help? I am passinate about his, and although I don't expect my debating it will really change anyone, ya never know, I'll give it a try. What would be better than awesome would be if Greg Boyd could offer me his explanation of 1 tim 2 and 2 pet 3. I know you hold to this Greg, and I know you don't believe it without good reason, I'd just love to know what that is, because I am clueless on exegesis. But anyone's help here would be much apperciated. Thanks a bunch.
God bless , Jon | | Back to Top | | |
|
victoryword
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 4/22/2004 2:34 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by joneames
hi
Totally new here. Right now I am doing (trying to) do some debate at a calvinist forum (message board) and would request someone (anyone's) help here. Right now it's a universal love debate.
I am for God's universal love, and it's me on everyone. I used about 10 references to support it, and without surprise, I am getting the "all doesn't mean all" everyone doesn't mean everyone, "who is the "all men" referring to etc.. Well I cannot find an exegesis of
2 peter 3:9, and I Tim 2:4. Can anyone in here help? I am passinate about his, and although I don't expect my debating it will really change anyone, ya never know, I'll give it a try. What would be better than awesome would be if Greg Boyd could offer me his explanation of 1 tim 2 and 2 pet 3. I know you hold to this Greg, and I know you don't believe it without good reason, I'd just love to know what that is, because I am clueless on exegesis. But anyone's help here would be much apperciated. Thanks a bunch.
God bless , Jon
Whenever I have to deal with Calvinists on the "all doesn't mean ALL" fiction, I often enjoy throwing in another avowed Calvinist, C. H. Spurgeon. Spurgeon himself wrote a defense of Calvinism, yet, he disputed those he referred to as hyper-calvinists for changing the meaning of God's word. Below is something that Spurgeon taught on how some hypers distort 1 Tim. 2:4:
What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. `All men,' they say,-'that is, some men': as if the Holy Ghost could not have said `some men' if he had meant some men. `All men,' say they; `that is, some of all sorts of men'; as if the Lord could not have said `All sorts of men' if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written `all men,' and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the `alls' according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to the truth. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, `Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth.' Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have been exactly in keeping, but as it happens to say, `Who will have all men to be saved,' his observation are more than a little out of place. My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself, for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it, `God our Savior; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.'
I think this came from a sermon on Particular Redemption. While I do not condone Calvinism of any kind (whether it is so called moderate Calvinism or so called {i]hyper-calvinism), I still like to throw in quotes from Calvinists that contradict the other Calvinists. It's always fun to watch them squirm or just not even respond because they cannot.
If your beliefs cannot be supported by Scripture, they ain't worth supporting
http://www.victoryword.100megspop2.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 4/22/2004 2:36 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Alan,
Thanks for your reply!
quote:
Lee: What about heaven? Do people give up their free will in heaven, according to the Open View?
Not clear what your objection is here, Lee. Perhaps you can make your argument explicit.
Sorry that wasn't clear, I just meant that the OV teaches that God created people with free will, that that is part of being really human. So does God take this away in heaven? Or can people possibly sin there, and be thrown out? Some unfallen angel could fall, too, couldn't they, according to the OV, and start the whole mess over again...
quote:
Lee: What about the invincible chess master analogy (that God can always win, regardless of how people choose)? If God's plan for salvation of people depends critically on peoples' freewill choice, then how can God "win", if most people do not choose him?
Alan: If God's "winning" requires that some or a lot of people be saved, and if salvation depends on freewill choices, then to guarantee a win at the outset God must be prepared if necessary to override and/or limit the freedom of people in such a way that their choosing otherwise is not possible.
Yes, but this is not free will, I think. If you can't really choose the wrong choice, then your will is not free.
quote:
Lee: Most people are choosing sin and self, and perishing in unbelief, how then is God winning? How is the chess master invincible, regardless of how people choose?
Alan: First, God may be at least as much interested in the quality of souls that get into heaven as the quantity, and that may require that God countenance having fewer souls in heaven.
God is depicted as having to pick anyone he can, though, the fine upstanding capable people all have their excuses, and cannot come (Luke 14:16ff). It's the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame that get in:
1CO 1:27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.
So quality is not in view, quite the opposite, I think:
1CO 1:29 so that no one may boast before him.
quote:
Second, God's primary objectives may not have as much to do with the human enrollment in heaven (quantity or quality) as we often suppose.
OK, but my question still is this, how does God win when men refuse him? The invincible chess master has a response to every choice that guarantees he or she will win. We know the response, actually, it is to send people to hell. So how is God winning here?
The Calvinists have an answer here, actually, and say that the desire for God to show his glory is primary, and takes precedence over his desire to save all men. I don't think the OV says that, though. And I would disagree with the Calvinists, on this point, because I think that view implies some frustration, and even compromise.
quote:
The proper conclusion, I submit, is that you're applying the wrong standard of winning and losing.
Yes, that's my question! What is the standard?
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 4/22/2004 2:57 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. `All men,' they say,-'that is, some men': as if the Holy Ghost could not have said `some men' if he had meant some men. `All men,' say they; `that is, some of all sorts of men'; as if the Lord could not have said `All sorts of men' if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written `all men,' and unquestionably he means all men.
I love Spurgeon's "spurgeonuetic"! Lots of folks change "all" to "some", you can point out that Jesus came seek all the lost, not just the elect lost, and point them to Jesus seeking Jerusalem, whom he knew would reject him (Dan. 9:26, Luke 17:25). I admire Spurgeon more, for not flinching on Scripture verses that don't fit in his theology, and not pounding the round peg into the square hole, to build his house of doctrine.
I am reading "The Race Set Before Us" about assurance of salvation versus warnings to believers, and the authors mention someone who "believes that we must maintain a certain tension between passages that offer assurance to the believer and warning passages. He believes the proper approach is to let both kinds of texts stand as they do by preaching both but not making an effort to explain how they fit together" (p. 38). The authors have an explanation, though! Which I have yet to read. But this alternative is, I think, appropriate at times. The desire to have Everything All Explained must be resisted some times, I think.
quote:
I think this came from a sermon on Particular Redemption.
Here is the link: www.spurgeon.org/sermons/1516.htm
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 4/22/2004 6:17 AM (GMT -6) | | | I found that esprecially true In "Debating Calvinism." Hunt and White are dueling Spurgeons. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 4/22/2004 6:44 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by borg
[quote]
A minister passed through the churches of my care, railing against Fatalism, as he called it; but many of the brethren could not tell what he was driving at. They had heard Methodists talk that way, but thought rather strange of a Baptist to speak so. At one place his argument was that a certain man who was a member of a church believing the Predestination of all things, was caught in very disorderly conduct, wicked, outbreaking conduct; and when brought before the church in discipline, he put them all to silence by gently reminding them that it was all predestinated, and he could not help it; and they could not exclude him for something that, according to their own doctrine, he could not help.
Now, this is very poor argument against Predestination; but I suppose that in the absence of better it is often used. In the first place, I do not believe such a circumstance ever occurred, but that this is a lie concocted by some Arminian three hundred years ago, to bring odium upon the doctrine of grace. In the second place, if such really did occur, the man did not love the doctrine he professed; it was not the doctrine of his heart, but was mere tradition; perhaps not so much as tradition with him. Instead of exposing the doctrine and the church, he exposed his own vile hypocrisy and insincerity in the truth he professed. This is about as pertinent argument against Predestination as the old saying, “If God has ordained me to salvation, I will take my fill of sin, and be saved anyhow,” is pertinent as argument against unconditional election. The terms are off the same piece.
Why do Calvinists say this is a poor argument and then gloss over it with no bona fide defense? Hypothetically, why can’t I just go up to a Calvinist and punch him in the nose and say “I was predestined to do it, blame it on God he sent me”? In reality I choose to punch him, I would be delusional (and locked up) to think God predestined me to do it. Do Calvinists have some pat answer that is presumably known to all, if so what is it? Is it a secret? I don’t like secrets; they are just too darn sneaky.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
joneames
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 21
| Posted 4/22/2004 9:54 AM (GMT -6) | | hi guys,
THanks for all the responses so far, especially the sermon from Spurgeon, no doubt they'll have a response to that too. I would really love to hear from everyone here, you've all had great input so far. I'm pretty passionate about this. And I would love to hear Greg Boyd on this, from what I've seen, he doesn't speak too much on the arminian/calvinist debate. Even though he like I are open theists, we all share common ground with armininiasm. And who ever would like to help me debate this, I'll let you know the forum (it's kind of hard by myself) Well I have tons of other issues and topics I'd love to hear everyone's views on, just for now it's universal love/ universal desire for all men's repentence and salvation.
Jon | | Back to Top | | |
|
joneames
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 21
| Posted 4/22/2004 11:33 AM (GMT -6) | | This is my latest posting in a calvinist messag board,
still working on 1 tim and 2 pet, any comments, help, suggestions would be great, thanks
Jon
Yet your statement implies that you feel it's a concern in posting here. Not exactly a good foot to get off on. And the challenge was for a formal debate btw, not a general thread of conversation. But that's ok, because from what you include here, I don't think you should try to debate BC. Your argumentation needs work first. (I'm not trying to be mean, it's honest constructive criticism. I don't think *I* would want to debate BC.
- Well for one , I need to point out some of my life observations and experiences. This is nothing against anyone in here whatsoever (as every individual is self determining). But unless I am crazy, I've seen a striking similarity and conncection in calvinists. They often seen to be very hot headed, very argumentative, and sometimes down right un loving. In fact I've seen this so much, that it leads me to believe that it comes naturally with being a calvinist (sort of inherent in calvinism) In the same way I find politicians tending towards corruption, celebreties tending towards superficiality, I see calvinist debaters tending towards rude argumentation.
This is not an attack, just my observation, and yes fear of debating anything here. If you come at this topic with I'm not going to budge, I've arrived at pure truth and that's that, well it will be useless. I for one will try my hardest to genuinely be open to change and learn, and shave and mold my view of God, in whatever way seems truthful. And no I'm not a formal debater ( I would stink at it) but I'm convinced where truth is being told, it will not die out but will effect something or someone. I just listened to a ressurection debate between an athiest and christian phillosopher, and well honestly the athiest genuinely won the debate by a landslide, do I agree with him? No, but he was more clear, concise, and persuasive.
Am I the man to defend (what I veiw as the truth of liberetarian freedom, universal love, open future, conditional election) ..definetely not. There are pastors, authors, writers, phillosophers way better equipped then I am to defend this position. I only ask that my mistakes (which are sure to come) are not treated as mistakes in a belief system, but mistakes in my ability to defend and define a belief system (which I hold to).
Like much of your post, I'm not quite sure of how to parse this. I don't want to assume anything about your position, but your writing style makes it difficult to be sure of what you are communicating. Such as here, are you saying the traditional calvinist view is that God <em>does</em> love everyone equally? I <em>think</em> you are trying to say that even though you say that, your view differs from the "traditional calvinist view" even though they may sound similar. Yet these are vastly different things, which makes it hard to respond.
- I tried to say that if I was a father I would naturally have a more intense love for my own children than others. I think this is the same with God, that those who have returned His love are in return in a sense loved MORE than those that reject His love and grace. Nonetheless, I think that scripture clearly teaches that God's desire is still for all to be His children, and to repent and escape eternal agony. So the question was not defined enough in my opinion. Again I never said that God is happy or pleased wit h what every creature is doing, and that His love genuinely does turn to wrath and hardening with those that continually reject His will and His grace. God told us to love our enemies. From this concept I would say that while God's wrath is currently on those who do evil and who reject Him, there is still the desire for them to repent.
Only from the moment they were born? Is this just poor phrasing, or are you a believer in process theology? Or maybe it's just somewhere in between, that God knows you before you're born, but doesn't love you till you actually are?
- let's not get into semantics, poor wording, my bad.
2 Pet 3:9 -
Who is you in this verse? I assume from your context you believe it to be the whole world. So, given that, and that the /reason/ God is patient is that he doesn't want <em>any</em> of <em>you</em> to perish, are you then a universalist? The verse is part of a letter, addressed to the elect. The you in the verse, refers to the elect. God is patient, waiting for the full number of those he has predestined to salvation according to his plan.
- 2 Peter 3
The Day of the Lord
1Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you. I have written both of them as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking. 2I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles.
3First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." 5But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
8But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
- In this verse Paul is writing to a chuch. The concern is about the day of the Lord , and it's coming, time etc.. I would argue that the meaning you put on this very much distorts the power of the passage. I would argue that it puts a very ambiguous non sensical meaning to the words. You want to say "that God is patient, not wanting any to perish out of the group who's salvation is absolutely inevitable. I think that you put much confusion and lack of meaning to these verses. Again..as so many arminians have pointed out (and calvinists have not answered).. why would God express patience and longsuffering and a desire for none to persish while all the while speaking of an elect group of people who can't POSSIBLY perish. GOd in this view, seems to be fickle, whimsical, arbitrary, and ambiguous. Why doesn't he just apply all his irresistable grace to those supposed elect ones NOW, why wait, and then pretend to be patient and longsuffering, all the while planning on monergistically regenerating each and everyone of these elect, that the verse is supposedly talking about? This is duplicious, ambigious, and confusing, and I would argue distorts the meaning to this passage. Of course this all hangs on your view of what election is. If you view election as the cause of something (namely salvation) and non election as the cause of your damnation, then well you MUST impose that view on this passage, and I can see why you do, but however it is inconsistent. If this verse is taken in it's context, and the context of other verses like 1 Tim 2:4, you can arrive at something like this. See if this isn't slightly less confusing, contradictory, and ambiguous. God desires the salvation of all men. Here was a chuch composed of men (of whom God desired their salvation) now obviously not all were believers... In that light, God is not slow or slack in his promise, not willing that any should persh but that all should come to repentence. I woud argue that this concept or (heart of GOd) is CLEARLY shown throughout the entire Bible (ie. that God desires repentence, that it DELIGHTS Him, and that rejection sorrows Him and at times angers or furiates Him. Now is this picture of God consistent with calvinism? Far from it. Some inconsistent calvinists (seeking to be true with scripture) have maintained that GOd truly does desire all men's repentence, and is not delighted by the destruction of the wicked, but then still monergistically regenerates some and not others, all the while somehow desiring all their regeneration and repentence. Hmmm ..weird stuff.
- John 3:16
God gave his son, that those who believe in him would have eternal life. Given that scripture clearly teaches faith as a gift from God, and mans inability to believe apart from God's regeneration, this verse does not support your position either.
- John 3:16 - For God so loved the world (find me one reference where this means elect) that He gave His one and only son, that WHOSOEVER (look it up, Greek word, completely un exclusive, self explanatory WHOSOEVER) believes in Him (requiring an act or a response to the salvation offer) might not perish but have everlasting life.
- Yes faith is a gift from God, we also say babies are a gift from God. In fact every good thingm every good decision, every action, every morally upright thing is a gift from God. Now when someone commits something wrong (ie. chooses to be a coward and not save the little kid about to be run over) we do not say well "he wasn't given the gift of the correct choice in that matter, do we? We say he is MORALLY responsible for not making the right choice. Why is he moraly responsible. Because he had perfect ability and capability to make the correct choice. Faith is a blessing, as is every morally upright thing in this universe. Yet we all have the real genuine ability to do good things, to make good choices, ..is it because we're just so good? , no it's because of the image of God in our beign, it's because of God that we can help eachother and do good things. It's because God is holding everything in existence. God does not pick and choose who he gives the ability to make good choices to, if he did, we COULD NOT blame the person for making a bad choice. Why is anyone in hel, because they were unable to make the choice to escape it??? Hell is only just, if the person chose it, if they genuinely rejected God, and made a bad choice. What is a bad choice, without a good choice? Why is he morally responsible? What is moral responsibility? The ability to do OTHER than what you did. Calvinism does not teach this, and therefore in my mind, taints God's justice and love. Yes faith would not be possible were it not for God's enabling power, but it seems to me that the billions of times people are commanded to believe (implying ability to do so) that God is not secretly behind the scenes giving some the ability to do so, and others not. To me, these verses should imply that whatever enabling power of God is in fact inherent in the command to believe, that this enabling power is available to all men, thus making them truly responsible for rejecting it.
John 12:32, 1John 2:2, 1tim 2:3-6
I will draw all people to myself...and he did. He drew jews and gentiles, people from every tribe tongue and nation. cf Luke 14
in timothy, this is even spelled out for you one verse earlier: made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, ...
- I'm gonna let a beloved Calvinist answer this one for me. Charles Spurgeon (who many calvinists love to cite) did a sermon on 1 Tim, and in it he admitted in plain language that he HAD to uphold consistency with the scripture over consistency with his belief system. I charge you to do the same. Here's what he said:
Below is something that Spurgeon taught on how some hypers distort 1 Tim. 2:4:
What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. `All men,' they say,-'that is, some men': as if the Holy Ghost could not have said `some men' if he had meant some men. `All men,' say they; `that is, some of all sorts of men'; as if the Lord could not have said `All sorts of men' if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written `all men,' and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the `alls' according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to the truth. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, `Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth.' Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have been exactly in keeping, but as it happens to say, `Who will have all men to be saved,' his observation are more than a little out of place. My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself, for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it, `God our Savior; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.'
Hrm. Interesting. So, did God love pharoh in a 'saving way' when he hardened his heart? Did he love the nations israel wiped out? What about Ahab and Jezebel when he had both killed? What about Jacob and Esau? Scripture specifically tells us God hated Esau. Perhaps a good start on this would be defining 'saving love' as opposed to ... I guess whatever other love God might have.
Very out of context examples. Pharoh's hardening as with all of God's hardening is conditional. God did not take this nice guy who was going to let the Isrealites go and then harden him against his will. If you look in the OT account, it says Pharoh hardened his heart many times before it says God hardened Pharoh's heart. So again..God's hardening is strenghtening a will in it's own resolve. God says ..alright you're gonna do this again and again and again, well ok. It is never a hardening against a wil, but is hardening along with the set determination of a wil, which Pharoh's was obviously NOT to let the Israelites go. And again I never said at this current moment that God is feeling great about everyone and has warm feelings. His wrath is probably upon many. Those who at the present are continually rejecting His will. However, what I've argued, and I believe scripture clearly teaches throughtout, is that God delights in the wicked repentence, that He wants them to repent, that He DESIRES it, and takes no delight in their destruction, but is rather an outcome of His justice which He cannot compromise. As for the citing of Romans 9, again out of context, and actually coinciding with what I'm saying. The reference goes back to Malachi, and the "hate" is the same kind of hatred we see when we're told to "hate" our mother and father, and family and all, compared to God. It is a comparative hatred. God's favor was on Jacob while his dis favor was on Esau. This same reference is seen in Malachi, but is often given outlandish new meaning in Romans 9. And again, this is conditional dis favor, conditional love, and contindiaonal wrath. It's not like Esau was this great guy who didn't want to sell his birthright, who wanted to please God, and God then accoriding to soveriegn mysterious purposes reversed his will. God's dis favor of Esau and the Edomites (which is what the passage is talking about two nations, not the salvation and damantaion of two individuals) was conditioned upon Esaus behaviour, on his choices and actions. And if we remember, Esau and jacob made up, and there was genuine remorese, and reconcilliation between them. This is not some eternal unconditional decree of God )ie. I have chosen to love Jacob, and to Hate Esua) It is as the context in Malachi says and suggests, a conditional response favor and disfavor of two nation according to their choices and actions. And btw, I weclome wholeheartedly going through Romans 9 starting with Paul's chain or argument in the surrounding context. My dad (who's been a calvinist teacher and preacher for 30 years) changed his interpretation of Romans 9 just recently, and now no longer holds it as a calvinist proof text.
Interesting. So, because you have chosen to define what love is in a certain way, you feel you now have the right to define for God what love is, and hold him to that standard? That if he fails to meet that standard that he is no longer God? Do you not feel that such a position is rather self contradictory? If God can be held to a standard other than himself, he cannot truly be God either.
- Did I say I have chosen to define what love is? What were my words?
For me (someone made in the image of God ) to truly love those that persecute me, love my enemies, love my neighbour, and desire the salvation and very BEST for everyone I see..for me to experience a love more intense and grand than that of God's (the calvinist idea of god) would disprove God's existence. If I can love MORE than God, than that leads me to question the god that I've surpassed.
- In the same way that I believe that the law of God (morality / ethics) is written on our heart because of the image of God, I also believe that love is written on our hearts because of the image of God. I never said I've chosen to define it as something, I said that the image of God in mankind shows me. I firmly believe that the nature of love , is indiscriminate, and non self seeking, and always seeks the good of others. God said this in his word, so does the calvinist idea of god go against MY idea of love or God's idea of love. I think the latter. And I seek as hard as I can to make my view of love coincide with God's view of love, there should be no seperation between the two. So with that said, a god who supposedly doesn't love everyone in a saving way (truly desiring their escape from ETERNAL AGONY) does not love at all. According to what love is (and we see a rather good depcition of it in the Bible) that IS NOT love. To give little gifts, little mercies throughout someone's life, all the while KNOWING they are destined for hell, and never doing anything about it (because in the calvinsit view, salvation is an overrdiing of someon's will, which God could very well to do everyone) is NOT love, but is in fact the opposite. John Wesley told George Whitefiled that "your god is much like my satan."
So again, it is NOT love to give nice little things, but never the ultimately important thing that really matters, that is the ability to escape hell. That is NOT love, and how anyone can deny that , I do not know.
Do you have a source/context for that last quote btw? And in light of its content and some of your other comments, perhaps you'd like to share with us unenlightened folks what it is you believe now that you've come out of your childish belief in calvinism to this wonderful new place. It would make it easier to understand where you're coming from in what you are saying, and less likely to misread your statements.
- Yes, I do. Sorry for not noting it, that was dumb of me. The quote comes from Greg Boyd. It is in response to Bruce Ware's accusation of the logical implicaitons which arise from open theism. In response Greg answered him throuughly, and then turned the logic around to point out the hypocricy in pointing out another's inconsistincies, when your own view holds so many, and in fact has done much damage. And to make some things clear, I don't think I'm enlightened, and I don't think you're un enlightened. I use to be a calvinist , and try to be sympathetic, because I remember thinking like that. It is an air tight system, but if one chain of logic can be shown to be even slightly inconsistent, then it all basically falls down because it's so interdependent. Yes it can be very convincing, I do not blame anyone for holding to it, it's not some childish belief that I've grown out of, and I never said that. I do think it is a subtley destructive worldview, and I believe creates many false dichotomies, and also a kind of struggle between the heart and mind, which was never meant to be. The hardest part (for me) is that the calvinst ususally views "hard truths" or "ugly doctrines" as a good thing, and take pride in the fact that they're humble enough to accept it. In fact many many calvinist I've read and talked to admit it can be very ugly and demeaning, and that it's just your pride that doesn't accept it. I can take this charge, and consider it thoughtfully, but I think I've come to the conclusion through self anylization, scripture, and prayer that my passion for refuting calvinism does not stem from my pride, but from my desire to uphold the pure charachter of God, which I think Calvinsim taints. Am I saying that every calvinist taints God's charachter? No. I'm saying the view they hold to, when taken consistently does taint God's charachter.
However, thankfully I have yet to see a practicing calvinist. One who truly lives as if their choices and everyhting around them has been predestined, one who lives as if God's desire is not to save every person, one who lives as if people are totally inable to obey the command of the gospel. In the same way I don't believe there are any practicing athiests, I do not believe there are any practicing calvinists. They may hold to it intelectually, but I would argue that it is impossible to live your life accoriding to it, without going insane.
Jon
_________________
After all, to many Arminians and open theists, the Calvinism Ware defends seems to deny the glory of God, the universal love of God, the wisdom of God, the urgency of prayer, the genuineness of God’s interactions with us, human moral responsibility, the need for missions, and many other things | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 4/22/2004 2:34 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Sparknheart,
quote:
Hypothetically, why can’t I just go up to a Calvinist and punch him in the nose and say “I was predestined to do it, blame it on God he sent me”?
Paul addresses this question, actually! And Jon mentioned going through Romans 9, so here goes...
RO 9:19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"
And first we should notice what Paul doesn't say, he doesn't say that men freely choose to sin, and thus God is just in condemning them. This is a golden opportunity to state this conclusion, and solve the knot. Instead, Paul says "God has a right to do what he wants with us":
RO 9:21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
And maybe what he wants to do with us is show his mercy:
RO 11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
The question of "is God just to cause people to sin, and then judge them?" may be addressed further, with Joseph and his brothers, as well.
GE 50:20 You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.
And Joseph's brothers, who sinned, were some of the ones being saved. So God had a good purpose, even for them. The motive is what we look at, to determine guilt or innocence. And God's motive is always good, thus he is not guilty in carrying out his plans, for a good purpose.
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
| 28 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:33 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 |
|
|