 |
|  Fleetwood Registered Member
 Date Joined Jul 2003 Total Posts : 110 | Posted 7/22/2003 10:59 AM (GMT -6) |   | I'd like to add something. When I discovered that my math teacher abused his children, I no longer believed that 2+2=4. Get my point?
A long, long time ago, someone once said, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy." How exactly do open theists deal with this verse? This is the basis of Calvinism, not the man John Calvin.
Are you aware that Calvin was the POLITICAL, as well as the spiritual leader of the city-state of Geneva, and believed, as did ALL the Reformers, that their job was to hand transgressors to the Magistrate and instruct him as to his duties in the punishing of the malefactors. In those days of sacral-state Constantinianism EVERY citizen in the city was charged with obeying God, (in the manner the spiritual leaders defined that obedience) and heresy was a capital CIVIL crime.
I could easily toss out the words of other Biblical figures because of their sins. Take Abraham for example. He had a mistress. Yet he is considered to be a great man of faith?? Take Noah. The man gets drunk! Take Sarah. She lies. Take Jonah. Or a host of others. Paul. He denies the Lord, boldly and without flinching. No I never saw the man! Yet he is the foundation of the church? Take Solomon. Let's not even get into Solomon. How about Rahab? A prostitute for heaven's sake! Or Samson? Samson??? Yet both Rahab and Samson are listed in the Hebrews Hall of Faith. There is no record of repentance of most of them, although there is a beautiful account of Peter's repentance.
If we use the criteria that Earp and Albert have used to judge Calvin as being unsaved, then the same could be said about Abraham, Sarah, Noah, so on. Moses as well. Moses became fiercly angry and sinned in his anger. Does not the Bible say that anyone who has been angry is guilty of murder? Anyone who looks at a woman lustfully is guilty of adultery? Need I go on?
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  Fleetwood Registered Member
 Date Joined Jul 2003 Total Posts : 110 | Posted 7/22/2003 11:04 AM (GMT -6) |   | Blood Washed, Too bad the OVers can't boast of the love they preach about, eh? They can say, "Calvinists are arrogant," but then they'd have to admit, "Yah, we are too" as you yourself, being it seems "neutral," have witnessed. I see neither as being better than the other although I certainly believe that open theists seem to uphold themselves as better. Perhaps you are right that Calvnists do also. I wouldn't know. I am not a Calvinist. Whew, guess you and I are off the hook being that we are neither here nor there! Joking.
Actually, my experience dialoguing with Calvinists has been far more pleasant than my experience dialoguing with open theists. There is a humility lacking with open theists. Without humility, the words of "love" coming from their mouths mean NADA!
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  John Earp Registered Member
 Date Joined Oct 2002 Total Posts : 1715 | Posted 7/22/2003 12:06 PM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
I'd like to add something. When I discovered that my math teacher abused his children, I no longer believed that 2+2=4. Get my point?
You would have no problem with it if your preacher was a child molester? The clear difference is that Calvin was claiming to speak authoritatively for GOD, not mathemetics.
quote:
A long, long time ago, someone once said, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy." How exactly do open theists deal with this verse? This is the basis of Calvinism, not the man John Calvin.
No OVTheist denies that God will have mercy on whom He will; it is the Calvinistic nterpretation of this that we disagree with.
As to the sins of many notable Bible characters, so you're saying these things are okay, right?
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  ReasonableDoubt Registered Member
 Date Joined Jan 2003 Total Posts : 655 | Posted 7/22/2003 2:26 PM (GMT -6) |   | Earp - what's your interpretation then of God having mercy on whom he wills? How do you get around the "unfairness" of it?
This John calvin horse has been beaten to death, but the point I and others have been trying to make is that Calvin may have been the chieftest of sinners- but it does not necessarily follow from that that his theology is completely off base.
I don't get your comment about the child molesting preacher. If the child abusing teacher is absolutely wrong in his personal life, does that mean that all the math he taught is also wrong? No. Same goes for the preacher - his theology may have contained many good points- which remain good regardless of the personal life of the person who utters them.
"Everyone who believes in God at all believes that He knows what you and I are going to do tomorrow." - C. S. Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
 |  shell Registered Member
 Date Joined Mar 2002 Total Posts : 280 | Posted 7/22/2003 2:55 PM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Earp - what's your interpretation then of God having mercy on whom he wills? How do you get around the "unfairness" of it?
There is a thread somewhere in here with Greg's interpretation of all of Romans 9...couldn't find it but I know it's here somewhere! Could someone who can find it put the link in here? I found it very helpful myself. Those verses used to haunt me.
Shell
Edited by - shell on 07/22/2003 7:55:53 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |  ReasonableDoubt Registered Member
 Date Joined Jan 2003 Total Posts : 655 | Posted 7/22/2003 5:21 PM (GMT -6) |   | One could just as easily say that ALL of Christianity is the epitome of arrogance - after all, the tenets of Christianity condemn all unbelievers to hell, no matter how good or ignorant or uninformed they are. Imagine the arrogance of claiming that your religion is correct!!!
That's what Calvin did. That's what all the non-universalist, non-inclusive Christians of today claim. The "world" sees it as utter and complete arrogance.
Yes, Calvin may have been guilty of complicity in the execution of Servetus, he may have been guilty of arrogance in thinking his was the only correct theology. But, so what, I say? How in the world does his arrogance and hatred of Servetus negate all of his theology?
"Everyone who believes in God at all believes that He knows what you and I are going to do tomorrow." - C. S. Lewis | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Fleetwood Registered Member
 Date Joined Jul 2003 Total Posts : 110 | Posted 7/22/2003 5:40 PM (GMT -6) |   | Hey RD (and POW and ?), if you have the time, read this intersting site on Calvin. I'd be interested in what you think about it. http://www.modernreformation.org/mr92/marapr/mr9202geneva.html
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 7/22/2003 6:43 PM (GMT -6) |   | | | |
 |  honorman Registered Member
 Date Joined Oct 2002 Total Posts : 1137 | Posted 7/22/2003 7:03 PM (GMT -6) |   | I had my suspensions about AL...you are a tricky one, POW, that you are...
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  John Earp Registered Member
 Date Joined Oct 2002 Total Posts : 1715 | Posted 7/23/2003 6:59 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Earp - what's your interpretation then of God having mercy on whom he wills? How do you get around the "unfairness" of it?
First, would it be too much for you to refer to me as "John"? To my mind, referring to someone by their last name instead of their full name or their first name is rude.
As to "having mercy on whom He will," the context reveals that Paul is responding to the anticipated Jewish rebuttal to the idea, advanced in the previous chapters, that God has now chosen to include believing Gentiles as well as believing Jews in his Covenant, and that the Jew could not boast of his physical lineage as somehow making him more deserving of God's mercy than others. God says, "I will have mercy on whom I will (believing Gentiles and not only believing Jews), and hardens whom He will (unbelieving Gentiles and unbelieving Jews).
quote: This John calvin horse has been beaten to death, but the point I and others have been trying to make is that Calvin may have been the chieftest of sinners- but it does not necessarily follow from that that his theology is completely off base.
According to Paul, the standard for a man of God is that he be "blameless" (see the pastoral epistles). This is saying nothing more than that a man who claims to speak for Jesus Christ should not be a hypocrite. He should practice what he preaches.
quote: I don't get your comment about the child molesting preacher. If the child abusing teacher is absolutely wrong in his personal life, does that mean that all the math he taught is also wrong? No. Same goes for the preacher - his theology may have contained many good points- which remain good regardless of the personal life of the person who utters them.
The point is that the New Testament says that those who teach the word of God are held to a higher standard than anyone else (James), and if their deeds do not live up to the gospel, they are hypocrites.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  ReasonableDoubt Registered Member
 Date Joined Jan 2003 Total Posts : 655 | Posted 7/23/2003 1:08 PM (GMT -6) |   | OK, JOHN, please refer to me by my entire handle as well - don't call me "RD". Geez, some people are so touchy.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  honorman Registered Member
 Date Joined Oct 2002 Total Posts : 1137 | Posted 7/23/2003 2:40 PM (GMT -6) |   | | | |
 |  John Earp Registered Member
 Date Joined Oct 2002 Total Posts : 1715 | Posted 7/23/2003 5:08 PM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
OK, JOHN, please refer to me by my entire handle as well - don't call me "RD". Geez, some people are so touchy.
I am very sorry. I certainly meant no disrespect.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  Terry_Baxter Registered Member
 Date Joined Jan 2002 Total Posts : 187 | Posted 7/23/2003 6:31 PM (GMT -6) |   | John,
Anyone in an academic environment gets used to citing authors by last name. "Boyd makes claim X. Geisler says Y." and so forth.
For my first several months here, mostly because he was a published author (and because, frankly, I know a whole lot of "doc's" and it's pretty silly to refer to him by a name that fits 100 other people I correspond with) I referred to Greg as "Boyd." I still don't call him Doc, for various reasons.
I don't know if that is RD's perspective in calling you Earp, but it could hvae been a sign of respect. 
Terry "What's in a Name?" Baxter
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  John Earp Registered Member
 Date Joined Oct 2002 Total Posts : 1715 | Posted 7/23/2003 7:18 PM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
John,
Anyone in an academic environment gets used to citing authors by last name. "Boyd makes claim X. Geisler says Y." and so forth.
For my first several months here, mostly because he was a published author (and because, frankly, I know a whole lot of "doc's" and it's pretty silly to refer to him by a name that fits 100 other people I correspond with) I referred to Greg as "Boyd." I still don't call him Doc, for various reasons.
I don't know if that is RD's perspective in calling you Earp, but it could hvae been a sign of respect. 
Terry "What's in a Name?" Baxter
Okay, thanks. It is entirely possible that I was being touchy. I just am not used to people calling me "Earp." It just seems rude to me. For instance, I would never refer to Dr. Boyd directly as "Boyd." I might refer to a well-recognized writer such as Arminius or Calvin by their last name, but I in contradistinction am definitely not an "authority" on much of anything. When I was growing up in Chicago, it was common for other kids to call people by their last names when they wanted to be disrespectful. Perhaps I was reading too much into it.
In any case I suppose anyone can call me whatever they want. Never mind. But I do prefer "John."
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  Terry_Baxter Registered Member
 Date Joined Jan 2002 Total Posts : 187 | Posted 7/23/2003 8:24 PM (GMT -6) |   | Hi again Albert.
This is such a strange, ugly thread and I have a way of getting involved in them. Must be my ‘conflict avoider’ personality trying to make everyone get along! Fortunately, threads usually die out within a few posts after I jump in with some longwinded commentary, so maybe, in this case, that will be a blessing.
quote: I asserted only that Calvinists believe that God causes people to sin… I did not assert that they believe that God is morally responsible for what people do.[snip]
Fleetwood, you are deluded, open theists uphold God's all-powerfulness. In fact, I think it is you that does not really believe in God's omnipotence. You seem to think that unless God deterministically controls everybody, he can't achieve his purposes. That sounds like a weak God to me! In addition, you also believe in a God who causes the rape of small children, mass murder, and other horrors. That's the God you believe in, buddy!
As I read this, you refer to controlling everybody, then refer to rape. You of course are correct that you didn’t make a specific assertion of moral responsibility. And now we can discuss what the definition of is, is, if you would like. However, the clear implication of your original phrasing, not your after-the-fact rationalization, is that God is to blame because he deterministically controls every rapist into raping.
If I determined and controlled your actions to fit my purpose, the of course I am responsible for your actions.
You misrepresent modern Calvinists with this inadequate explanation. As I said, what you did is no different than the website you complained about. OVers don’t specifically say “God doesn’t know everything.” Most Calvinists don’t say, “God is controlling every murderer for his purposes when they kill.” To even give this impression is to offer a straw man.
quote: Now of course, Calvinists argue that secondary causation somehow absolves God of the blame. That is poppycock, and I am happy to argue that point if anyone is interested in taking it up.
…which proves my point. You a priori deny the counter argument as poppycock. Great. The CARM website denies a priori the OV argument that the future isn’t settled. So when the author claims “Open theism[is]…the teaching that God does not know all things.” HE IS CORRECT using ‘Albertian’ methodology. That is, if CARM believes that the future is already settled, then future events are THIGNS. OV denies that God knows the future, therefore, the God of OV “doesn’t know all [the] things [that traditional theology asserts he does].” If you make certain undeclared assumptions, and aren’t interested in given a description of the Other’s view that he would accede to, then you get arguments such as these.
At least the CARM author has the good grace to offer a more complete explanation of that assertion:
quote: That is, He [God] does not know the free will choices that people will make in the future because God either chooses not to know or because the future isn't knowable.
That sounds like a pretty fair (though not perfect) summary of OV to me.
Now, if you’re serious about being willing to address the secondary causes argument, maybe someone will take you up on it. I don’t have a dog in this race, but I don’t find, say, Spurgeon, Sproul or Luther to be idiots. I find their apologia rational and not to be dismissed with a hand-waving gesture of ‘poppycock’.
Calvinists are as tired of the way they are misrepresented as OV’ers are. As one blog responded to Dave Hunt: http://www.whatloveisthis.com/setting_straight.html
quote: Yes Dave you did a lot of quoting and you certainly went into overdrive when it came to quoting Calvinists regarding God being the cause of everything including sin. One would think that you had never heard the distinction made between first or primary causes verses secondary or direct causes. When the Calvinist speaks of God causing everything they are just stating the obvious. Unless God acts to create nothing happens. It is always difficult, if not impossible to describe the timeless, immutably eternal actions of God because we always need to speak in terms that are compatible with time. However it is a legitimate exercise to describe the logical order of Gods actions. If not then no discussion or statements are possible concerning this subject. Speaking logically before any creative act on His part God knows all that there is to know. God knows all the possible existences that could ever come into being. For reasons that are not revealed fully before God decided to create our universe, before he decided to create mankind, He knew that the act of His creation would make the existence of sin a certainty. He knew with certainty what Adam and Eve would do. He knew with certainty every act of every creature that would ever live. These acts were mere potentials in the mind of God up to and until He decided to act. If God would not have determined to create what we know as this world, this world including sin, would not exist. Once God acted sin moved from a potentiality to a certainty. Now what was the cause of this act that made sin a certainty? It was God, He was its primary cause. However the direct cause of the sin was the self determined acts of His created beings. Before God acted every potential self determined choice that I could make was mere potentiality.
I don’t post this because I necessarily agree with every word, but to encourage us to speak in a way that we are heard an understood by those we’re trying to convince.
I disagree that parsing your words somehow makes your representation of Calvinism more accurate or recognizable to a Calvinist.
The major difference between OV and Calvinism on this issue seems to be fairly small. Calvinism suggests that God knew specific sins that would be committed and yet still created us. OV suggests that God knew that Sins in general would very probably occur, yet still chose to create us (and still chose not to end our race but to let us go on sinning when it became clear we were really really good at sinning). I find the first God somewhat unfathomable and the second a bit too anthropomorphic and needy. Scripture seems clear that God is OTHER in a way I’ll never “get”, but I also see that He’s God WITH US in a way that astounds me.
So I can buy both explanations.
Terry “You can call me Doc Baxter” Baxter, Ph.D.
Edited by - Terry_Baxter on 07/24/2003 01:25:16 AM | | Back to Top | | |
 |  Terry_Baxter Registered Member
 Date Joined Jan 2002 Total Posts : 187 | Posted 7/24/2003 6:50 AM (GMT -6) |   | Thanks for the reply Albert.
The "Doc" part was for John's benefit (see above reply) not for credential throwing-around purposes. ("Ow! I just got hit by a drive by credential!") I'll happily call Greg "Doc Boyd" and you "Doc Albert" if you want. 
I do think the issue is worthy of more consideration than an "agree to disagree" resolution.
OV'ers claim to be misrepresented. Calvinists make the same claim. Ov'ers hate it when opponents twist their words, or don't give their full explanation for a certain position. So do Calvinists.
If we're in the mode of 'letting the readers decide', they should know how you would respond to the quote I included in my last reply. Do you agree that God created the universe? Or even that God created free will? Then you agree with the Calvinist that God "causes rape", for that seems to be all that is entailed in his notion that God created the univerise--He is the cause of everything that is.
If you're going to hold current day Calvinists responsible for every stance that every avowed Calvinist has uttered in the last several centuries, rather than responding to what they claim are their beliefs today then you of course have no problem with atheists holding you responsible for every stance uttered by avowed Christians in the past 500 years. Wouldn't it be preferable if the atheist asked what you believed and tried to respond to it? Should we hold OV Arminians responsible for every word spake by historical Arminians?
In other words, we shouldn't care a whit (in this context) for what Wesley documented about what Calvinists in his day may have said because it doesn't wash as a viable critique of your Calvinist opponents.
quote: I called the Calvinist claim that God causes sin but is not responsible poppycock, which it is. But I also gave a rational argument to that effect, which you have simply ignored. Just like you ignored my original critique of the CARM site.
You may be right in that I seem to have missed your rational argument on this thread arguing against the specific claims of Calvinists. I'd be grateful if you quoted yourself or recreated them here.
You are certainly right that I "ignored" your critique of the CARM site because I didn't post with a motive to enter that debate. You made an argument about time, sequence, and semantics. I don't find your argument compelling, but the issue isn't one I view as crucial to the debate. At any rate, I more or less agree with your worldview, if not your specifc arguments, that God experiences time and change. I disagree with any Calvinist who denies this.
Terry "Just Terry" Baxter
Too bad Lassie didn't know how to ice skate, because then if she was in Holland on vacation in winter and someone said "Lassie, go skate for help," she could do it. - Jack Handey
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 7/24/2003 8:04 AM (GMT -6) |   | www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2316
quote: Chapter 28. Concerning what is not in our hands.
Of things that are not in our hands some have their beginning or cause in those that are in our power, that is to say, the recompenses of our actions both in the present and in the age to come, but all the rest are dependent on the divine will. For the origin of all things is from God, but their destruction has been introduced by our wickedness for our punishment or benefit. For God did not create death, neither does He take delight in the destruction of living things. But death is the work rather of man, that is, its origin is in Adam’s transgression, in like manner as all other punishments. But all other things must be referred to God. For our birth is to be referred to His creative power; and our continuance to His conservative power; and our government and safety to His providential power; and the eternal enjoyment of good things by those who preserve the laws of nature in which we are formed is to be ascribed to His goodness. But since some deny the existence of Providence, let us further devote a few words to the discussion of Providence.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  PotOnWheel Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001 Total Posts : 9890 | Posted 7/24/2003 8:06 AM (GMT -6) |   | www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2316
quote: Chapter 29. Concerning Providence.
Providence, then, is the care that God takes over existing things. And again: Providence is the will of God through which all existing things receive their fitting issue. But if Providence is God’s will, according to true reasoning all things that come into being through Providence must necessarily be both most fair and most excellent, and such that they cannot be surpassed. For the same person must of necessity be creator of and provider for what exists: for it is not meet nor fitting that the creator of what exists and the provider should be separate persons. For in that case they would both assuredly be deficient, the one in creating, the other in providing. God therefore is both Creator and Provider, and His creative and preserving and providing power is simply His good-will. For whatsoever the Lord pleased that did He in heaven and in earth, and no one resisted His will. He willed that all things should be and they were. He wills the universe to be framed and it is framed, and all that He wills comes to pass.
That He provides, and that He provides excellently, one can most readily perceive thus. God alone is good and wise by nature. Since then He is good, He provides: for he who does not provide is not good. For even men and creatures without reason provide for their own offspring according to their nature, and he who does not provide is blamed. Again, since He is wise, He takes the best care over what exists.
When, therefore, we give heed to these things we ought to be filled with wonder at all the works of Providence, and praise them all, and accept them all without enquiry, even though they are in the eyes of many unjust, because the Providence of God is beyond our ken and comprehension, while our reasonings and actions and the future are revealed to His eyes alone. And by "all" I mean those that are not in our hands: for those that are in our power are outside the sphere of Providence and within that of our Free-will.
Now the works of Providence are partly according to the good-will(of God) and partly according to permission. Works of good-will include all those that are undeniably good, while works of permission are....... For Providence often permits the just man to encounter misfortune in order that he may reveal to others the virtue that lies concealed within him, as was the case with Job. At other times it allows something strange to be done in order that something great and marvelous might be accomplished through the seemingly-strange act, as when the salvation of men was brought about through the Cross. In another way it allows the pious man to suffer sore trials in order that he may not depart from a right conscience nor lapse into pride on account of the power and grace granted to him, as was the case with Paul.
One man is forsaken for a season with a view to another’s restoration, in order that others when they see his state may be taught a lesson, as in the case of Lazarus and the rich man. For it belongs to our nature to be east down when we see persons in distress. Another is deserted by Providence in order that another may be glorified, and not for his own sin or that of his parents, just as the man who was blind from his birth ministered to the glory of the Son of Man. Again another is permitted to suffer in order to stir up emulation in the breasts of others, so that others by magnifying the glory of the sufferer may resolutely welcome suffering in the hope of future glory and the desire for future blessings, as in the case of the martyrs. Another is allowed to fall at times into some act of baseness in order that another worse fault may be thus corrected, as for instance when God allows a man who takes pride in his virtue and righteousness to fall away into fornication in order that he may be brought through this fall into the perception of his own weakness and be humbled and approach and make confession to the Lord.
Moreover, it is to be observed that the choice of what is to be done is in our own hands: but the final issue depends, in the one case when our actions are good, on the cooperation of God, Who in His justice brings help according to His foreknowledge to such as choose the good with a right conscience, and, in the other case when our actions are to evil, on the desertion by God, Who again in His justice stands aloof in accordance with His foreknowledge.
Now there are two forms of desertion: for there is desertion in the matters of guidance and training, and there is complete and hopeless desertion. The former has in view the restoration and safety and glory of the sufferer, or the rousing of feelings of emulation and imitation in others, or the glory of God: but the latter is when man, after God has done all that was possible to save him, remains of his own set purpose blind and uncured, or rather incurable, and then he is handed over to utter destruction, as was Judas. May God be gracious to us, and deliver us from such desertion.
Observe further that the ways of God’s providence are many, and they cannot be explained in words nor conceived by the mind.
And remember that all the assaults of dark and evil fortune contribute to the salvation of those who receive them with thankfulness, and are assuredly ambassadors of help.
Also one must bear in mind that God’s original wish was that all should be saved and come to His Kingdom. For it was not for punishment that He formed us but to share in His goodness, inasmuch as He is a good God. But inasmuch as He is a just God, His will is that sinners should suffer punishment.
The first then is called God’s antecedent will and pleasure, and springs from Himself, while the second is called God’s consequent will and permission, and has its origin in us. And the latter is two-fold; one part dealing with matters of guidance and training, and having in view our salvation, and the other being hopeless and leading to our utter punishment, as we said above. And this is the case with actions that are not left in our hands.
But of actions that are in our hands the good ones depend on His antecedent goodwill and pleasure, while the wicked ones depend neither on His antecedent nor on His consequent will, but are a concession to free-will For that which is the result of compulsion has neither reason nor virtue in it. God makes provision for all creation and makes all creation the instrument of His help and training, yea often even the demons themselves, as for example in the cases of Job and the swine.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  Fleetwood Registered Member
 Date Joined Jul 2003 Total Posts : 110 | Posted 7/24/2003 10:53 AM (GMT -6) |   | Terry, your comments say alot about you and your character. They are perhaps the first comments by an open theist that I can appreciate. What are your thoughts re: hyper Calvinism vs. Calvinism? Personally, I see Albert speaking of hyperCalvinism and mislabeling it "Calvinism." There is a distinction between the two (hyper vs. Calvinism) and it is not uncommon for someone to describe a Calvinist's beliefs using hyperCalvinistic descriptions.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  honorman Registered Member
 Date Joined Oct 2002 Total Posts : 1137 | Posted 7/24/2003 2:10 PM (GMT -6) |   | Fleetwood: do you appreciate them because you agree with the comments or because they are true...
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  Fleetwood Registered Member
 Date Joined Jul 2003 Total Posts : 110 | Posted 7/25/2003 10:34 AM (GMT -6) |   | It's a sad day when God is reduced to ABC's (and XYZ's).
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  Terry_Baxter Registered Member
 Date Joined Jan 2002 Total Posts : 187 | Posted 7/25/2003 12:53 PM (GMT -6) |   | 1st, to Albert,
Thanks for laying that out. I think it connects the dots pretty well. Of course, Calvinists have responses to your arguments that I can reproduce here, or perhaps the Calvinists in our midsts would like to carry that banner. As I've said more than once, it isn't my fight.
My original point was that phrases such as "thh Calvinist God causes (and therefore wills people to do evil" are functionality equivalent to ones such as "the OV God doesn't know everything" that you and others called "a hatchet job." If you (and they) explain what is meant by the claim, then I have no particular problem using it.
quote: OK. With respect, I think you are making a philosophical error here. ... This is all well accepted argument in philosophy.
You would be hard pressed to find someone in the world for whom the weight of the imprimatur of philosophy has less value. "Philosophy says" arguments are roughly the equivalent of "I read somewhere that," and probably less credible than "As my dear old grandma used to say..."
Although, any such philosophical error wasn't mine, per se, but the original poster from a Calvinist website.
2nd, to Fleetwood, quote: Terry, your comments say alot about you and your character.
I dunno, but I appreciate the sentiment. They don't say that I'm pretty selfish and need to be more giving to my wife and baby. That I really struggle with Internet porn and objectifying women. That I'm far lazier, in general, than I should be with the gifts God has given me, and yet still wallow in pride at some of my accomplishments and talents.
quote: They are perhaps the first comments by an open theist that I can appreciate. What are your thoughts re: hyper Calvinism vs. Calvinism? Personally, I see Albert speaking of hyperCalvinism and mislabeling it "Calvinism."
Yes, I suspect so. I've not read much in the Calvinism camp of late, and the terminology is new to me, but it does seem this is a category error Albert and others are making. The citations Albert particularly has offered refer to centuries old (hyper)Calvinists who seem to hold an older form of Calvinism. That belief set, much like mainstream Christianity on the issue of slavery, has evolved over the years.
I'd encourage you to bring that distinction up, and to reply to Albert's latest argument by drawing on non-hyper-Calvinist resources.
Terry "man of a certain character" Baxter
Somebody told me how frightening it was how much topsoil we are losing each year, but I told that story around the campfire and nobody got scared. - Jack Handey
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  honorman Registered Member
 Date Joined Oct 2002 Total Posts : 1137 | Posted 7/25/2003 1:07 PM (GMT -6) |   | Perhaps Terry, (or Fleetwood), could explain the differences bewteen hyper-calvinism and (regular?) Calvinism. It could help the rest of us make a genuine distinction.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  Laika Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003 Total Posts : 2433 | Posted 7/26/2003 10:47 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
It's a sad day when God is reduced to ABC's (and XYZ's).
Hey, Fleetwood, He's the God of us smart people as well.
 | | Back to Top | | |
 | 106 posts in this thread. Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 | | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:34 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 |
|
|