 |
| 
a2rutled
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 22
| Posted 7/18/2003 4:06 PM (GMT -6) |   | How does Open Theism deal with the follwing problem:
I argue that it is impossible for God to truly "determine" any aspect of the future without determining all of the future. If you define God's determining any specific event as His "declaring that it must necessarily take place" or that it "cannot under any circumstances not take place" then it would seem that it is implausible to hold that God can really determine anything unless he determines everything. Why? Let's take an example. Let's say that God has determined form all eternity that I WILL eat a ham sandwhich with honey mustard dressing (mmm..) on September 4th 2004. But let us also say that he has not determined any other event to take place in my life, that as far as everything else is concerned, my future is completely open.. Now let us say, for the sake of argument, that I decide to commit suicide (of my own free will) on September 1st 2004. What are we to say of God's determining that I shall eat that sandwhich. Now someone might object from some kind of counterfactual standpoint that "if God had really determined me to eat that sandwhich, I would have" but that is completely missing the point. The point is, is that it seems as though unless God has determined either all or most of what I do everyday, he cannot really be 100% assured that I will do anything, thus he cannot determine anything. Now, maybe Open Theists would argue that when God determined that I should eat the sandwhich on September 4th 2004, he also determined that there are a whole plethora of other things I would not do, and therefore, has narrowed the range of possible choices I can "freely" make everyday. But then is this really the libertarian freedom that Open Theists so ardently hold to? It would seem not. It would lead to a strange kind of compatibilism that runs dangerously close to determinism. Suddenly there are millions and millions of choices that I "cannot" choose every day because it may or may not lead me to the determined event ahead. Ultimately, we still have a pupeteering God behind the scenes pulling the strings.
Taking my argument to the Biblical text, I wonder how this impacts the certainty of what has been written in revelation. How can God really determine that such things will happen if He is not in complete (or at least mostly) in control of the agents upon which the future is predicated? It seems to me that the open view has no choice but to measure the prophecies of Revelation in degrees of certainty and probability; percentiles that can never really be 100%. Just as God's plan for Eden failed, could not his plan for ultimate redemption be foiled as well? I'd love to hear your thoughts...
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
fencesitter
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 19
| Posted 7/18/2003 4:34 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/18/2003 5:10 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey a2rutled and fencesitter. Nice to meet you. I'm Starkman, and I've been here, oh, for about a year and three-quarters, I suppose. I was Arminian for twenty-three years before I took hold of the Open View. So, I can appreciate your struggles!
Okay, let's look at some of your post, a2 ...
quote:
The point is, is that it seems as though unless God has determined either all or most of what I do everyday, he cannot really be 100% assured that I will do anything, thus he cannot determine anything.
I've said often here that we are not as free as we think we are. Simple fact of life. We are as limited in what we can do as in what we cannot do (or some sort of ratio of the two!). However, if God determines that I'm going to go to church tonight, He's crazy: it's Friday, and there ain't no church tonight! Ha!
Really, though, when we confront the Open View as Scripture reveals it, we must quickly wrestle with our current understanding of God's omnipotence. The minute we face off with the idea that not all of the future has been determined, it is almost immediately that we think, "But ... it can't be done if God doesn't know the future exhaustively." What's really needed is a bigger concept of God's omnipotence.
You mentioned that if God wants you to eat a sandwich on a certain date that God would have to (micro) manage almost everything else in order to ensure you eat the sandwich. You really think so? The only defense you gave for believing that God must micro manage is when you said, "Now someone might object from some kind of counterfactual standpoint that "if God had really determined me to eat that sandwhich, I would have" but that is completely missing the point. The point is, is that it seems as though unless God has determined either all or most of what I do everyday, he cannot really be 100% assured that I will do anything, thus he cannot determine anything.. How does "If God had really determined me to eat the sandwich, I would have" miss the point?
Let's say God did determine that you eat the sandwich on such-and-such a date. Do you really think it too hard for God to ensure this happens and yet not completely tromp all over your will and freedom? Can not God control the future and thus ensure that part He has determined without micro managing in the manner you believe would have to be? I mean, hey, it's just eating a sandwich on such-and-such a date. If you decide to kill yourself before then, but God determined unconditionally and with no change possible that you will, in deed, eat the sandwich, then I'm sorry, dude, you ain't dying until you eat the sandwich! FOUL PLAY, you cry! Why, because your freedom is being messed with? HA! Dude, let me tell you again (say, you're not a dudette, are you? I hate it when I call someone "dude" and they're a dudette. Hold on while I check your profile ... whew! You be a dude!  .) Okay, where was I Oh yes, I remember ...
Anyway, we are simply not as free as we think we are! Remember Jonah and the rest of the gang who's lives, or portions thereof, were pretty confined to the destiny God gave them, but they had freedom to wiggle around in that destiny. No need for God to micro manage. (Well, in some sense God does micro manage. I mean, He sees all and knows all, for pete's sake, so He's always got His perfect, watchful eye on the show.)
quote:
Now, maybe Open Theists would argue that when God determined that I should eat the sandwhich on September 4th 2004, he also determined that there are a whole plethora of other things I would not do, and therefore, has narrowed the range of possible choices I can "freely" make everyday. But then is this really the libertarian freedom that Open Theists so ardently hold to? It would seem not.
If this were the case, that God prohibited certain things from you being able to do, well, as I said, we are not as free as we think we are. But realistically, how often do you think this has to happen, and how often does God do this to people? Very, very rarely. Oh, and Libertarian freedom has never meant all-out freedom--no constraints. Re-read the first chapters of Genesis, and you'll see just how limited God confines Adam's (and Eve's) freedom going out the gate.
Hey, I am seriously impressed with your thinking, considering your age, buddy! Man, stick with us and dialogue your bottom off. This is the place to do it!
Fencesitter, that post is going to get reeeeeally hard on the bottom! You won't be a fencesitter for too long
Again, nice meeting you two.
For new folks on Boyd's site!
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 7/19/2003 3:09 AM (GMT -6) | | I have been sitting on the fence of this subject for much longer than this site has existed, sit as long as you want, sore bottom and all  ; everything in God’s economy does not need to be so perfectly clear to the mind, that I cannot enjoy the prosperity, or success of thriving in Spiritual matters.
Starkmen, I have enjoyed your post on this subject recently; would you like to discuss my differing views of it with me, right here-right now, guy man type dude  .
From out here in left field, my Father looks masculine. - Me | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 7/19/2003 3:59 AM (GMT -6) | | That is,
I believe principles, with respect to fundamentals, guides all of my decision-making; are you prepared to accept this proposition in principle as a comprehensive law, or just my assumption?
I am trying to relate to the essential structure, which I believe are principles, serving as the original or generating source of all decision-making; what do you believe, if differing with me, serves as the basis of supporting the existence or determines the essential structure or function of decision-making?
Does the idea of principles guiding decision-making, cover completely or broadly enough for the point I want to eventually make of this discussion, to continue beyond such; comprehending the stated limits or extremes as you have proposed, that is, God’s over-riding power of human endeavor, etc., that number one.
1) Principles guide our decision-making
You have been here long enough to know that I am trying set you up, don’t you . . .  don’t worry; I will try carefully not to knock you down.
From out here in left field, my Father looks masculine. - Me | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/19/2003 6:00 AM (GMT -6) | | Tim dude!
I'm neither philosopher nor academic (I quite reading the Counterfactuals thread, because I can't keep up with it), so whatever you mean by making all your decisions by "principle" is vague to me in its meaning. If, however, you disagree with the Open View, by all means, state your business, my good man, and we shall discourse. Otherwise, I'm lost!
For ... well, okay: Principles!
Starkman
Edited by - Starkman on 07/19/2003 3:39:46 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Chris Grant
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 151
| Posted 7/19/2003 6:22 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I've said often here that we are not as free as we think we are.
Would you say this point of view is typical of Open Theists?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/19/2003 10:42 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Chris,
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've said often here that we are not as free as we think we are.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would you say this point of view is typical of Open Theists?
Oh, I can't say that it's a mantra of Open Theism. It's just a fact of living, that's all. I simply try to reinforce it in my dialogues regarding man's free will.
Say, have we met? Starkman here. Nice to meet you!
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
a2rutled
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 22
| Posted 7/19/2003 1:45 PM (GMT -6) | | "Let's say God did determine that you eat the sandwich on such-and-such a date. Do you really think it too hard for God to ensure this happens and yet not completely tromp all over your will and freedom? Can not God control the future and thus ensure that part He has determined without micro managing in the manner you believe would have to be?"
No, I do not think this is possible, and I think that you also agree.
"(Well, in some sense God does micro manage. I mean, He sees all and knows all, for pete's sake, so He's always got His perfect, watchful eye on the show.)"
But if God is so good at omnipotently micromanaging, while simultaneously preserving human choice (i.e. the ability to chose otherwise), how then did the fall happen? I feel that the typical Open Theist answer will be "because, although it was highly improbable that they would fall, nevertheless, it was ultimately in the hands of the creatures." But, for the sake of consistency, it would seem that this would render eschatology merely probable as well. Sure, it might be 99.9999% secure, but can it ever really 100% in the Open View? And if God assuring something as large-scale as the end times prophecies, why couldn't he have prevented the fall (certainly he would have if he could have, right?) The question I am posing is this: if open theists wish to paint a consistent picture of God, do they not have to affirm that the events depicted in Revelation might not take place? Anticipating your thoughts...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/19/2003 4:44 PM (GMT -6) | | I can resonate with the sense that I think Tim feels.
quote:
I have been sitting on the fence of this subject for much longer than this site has existed, sit as long as you want, sore bottom and all ; everything in God’s economy does not need to be so perfectly clear to the mind, that I cannot enjoy the prosperity, or success of thriving in Spiritual matters.
But I think that his attempt at not 'overclarifying' has some veseges of 'clarity' still the same.
quote:
I believe principles, with respect to fundamentals ... the essential structure ... principles, serving as the original or generating source ... supporting the existence or determines the essential structure or function ...
The trick is to be vague enough in details, yet bold enough in effect.
I may be lost in what Tim is working out in his head. But I wonder whether he si saying that God is in control, and also has fit two things into creation: (1) room for things to grow in their own right as they are intended to be (like a good gardener leaves tilled soil around a plant for it to expand), and a "natural" place for the Creator within (and around and throughout) everything, so that God's acts of ALL kinds "fit" with respect to anything worried about here, and produce proper 'awe' in what the Personal God (Narnia's Aslan is "'good,' but not 'safe.').
Such a description of God is DOXOLOGICAL, and not analytical.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 7/20/2003 2:21 AM (GMT -6) | | I was hoping you would join the discussion PotOnWheel , thanks for showing up. Your getting more use to the madness  of the method, I use to explain myself  , I have noticed it before now, but thought I might comment  .
From out here in left field, my Father looks masculine. - Me | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 7/20/2003 2:42 AM (GMT -6) | | Principles in the general sense, are the cause, source or origin of any thing, Starkman, that from which a thing proceeds (All of us pay close attention to that, don’t we). That which produces any thing is the operative’ cause, that ‘God’ is always first, and that ‘Man’ is second, is where the struggle for many begins. That the idea of God first creating the soul of man second, as an active principle, should end some of the struggle with reality, but many never get pass it.
From out here in left field, my Father looks masculine. - Me | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 7/20/2003 2:52 AM (GMT -6) | | I was hoping you would join the discussion PotOnWheel , thanks for showing up. Your getting more use to the madness of the method, I use to explain myself , I have noticed it before now, but thought I might comment .
From out here in left field, my Father looks masculine. - Me | | Back to Top | | |
|
0CT0R0K
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 50
| Posted 7/20/2003 5:37 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
HA! Dude, let me tell you again (say, you're not a dudette, are you? I hate it when I call someone "dude" and they're a dudette. Hold on while I check your profile ... whew! You be a dude! .) Okay, where was I Oh yes, I remember ...
hahaha
 0CT0R0K | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 7/20/2003 10:25 AM (GMT -6) | | Starkman said: "Let's say God did determine that you eat the sandwich on such-and-such a date. Do you really think it too hard for God to ensure this happens and yet not completely tromp all over your will and freedom? Can not God control the future and thus ensure that part He has determined without micro managing in the manner you believe would have to be?"
Apparently it WAS too hard for GOd to do, or else the fall would not have occurred, then. He could have allowed complete freedom while at the same time determining that no evil would occur. The classic freewill answer to the problem of evil is that evil is a necessary result of the freedom to choose that God allows. Even though we don't understand it, God valued human choice so much that he has to permit the results of some of those choices or else we would be "robots"- as the saying goes. If God COULD have preserved freedom without evil, he most certainly would have, right?
"Micro managing" is such a pejorative word here. You could just as easily say "divinely orchestrating" or something like that. Regardless, think about things in our everyday life. Think about 9/11, and how many people who by rights would have been in the twin towers working, just happened to be late for one reason or another, and thus avoided death. It could have been as simple as leaving the house 5 minutes late because you couldn't find your keys. Now that , in and of itself, seems like an inconsequential event. But actually, it's the event that caused you to be late, and thus caused you to be saved from death.
If you thank God for that, or thank God for anytime you have a "Close call"- then in essence you're agreeing that God stepped in and did something to save you. You hear people say that all the time - God must have not been through with me yet, God still wanted me here for a purpose, etc. If you deny that GOd controls those events which saved you, then you logically can't give thanks to God for them.
On the other hand, I know the argument, then, that those people who DID die were NOT saved by God, and why? Who knows? It is just one of those things in God's sovereign will, when your number is up, it's up.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 7/20/2003 1:36 PM (GMT -6) | | Welcome to the site A2rutled.
As Starkman and others have pointed out, all freedom is limited. And YES, our detractors not withstanding, this IS the "typical" open view. Most of reality, including our self-identity, WE DID NOT CHOOSE. But, far from being an argument AGAINST libertarian freedom, our RESTRICTIONS are the only thing that makes libertarian freedom. Unless 99.9% of reality was outside the parameters of my decision making, I could not make a decision about ANYTHING.
Now, for God to predestine that you eat a ham sandwich at a certain time, clearly there are a number of things that would have to be ensured (e.g. you could not be free to commit suicide before this date ). But this is no more an assault on your libertarian freedom then is (say) the fact that you are not free to be born a different gender than you were -- as well as a million other genetic facts about you). Still, granting this amount of determination, there's no reason to suppose that EVERYTHING about you -- let alone everything about creation -- would have to presettled to ensure you eat a ham sandwich on a certain date.
The chess master may announce to the novice -- "I shall check mate you in not more 12 moves." THAT you shall be check mated is certain. HOW you will be checkmated is UP TO YOU, for there are 12 different ways of getting there.
THAT you will eat a ham sandwich is certain. But there are a million different ways the infinite intelligent chess master can get to this point. You choose the path.
Keep thinking my friend!!! Good question
Greg
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
a2rutled
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 22
| Posted 7/21/2003 4:50 AM (GMT -6) | | "The chess master may announce to the novice -- "I shall check mate you in not more 12 moves." THAT you shall be check mated is certain."
Would this really be "certain" though? Wouldn't there always be a slight possiblity that the vastly inferior chess novice may, even by accident, foil the plan of the chess master? I realize that this is an enormously small possibility, but a possibility none-the-less, right? Would it be the same in the case of God? My point is, shouldn't Open Theists (for the sake of philosophical coherence) give up the conviction that God can really assure anything with 100% certainty?
"THAT you will eat a ham sandwich is certain. But there are a million different ways the infinite intelligent chess master can get to this point. You choose the path."
I feel that the main issue is getting sidestepped. Let me explain why: basically, it seems that in the chess board analogy I have 12 ways to "choose" my destiny. But this is misleading because I'm really not choosing my destiny at all, it has already been chosen for me. So it seems in the ultimate sense, when it really comes down to it, I don't *really* have a choice
One last observation; it might be argued that my first thought is irrelevant because God is an *infinitely* intelligent chess player and so His purpose is certain. In this line of reasoning surely there is no way He could really be beaten. Yet, if God truly is an *infinitely* intelligent chess master then why can He not assure the end result that all shall be saved? It seems that if He were infinitely intelligent, this would not be beyond his capabilities.
Thanks for listening...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Chris Grant
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 151
| Posted 7/21/2003 5:35 AM (GMT -6) | | Greg Boyd writes:
quote:
. . . all freedom is limited. And YES, our detractors not withstanding, this IS the "typical" open view.
Which detractors of Open Theism have asserted that most Open Theists believe that freedom is unlimited? Note that the assertion of Starkman's that I asked about was that "we are not as free as we think we are". The statements (1) Our freedom is limited and (2) We are not as free as we think we are aren't equivalent, are they?
BTW, does the antecedent of the second "we" in Statement (2) include those who make Statement (2)?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/21/2003 3:13 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Greg Boyd writes:
quote:
. . . all freedom is limited. And YES, our detractors not withstanding, this IS the "typical" open view.
Which detractors of Open Theism have asserted that most Open Theists believe that freedom is unlimited? Note that the assertion of Starkman's that I asked about was that "we are not as free as we think we are". The statements (1) Our freedom is limited and (2) We are not as free as we think we are aren't equivalent, are they?
BTW, does the antecedent of the second "we" in Statement (2) include those who make Statement (2)?
I could be wrong, but I think the stumbling block is perhaps the term, libertarian free will. "Libertarian" can sound as if it means "free to do anything," or "free to do what you want." In fact, "free to do what you want" is precisely the definition of free will given by Jonathan Edwards and those who agree with him on this. A more patently false definition of free will there never could be. No one is "free to do what you want" at all times and in all cases. And of course, the Calvinist comes in with, "but your desires (wants) are determined by God."
(I personally am not happy with the term, "libertarian" either, though I do understand what OVers and Arminians mean by it). Anyone who has seriously and thoroughly considered the issue from Scripture, Reason, & Experience has to concede that our power of choice is indeed VERY limited. Were it not for the prevenient (anticipatory) grace of God, we could not even choose to believe the gospel.
"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 | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/21/2003 3:25 PM (GMT -6) | | John: And of course, the Calvinist comes in with, "but your desires (wants) are determined by God."
PoW: john, where does it say that. (I hate strawmen!)
Calvin pictured God as Wooing mankind, as creatively as He can--creativity owning to our own stubornness and fidgetiness.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/21/2003 3:27 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
John: And of course, the Calvinist comes in with, "but your desires (wants) are determined by God."
PoW: john, where does it say that. (I hate strawmen!)
This is Edwards' definition of free will. Edwards was and is the most influential Calvinist/Reformed theologian in American history.
"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 | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/21/2003 3:53 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
John
This is Edwards' definition of free will. Edwards was and is the most influential Calvinist/Reformed theologian in American history.
Thanks for answering my question, John
Now HERE is some REAL Calvin (the man who's devotions and piety was overawed by God's glory).
www.ccel.org/c/calvin/
quote:
Works by John Calvin
Calvin: Commentaries. Newly translated and edited by Joseph Haroutunian
On the Christian Life
Institutes of the Christian Religion (Author)
Of Prayer
Homiliae in Primum Librum Samuelis
Language: Latin
Three Volumes of Sermons
Language: French
Commentaries
Commentary on Genesis - Volume 1
Commentary on Genesis - Volume 2
Harmony of the Law - Volume 1
Harmony of the Law - Volume 2
Harmony of the Law - Volume 3
Harmony of the Law - Volume 4
Commentary on Joshua
Commentary on Psalms - Volume 2
Commentary on Psalms - Volume 1
Commentary on Psalms - Volume 3
Commentary on Psalms - Volume 4
Commentary on Psalms - Volume 5
Commentary on Isaiah - Volume 1
Commentary on Isaiah - Volume 2
Commentary on Isaiah - Volume 3
Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah - Volume 4
Commentary on Jeremiah and Lamentations - Volume 1
Commentary on Jeremiah and Lamentations - Volume 2
Commentary on Jeremiah and Lamentations - Volume 3
Commentary on Jeremiah and Lamentations - Volume 4
Commentary on Jeremiah and Lamentations - Volume 5
Commentary on Ezekiel - Volume 1
Commentary on Ezekiel - Volume 2
Commentary on Daniel - Volume 1
Commentary on Daniel - Volume 2
Commentary on Hosea
Commentary on Joel, Amos, Obadiah
Commentary on Jonah, Micah, Nahum
Commentary on Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai
Commentary on Zechariah, Malachi
Commentary on Matthew, Mark, Luke - Volume 1
Commentary on Matthew, Mark, Luke - Volume 2
Commentary on Matthew, Mark, Luke - Volume 3
Commentary on John - Volume 1
Commentary on John - Volume 2
Commentary on Acts - Volume 1
Commentary on Acts - Volume 2
Commentary on Romans
Commentary on Corinthians - Volume 1
Commentary on Corinthians - Volume 2
Commentary on Galatians and Ephesians
Commentary on Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians
Commentary on Timothy, Titus, Philemon
Commentary on Hebrews
Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/21/2003 4:12 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi PoW,
So if I wrote a gazillion commentaries and works of theology, and then had a vocal critic of mine burned at the stake, I guess I would be a "great theologian" and "doctor of the Church" as well.
Edited by - John Earp on 07/21/2003 9:14:40 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/21/2003 4:33 PM (GMT -6) | | John this is a real person you are talking about. You don't have the historical prowess to know about the geopolitics and culture of the time. And I am NO amused by your FLIP backhand just now. Even recently on this board enough was gathered by several persons to make absolutely clear that the matter with S. was not simple. You CANNOT comment on all of the years of Calvin's ministry, his family, friends, piety and devotions, and professional work. That is beyond you. Please don't involve me in your mud-slinging.
My intent was to offer something that was not so calcified as Edwards. Even Arminus was a Calvinist. Dordtrecht happened two generations after Calvin.
You may or may not like the idea of reading John Calvin's words. If not, act polite. I just offered -- that's all.
Regards, and expecting courteous consideration...
PoW
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 07/21/2003 9:34:17 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/21/2003 4:59 PM (GMT -6) | | So, Servetus wasn't a real person?
Yes, I find Calvin's theology morally repulsive.
Yes, I find what he did with Servetus repulsive.
Well, at least he was consistent.
No, I do not think that he should be "let off the hook" about this as you seem to imply.
Jesus said love your enemies. You and Calvin somehow get a pass on that one.
The fact that Calvin was in political power only UNDERSCORES the magnitude of his abuse of power! Saying "the times that he lived in" excuses him from following JESUS' PLAIN COMMANDS is what is really amazing to hear.
Please don't quote Calvin to me, PoW. I will respond this same way every time I hear that murderous tyrant's name mentioned as an "authority" that I should look up to.
And you never answered me before, but can we assume that YOU think burning heretics at the stake (like me) is righteous?
Edited by - John Earp on 07/21/2003 10:03:02 PM | | Back to Top | | |
| 87 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:00 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 |
|
|