 |
| 
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/29/2002 12:23 PM (GMT -6) |   | Tom: "Is this supposed to mean discussion of theological determinism is off limits?"
THERE, was that so hard? "Theological determinism." Call it "theological determinism"; but don't call it Calvinism. That is something else.
Also, careful how you lump Aquinas (earlier posts) with Calvin. Reformed theologians and philosophers see huge differences, that matter.
Tom: I really don’t see that Calvin’s beliefs about Communion are germane. ... He recognized mystery in the eucharist.
It was by way of analogy, in something that dramatizes it to me. It is a deeply heartfelt instance, for Calvin, of where he was very glad to depart from academic theology to pursue the revealed and experienced truth. THAT's the point.
Tom: Why am I in danger of being cemented into Scholasticism’s death grip for picking up Calvin’s claims regarding these issues and examining them, or disagreeing with them?
Challenge and defeat him in these!!!
But that is also his background, against which he did his reforming!
So, repeat after me: "T-h-e-o-l-o-g-i-c-a-l d-e-t-e-r-m-i-n-i-s-m."
Tom: Balden Lane could be right in pointing out that Calvin’s every step was not determined by an overarching system. So what’s the point?
The point is the kind of thing that Icon said about those three Reformed Calvinist folks. Don't you see how MUCH of a strawman, or tin man this is for you OV folks??? These people couldn't be allowed to live with their own generations-old subtleties without being straightjacketed as that everything had to be, as you say, determined. How many times have I heard the phrase from OV people "consistent Calvinist." THAT turns Calvin, Calvinism, Calvinists, etc. into adademically "determined" figures -- which I call a Strawman.
Tom, to understand me here (I'm done when you are, gladly.) think of vectors or of derivatives in math. Its the change of direction and power of it that impress me here. Seems to me, IMHO, that maybe Calvin reformed lots of things. I just want to give him credit for that.
 | | Back to Top | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/29/2002 1:29 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom, please pardon the use of these words of yours. doing so is not meant to be at your expence. Truly.
quote:
I really don’t see that Calvin’s beliefs about Communion are germane. I’m sorry, but big deal. He recognized mystery in the eucharist. Again, so what? We’re not talking about Communion.
If I were truly Orthodox the first thing, perhaps, that you would get from me is the observation that the Eucharist is pretty much THE THING by which everything else is judged.
Also, for the time being, I am interested in applying a "Lex Orandi Lex Credendi" approach applied to Calvinism, particularly to Calvin and to the Reformeed tradition. "Lex Orandi Lex Credendi" is a common, classic Orthodox phrase that signifies that the rule of prayer/worship is the rule of faith. THAT pretty much rules out building faith out of theory. Speculative theology -- very popular amoung young Evangelicals -- is out.
Quote: "We’re not talking about Communion."
Talking about communion is everything. Communion holds the mystery of the Incarnation. It hold the eschatological mystery. Ecclessiology. Soteriology. (Not to chop the Faith up like we have.)
This legacy of trying to turn everything into a science, first with Scholasticism and then with the Enlightenment... Where Calvinism is Faith it will escape all that. Where the rule of prayer and worship, the doxilogical movement that that author remarked about being the true core of Calvin's Insitutues; there is faith. Where it isn't... then do some careful unwrapping.
Keep the fish and throw out the newspaper.
Lex Orandi!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Winghead
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 132
| Posted 8/29/2002 5:49 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom:quote:
Sanders is factually (I know Al doesn’t like that word  ) correct in pointing out the Calvin believed God’s knowledge of all things was unconditioned by the events themselves. God didn’t “get” his knowledge from the future. The future got its content from God.
...
What do you think the implications are for the belief that God knows eternally all that shall happen because God alone decides all that will happen?
To me, it weakens some people's case against the OV. For one, both views appear to be saying that God's knowledge of the future is based on what He does. The difference is how much they they think He determines. However, if they claim that God knows the future as in simple foreknowledge, then what's to say the Arminian position isn't correct?
I went to a talk recently on the OV, given by an opponent who associates himself with the Reformed tradition. It was interesting that he attempted to distance himself from "Classical Theism" in favor of "Biblical Theism." What is happening here? Could the OV be causing little correctives in people's thinking? 
Francis Schaeffer said that people often live their lives somewhere betweent he truth and the logical conclusion of their world view. Christians are not exempt from this.
quote:
Winghead: The OV affirms that the future is partially open and partially settled. There is nothing in the OV that prevents God from acting into our lives -- in fact, that is part of what the openness is all about.
Tom: Depends on what you mean by “acting into our lives.” Certainly nothing prevents God from “calling” people to the mission field. But whether or not people say “yes” to those callings is not something God can control. Not because he’s incapable of exercising such control, but because he sovereignly decided when he created this world not to exercise such control. The limitation is self-imposed.
Why be so tentative, Tom? While we can say "no" to God -- Jonah did  -- sometimes, like in Jonah's case, God still gets His way  . My example of Hudson Taylor is still a good example. He was more that a guy with a calling who happened to say "yes" to God. If you read about the man, you see that he was made for China. The burden for China ran to the core of his being.
I have noticed that sometimes when God calls us to something, or wants us to encourage us in a certain direction, he gives us a "burden" for that thing. Now, admittedly, we can have "burdens" and "passions" for things that have nothing to do with God. However, there is a thing God does to us, sometimes when he forms us in our mother's wombs, that makes us who we are.
"...for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure." Phil. 2:13 (NRSVA)
The proponents of the OV should not be afraid of this. In fact, the OV requires it. The distinction is that the OV does not try to extrapolate this to every detail of our lives.
quote:
Regarding your note about God’s breaking into the world, I really don’t see where the OV fails to recognize God’s providence. For sure, the debate has meant open theists have emphasized God’s self-limitations and libertarian free will more than might otherwise be the case because that’s what’s on trial, but I don’t think, say, Doc or Sanders have ignored the motif of settledness and unilateral control. It’s there.
Agreed.
YBIC,
Winghead
"...you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength.’ The second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ No other commandment is greater than these.”
Mark 12:30-31 (NLT)
Edited by - Winghead on 08/29/2002 11:03:48 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/29/2002 10:58 PM (GMT -6) | | Al: Call it "theological determinism"; but don't call it Calvinism. That is something else.
Tom: Riiiiight. This seems like hair-splitting to me Al, but I respect your sensitivities along these lines and will try to choose my words better. Though I don’t know of a “Calvinist” who is NOT also a theological determinist/compatibilist, or of a theological determinist/compatibilist who is not at this point a “Calvinist” in his theology (regardless of other points of disagreement with Calvin), I will try to recognize the difference when discussing it with you. I can’t promise I’ll always do this successfully (since I think it’s pointless), but I’ll try!
Tom: Why am I in danger of being cemented into Scholasticism’s death grip for picking up Calvin’s claims regarding these issues and examining them, or disagreeing with them?
Al: Challenge and defeat him in these!!!
Tom: Besides this not being an answer to my question, defeating Calvin on these points was what I WAS doing before you took us on a side tour of the virtues of Calvin and the centrality of the Eucharist as the interpretive key to all the Bible. Now I’m too tired to continue and there’s no time left before my weekend break from the site! Arrrghh!  I’ll have to fight another day. Maybe I’m just throwing up more straw!
Winghead: For one, both views appear to be saying that God's knowledge of the future is based on what He does. The difference is how much they think He determines. However, if they claim that God knows the future as in simple foreknowledge, then what's to say the Arminian position isn't correct?
Tom: Based not on what God does but on what God unconditionally wills to do. They are also different, as you say, in how much they think God wills to do things “this” way. They are also different in understanding “when” God knows what he knows. Determinists would claim God knows it all eternally (and exhaustively, and unconditionally). OVers agree that God unilaterally determined some thing prior to creation, but also that God unilaterally determines other of his actions later, in response to us, as possibilities (eternally foreknown) give way to actualities. For example, God foreknew as certain Israel would go into exile. Eternally? I don’t think so. History could have worked out differently. But it became certain in God’s mind as Israel become more solidified in their rebellion and apostasy. They ignored the warning signs and passed up chance after chance to avoid disaster. Ultimately the river narrowed, the current picked up pace, and there were no more exits. They pass the point of no return and God determined to send them over the edge of the falls. God foreknew this was certain, but not eternally. It’s this sort of foreknowledge of certainties that determinists deny is possible because it is conditioned on factors outside of God.
Arminian simple-foreknowledge. Hmmm. Think it through Winghead. What needs to be true for simple-foreknowledge to be true? It seems to require a) God’s atemporal existence, b) the B-theory of time, c) the rejection of libertarian free will, and lastly, it appears to require that we recognize that d) it provides no providential advantage whatsoever. If simple-foreknowledge fails to overcome any one of a, b, or c (just ONE) it can’t be true. If it succeeds in proving these three wrong, “d” still remains true (unless you can disprove the argument for “d” that I summarized above). So, at the very best, if simple-foreknowledge IS true, it explains nothing, nada, zilch, zippo. God cannot make use of what is simply-foreknown to prevent evil, bring about what he wills, prophesy the future, or guide and warn people. It sheds no light on the reciprocal nature of our relationship to God. Whatever the reciprocal nature of God’s acts and ours might be in the foreknowledge of God (and I admit to not understanding it all myself), the simple-foreknowledge theory does n-o-t-h-i-n-g to explain it. (David Hunt and David Basinger went round and round on this in a couple of articles in, eh, what’s that journal? Can’t recall off hand. If you have Basinger’s Free Will Theism: A Philosophical Assessment check out the appendix. Basinger examines Hunt’s attempt to defend the usefulness of simple-foreknowledge.)
Of course, if you concede from the start that self-contradictory claims (square circles and married bachelors) can rightfully be attributed to God, then don’t bother examining a, b, c, or d. Just believe what you want. What’s it matter if you affirm theological square circles, right? But you’ll have to live with the fact that this belief will never “meaningfully” explain anything to you. Since simple-foreknowledge cannot meaningfully be understood by us as being of practical value to God, believing that God possesses such knowledge can be of no practical value to us. But if you insist that logical coherence is required for any meaningful embracing or sharing of beliefs, then take a look at a, b, and c.
I’m weakest on a. I don’t think God is atemporal, but I could be convinced that God was timeless prior to creation. Bill Craig argues that temporality and timelessness are both contingent attributes of God and that God is (or rather was?) timeless in the absence of creation, but now temporal (and will forever remain temporal). Like the incarnation itself, creation brought about an irreversible change in (to, or for) God. God will never be atemporal again. Still, even IF Craig is right, I don’t see how it opens the door to simple-foreknowledge. On the one his argument against the possibility of an actual infinite makes sense (which would suggest God was timeless before creation), but on the other hand atemporal personhood (which Craig affirms prior to creation) makes no sense either. I don’t know how to adjudicate between these two. Craig has to reduce God’s personhood prior to creation to being “potentially personal.” He admits as much. God was not “maximally personal” prior to creation. I think this implies finiteness (of personhood) in God and makes God ontologically dependent on the world; not that God can’t exist without the world (like process thought) but that God can’t be maximally personal without the world. Do we want to say this? Craig does recognize that there are those who argue that the Trinity provides the community which accounts for eternally maximal personhood, eternally loving give-and-take, but he drops the ball I think. He doesn’t follow through on the implications of this.
I’m no scientist, but the B-theory of time doesn’t appear to me to have anything over the A-theory. All I can do is read both sides, try to make sense of the scientific arguments, and decide. I’m admittedly handicapped here.
But “c” seems pretty solid to me. If simple-foreknowledge is true, I find it impossible to continue believing that we determine our own choices. The last point, “d,” is indisputable in my view, which doesn’t mean simple foreknowledge is false. It only means it’s a useless doctrine.
Winghead: Why be so tentative, Tom? While we can say "no" to God -- Jonah did -- sometimes, like in Jonah's case, God still gets His way .
Tom: Sometimes, yes. But in Jonah’s case God got his way because Jonah chose to change his “no” to a “yes.” It could have turned out differently. Jonah could have persisted in saying “no” to God. God may then have had to try to find somebody else to go to Nineveh. Who knows? Maybe God did try to find others? Maybe Jonah was the third, fourth, or fiftieth attempt. God might have not found anybody to go and consequently wiped Nineveh off the map. God already tells us such things happen (Ezek. 22, God looked for an intercessory, found none, and judged the nation).
NOTE: Now be careful, Winghead. I’m arguing all of this as a son of the Enlightenment, a straw-burning, dehumanizing, abstracting Scholastic zombie out to eradicate every artistic inclination in theology and rid the world of all mystery.
Tom
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/30/2002 1:50 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
NOTE: Now be careful, Winghead. I’m arguing all of this as a son of the Enlightenment, a straw-burning, dehumanizing, abstracting Scholastic zombie out to eradicate every artistic inclination in theology and rid the world of all mystery.
...
I will try to recognize the difference when discussing it with you. I can’t promise I’ll always do this successfully (since I think it’s pointless)
Tom, you missed the point.. And now you got ugly.
The point has been, several times said, that it is the WITNESS of REAL PEOPLE, and not mere systems that is vital and at stake. Strawmen don't threaden systems, they threaten real people and realationships, and the community of the Spirit. The point you should mull over is how "Calvinists" carry something to the picknic that perhaps you could use on your plate. (NOT in your system.) Their is a doxological treasure that they have accumulated. And Calvin did too. (Any true "Calvinism" must include that, and not be wittled down to a mere "system.")
Perhaps you are so burned out that none of this registers!
Have a good vacation.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/30/2002 3:26 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Tom, you missed the point.. And now you got ugly.
Didn't mean to be ugly.quote:
The point has been, several times said, that it is the WITNESS of REAL PEOPLE, and not mere systems that is vital and at stake.
And my point has been that there exist REAL PEOPLE who WITNESS to the belief that God eternally, exhaustively, and unconditionally determines every detail of our lives. And as far as I know every person who believes this also has no problem calling themselves a Calvinist. If there are exceptions, they're exceptions. Yes, they worship God. Yes, they lose themselves in wonderful doxology. So do I. And we'd like now to discuss their belief in such an all-determining decree. Why can we not proceed with this, Al?quote:
Perhaps you are so burned out that none of this registers!
I'm not too burnt out. It registers. I just disagree.
Tom
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde
Edited by - TGB on 08/30/2002 08:28:07 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/30/2002 5:11 AM (GMT -6) | | Winghead-
I said: “It seems to require a) God’s atemporal existence, b) the B-theory of time, c) the rejection of libertarian free will, and lastly, it appears to require that we recognize that d) it provides no providential advantage whatsoever. If simple-foreknowledge fails to overcome any one of a, b, or c (just ONE) it can’t be true. If it succeeds in proving these three wrong, “d” still remains true (unless you can disprove the argument for “d” that I summarized above).”
I didn’t word this too well did I? Actually, if either a or b are shown to be false then simple-foreknowledge falters. As regards c, it is because SF involves the loss of self-determining free will that SF cannot be true (that is, of course, if you are unwilling to let go of libertarian free will). Just wanted to be more accurate.
Al-
I love you in Jesus. We disagree, and probably are still talking past each other. I don’t know. I don’t agree that in directing my arguments against theological determinism to “Calvinists” as opposed to “theological determinists” I am thereby erecting a straw man. I don’t know of any Calvinists who do not affirm theological determinism and compatibilism, and this is why I think insisting that I not call people who affirm these doctrines “Calvinists” is hair-splitting. I don’t mean to offend. I honestly thought I posted a couple of smiley faces and a wink in my parting warning to Winghead about my being a Scholastic zombie. Here they are:
AL: The point you should mull over is how "Calvinists" carry something to the picknic that perhaps you could use on your plate.
No mulling needed. I enjoy a great many things that have come to me by way of Calvinists. I’ve said this again and again. Never denied it. I do deny that directing my arguments against determinists to “Calvinists” means denying that I enjoy any of what Calvinists bring to the picnic.
Tom
"Every saint has a history and every sinner a future." Oscar Wilde
Edited by - TGB on 08/30/2002 10:15:20 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/30/2002 12:30 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
the WITNESS of REAL PEOPLE, and not mere systems that is vital and at stake.
------------------------------------------------
And my point has been that there exist REAL PEOPLE who WITNESS
I know you were aware of the change you made in word order. you ALSO changed the MEANING.
In "the WITNESS of REAL PEOPLE" it is the living Tradition of the Church incarnate in Reformed Christians that I am refering to. And that is a Noun. When you said "REAL PEOPLE who WITNESS" you used the Verb: "witness." True Christians can witness to things that are untrue; and THAT does happen some with Calvinists, Catholics, Pentacostals, Orthodox, etc. BUT, I was refering to the TRUTH that those people witneess to (verb) in their WITNESS (noun).
And THAT is a subtlety that we never catch on easily in each other's lives, but have to look for prayerfully.
TOM, I GIVE YOU CREDIT FOR EVERYTHING YOU SAID IN THE POSTS ABOVE AND ON THE OTHER THREADS.
This, however, is what I'm ralleying on about. It is when, as you just posted about, "we'd like now to discuss their belief in such an all-determining decree. Why can we not proceed with this" it is THEN that, in some things you've said, and in what Icon wrote, that you begin forcing your steriotype on the "witnesses." When both you and Icon say that they can't mean what they say, or that they are being inconsistant, it is THERE that there is a cultural gap.
Here is another "witness" to a "WITNESS" as witness. ('Orange you glad I didn't say "straw!"')
NOTE THE BOLD. My point is only the subtlties, and the "witness." (Noun)
quote:
From “Finding God’s Will”, by Bill Sytsma, THE BANNER, Sept 2002 ( pp.34-35)
. . . .
SPIRITUAL INSIGHT
. . . .
More commonly I hear of people praying and receiving a sense of peace about their decision—which should not be too quickly dismissed as mere intuition. God can lead us in that way.
Part of the trouble we run into is that often we believe there is only one way for us to follow God. Many people fear that God is standing over them with whip in hand, ready to punish the slightest miscalculation. My heart goes out to people who are paralyzed by fear because they have not sensed a clear sign from God in the face of a difficult decision. When you face a time like that, consider the possibility that God may be allowing you a number of different choices that are all within his will. God can use you whether you are a doctor or a farmer or a mechanic, whether you are married or single, whether you live in Alabama or Alaska, British Columbia or New Brunswick.
I believe the teaching of predestination. I believe that God has my life in his hands and that, at the final judgment, my final destination—eternity in God's presence—will be made a reality. This destination is possible because of what God has done for me. But even though God has determined my final destination, I do not believe that God has pre-ordained every decision that I will ever make. God leaves room for choices.
We are called to come to God in prayer, asking for God's guidance as we make decisions. And those decisions may be less important than the process of seeking God's guidance. God might be pleased if you decide to become a cosmetologist or a police officer, as long as you are approaching him in prayer.
God does not call us to a mere job. He calls us to a relationship with him. If we reduce God's call to a career choice or a decision-making formula, we might miss the wonderfully comforting sense of God's presence.
WISE COUNSEL
The third light in our decision-making process is found in turning to others from the Christian community. If you are struggling with a decision, find wise people to talk with about your decision. It could be a family member, a small group, a pastor, or someone you respect in your church. Find someone you believe could offer valuable insights, and ask that person for feedback. You might even find that the process of talking out loud makes your choices much clearer.
Our pride may keep us from asking others for help. We want to feel that we are competent to make our own decisions. But wise people realize their limits and turn to others for assistance when necessary. God has given us a community of believers, the church. And God often speaks to his people through others in the community. We need to lean on each other and seek God's wisdom through those we respect.
Do you feel uncertain about a decision you are facing? Maybe it's time to speak to the Captain. God gives us many lights that point to his will. And we can be assured that God hears our prayers and answers them in mysteriously wonderful ways. As we sincerely search for God's will, we can be confident that our Captain knows the way, and he will lead us safely home.
I DIFFER A BIT WITH THIS GUY ON PREDESTINATION. I READ PAUL'S PASSAGE MUCH MORE LIKE AN ORTHODOX THAN A REFORMED. BUT -- TOM! -- I CAN VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THAT WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF AUGUSTINIAN TRADITION THE THOUGHT AND FAITH BEING THOUGH AND BELEIVED IN THE QUOTE ABOVE IS THAT "He calls us to a relationship with him" AND "I believe that God has my life in his hands and that, at the final judgment, my final destination—eternity in God's presence—will be made a reality."
Pretty healthy.
AND THE AMAZING THING ABOUT CALVINISM IS THAT IN THE MIDST OF THE CONTEXT IT WAS BORN IN, AND THE SETTINGS IN WHICH "DETERMINISM" HAVE HAD INFLUENTIAL SWAY -- FROM PAGAN SOURCES -- CALVINISM HAS BEEN A MIGHTY "WITNESS" TO THE LORD'S LOVE AND PROVIDENCE.
Almost NEVER do I hear Reformed people talk about TULIP. (Unless it is Tulips in their garden!) But THIS they do quote, quite a lot!!!
From the Heidelberg Catachism, which begins:
quote:
Q & A #1
Q. What is your only comfort
in life and in death?
A. That I am not my own, but belong--body and soul, in life and in death--to my faithful Savior Jesus Christ. He has fully paid for all my sins with his precious blood, and has set me free from the tyranny of the devil. He also watches over me in such a way that not a hair can fall from my head without the will of my Father in heaven: in fact, all things must work together for my salvation.
Because I belong to him, Christ, by his Holy Spirit, assures me of eternal life and makes me wholeheartedly willing and ready from now on to live for him.
Q & A #2
Q. What must you know to live and die in the joy of this comfort?
A. Three things: first, how great my sin and misery are; second, how I am set free from all my sins and misery; third, how I am to thank God for such deliverance.
Glory to God.
Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 08/30/2002 6:23:16 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/30/2003 2:10 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
| 34 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:03 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 |
|
|