Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

33 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Alan Rhoda
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680

Posted 5/2/2002 1:29 PM (GMT -6)

Hi everyone,

This is my first post to this forum so I'll briefly introduce myself. My name is Alan Rhoda. I am currently working on a Ph.D. in philosophy and am trying to finish my dissertation. During the last three years I have become quite sympathetic to open theism. For many years I was a Molinist but was consistently bugged by Hasker's question of how God could come by middle knowledge without implying some kind of "character determinism". After flirting with Thomism and Calvinism for a bit, I became dissatisfied with the available positions concerning the relation of divine providence and human freedom. For largely philosophical reasons, I began to consider the idea that God sovereignly sets the parameters within which creaturely (libertarian) freedom is allowed to run, but leaves some scope within those parameters for genuine creaturely contributions. It was only after beginning to think along those lines that I encountered the book "The Openness of God" and became aware of exegetical arguments for such a view of divine providence.

The question I would like to pose for discussion (if this has been brought up before please forgive me) is the relation of OV Theism and Calvinism. It seems to me that, in principle, one could embrace both. That is, all of the five points of Calvinism seem to be consistent with the view that the future is partly fixed and partly open. For the Calvinist whether or not one is among the elect is fixed, but that would not preclude the future being open in other respects.

In point of fact, however, many Calvinists, in addition to TULIP, embrace the classical philosophical concept of God articulated by Augustine and Aquinas, according to which God is essentially impassible and unchangeable in all respects. Thus, God's foreknowledge cannot be conditioned by creaturely choices or by anything else apart from God. Thus, God's foreknowledge can only be conditioned by God himself. And from there it's a short step to theological determinism. As the Westminster Confession, I believe, puts it, "God has ordained whatsoever comes to pass." If this picture of God is correct, then Calvinism with respect to soteriology would seem inevitable. That's why Calvinists frequently charge that Arminian soteriology is inconsistent with the doctrine of God. Insofar as the OV challenges this picture of God, however, part of the motivation for Calvinism is lost. But, to repeat my earlier point, I think one can dissociate Calvinism and the doctrines of divine impassibility and absolute unchangingness.

Any thoughts appreciated.

Alan

PS to Greg: Your distinction between might-counterfactuals and would-counterfactuals is philosophically brilliant!

Lege, lege, lege, ora, labora, et relege.

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 5/2/2002 3:24 PM (GMT -6)

Welcome to the board, Alan. Good to have you. Let an amateur get on this a bit.

Alan said (emphasis mine):

quote:
The question I would like to pose for discussion (if this has been brought up before please forgive me) is the relation of OV Theism and Calvinism. It seems to me that, in principle, one could embrace both. That is, all of the five points of Calvinism seem to be consistent with the view that the future is partly fixed and partly open. For the Calvinist whether or not one is among the elect is fixed, but that would not preclude the future being open in other respects.

T: Total Depravity
U: Unconditional Election
L: Limited Atonement
I: Irresistable Grace
P: Preserverence of the Saints

Here's the issue, as I see it, Alan. The main thing to keep in mind about open view theism is the idea of libertarian freedom and all of it's implications. The issue is NOT necessarily about foreknowledge or even the nature of the future, as some want to make it out to be. When you boil it all down, it's about the existence of libertarian freedom, where non-divine realities are "real" IN THEMSELVES and can exhibit a "power to the contrary" against at least some of God's influences. This is especially seen in God/human relations.

Now, once we have that, things become a bit more clear. And basically open view theists would have all the same issues with TULIP that ARMINIANS would (This is because, as contradictory as it is to the essence of their view, Arminians believe in libertarian free will) As a matter of fact, I'm thinking that one's effort to reconcile TULIP with free will would come out looking like the Five Articles of Arminianism, the Remonstrants. (What do you think, Doc?)

The easiest to start with is IRRESISTABLE GRACE. One of Doc's main selling points is that if libertarian free will TRULY exists at all in the Creator/creation relationship, then there MUST be the ability to resist (in some way) the wooing effects of God. This is what "power to the contrary" is all about...and it's indispensible to the libertarian free will idea.

And this is just dealing with the "I" section of TULIP. Extending some of the ideas here, I'm betting that one can see the issues with the remaining four, especially as most Calvinists generally define them.

At base, I will say this: It is NOT possible to accept the fundamental axiom of open view theism (libertarian free will) AND the full Calvinistic understanding of TULIP at the same time. The two are mutually exclusive.

This question has been discussed oodles of times on this board...and I think that this is what we came up with. (Am I right on that, peeps?)

I will say this however. I think that OV and Calvinism do have one very important thing in common: Both systems are ULTIMATELY "greater good" arguments at base. Whereas Calvinists would say that all things are ordained for some overall greater good purpose known (and knowable) ONLY to God, OV theologians say that the "greater good" purpose for our creation is REVEALED as being God desiring the capacity for some type of genuine reciprocating relationship between God and other non-divine beings. In both scenarios, all things happen according to God's "good purpose." Interesting, huh?

Once again, welcome to the board!

Holla,

PS: On Molinism. Just my opinion, but Doc's ideas are brilliant (as always

), and yet so SIMPLE at the same time. Think about it. The whole idea of "would-counterfactuals" PRESUPPOSES a certain view of causality that libertarian free will (with it's implicit indeterminacy) DENIES in being what it is. When this is introduced into the Molinist system, the "would-counterfoctuals" NECESSARILY become "might-counterfactuals" It seems that simple to me. But what do I know...LOL.

Edited by - Mephi2K on 05/02/2002 8:25:38 PM

Winghead
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 132

Posted 5/2/2002 6:49 PM (GMT -6)

Alan,

I would agree with Mephi that the OV is largely in opposition to TULIP. However, I would make a few observations, for the sake of discussion.

1. Many of the principles of the Reformation are not necessarily in opposition to the OV. For example, sola scriptura or our understanding of being saved by faith alone.

2. The OV is not in opposition to a high view of God.

3. While Arminians and OV people may talk a lot about free will, for the believer, God will ultimately realize his will for us to be transformed into the likeness of Christ. As such, we will then be united with God in will, as the Father and Son are united within the trinity (cf. John 17).

Yours in Christ,
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)

Alan Rhoda
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680

Posted 5/3/2002 12:28 PM (GMT -6)

Thanks Mephi and Winghead for your responses. My thoughts on the relationship between OV theism and Calvinism stem in part from an acquaintance of mine. He is a Calvinist because he accepts a monergistic soteriology, but he also believes in libertarian free will in non-soteriological contexts. It seems to me that this position is internally consistent, and more plausible than theological deterministic versions of Calvinism. My Calvinist friend tries to make sense of his view by adopting Molinism. I don't think that works in the final analysis, but I think one could, in principle, adopt the position that the future is partly open in non-soteriological contexts and yet fixed in soteriological ones. In that sense, I think that Calvinism and the OV are compatible.

Here's another way of looking at it. Traditional Calvinism fuses two ideas: (1) monergistic soteriology and (2) the classical philosophical concept of God (i.e., God is pure act, impassible, timeless, unchangeable in all respects, has exhaustively definite foreknowledge, etc.). I claim that that these two ideas can be dissociated. IF one accepts (2) then (1) seems to follow as a matter of course. But I think one could accept (1) and deny (2), as the OV does. However, by rejecting the classical philosophical concept of God, OV theism removes much of the philosophical motivation for (1). Once we grant genuine libertarian freedom, I do not think there is any consistent way to deny that the future is partly open. But (1) might nevertheless be argued for exegetical grounds.

OV theism typically fuses (3) synergistic soteriology and (4) a rejection of the classical philosophical concept of God (i.e., God is passible and can change in his nonessential attributes in response to the choices of his free creatures). I claim that these two ideas can also be dissociated. (3) implies (4), but (4) does not imply (3).

My recommendation, therefore, is that when OVers and Calvinists criticize each other's ideas, both sides ought to keep clear on the distinction between soteriological issues and the doctrine of God. OV criticisms of the classical philosophical concept of God do not show that Calvinist soteriology is wrong, and Calvinist criticisms of synergistic soteriology do not show that the OV concept of God is wrong.

Lege, lege, lege, ora, labora, et relege.

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 5/3/2002 6:14 PM (GMT -6)

Hey Alan,

You've dug between the lines in your consideration of an amalgation between determinism and free will; however, a few things to note...

Let me Quote Mephi from his above post: The easiest to start with is IRRESISTABLE GRACE. One of Doc's main selling points is that if libertarian free will TRULY exists at all in the Creator/creation relationship, then there MUST be the ability to resist (in some way) the wooing effects of God. This is what "power to the contrary" is all about...and it's indispensible to the libertarian free will idea. And this is just dealing with the "I" section of TULIP. Extending some of the ideas here

First, his point about resisting--the ability to resist soteriologically--is critical to understanding the OV, as he notes. Libertarian free will, inclusive in its definition, starts on the foundation of soteriology; it's ancillory is that of choice, one of the first building blocks layed in regard to relationship with God. God's first words woo with regard to relationship/salvation; "The day you eat of it, you shall die."

Second, we have to define synergistic soteriology. To infer that somehow man is aiding, helping, assisting with works the salvation event is to misunderstand the OV stance. For the OV takes no different stance soteriologically than does Arminianism or the classical philosophical concept of God in regard to HOW one is saved; we are all sinners saved by grace, not of works. No one adds, earns or contributes. As an OV one merely responds. The act of responding, equal to that of Arminianism, is not a work.

A partly open future must, therefore, include the openess of response to the wooing of God in a soteriological context.

Well, rats again, I gotta run!

For the future,

Starkman

Winghead
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 132

Posted 5/3/2002 6:54 PM (GMT -6)

Alan,

I would like to be more specific with regards to the possibility OV soteriology being compatible with Calvinistic soteriology.

It has been observed (by Doc and others here) that in the area of soteriology, the OV is any different than Aminianism. With regards to TULIP, the OV would deny irresistable grace, limited attonement, and the aspects of Calvinistic soteriology that views our "Yes" to God's offer of salvation as being a "work". Furthermore, the OV typically interprets the idea of election as a corporate thing, rather than an individual thing.

That said, it would help me if you would define what you mean by Calvinist soteriology and how it is similar to what you understand as soteriology under the OV.

One last thing. I find it interesting that when discussing the divine foreknowledge, the Calvinists more frequently bring up soteriology as one of the areas they disagree with the OV on. For example, see Paul Helm's contribution in Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views.

Yours in Christ,
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)

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 5/3/2002 7:32 PM (GMT -6)

Welcome aboard Alan,

I hear what you're saying. In fact, by way of testimony, for about a hear and a half or so (beginning around 1984) I was an open theist with a Calvinist soteriology ! For strictly exegetical reasons (which, obviously, I've since abandoned) I believed in unconditional election and irresistible grace. Yet, for both exegetical and philosophical reasons, I held to an partially open view of the future.

The view IS philosophical tenable. One nagging problem, however, is the question of why God would bother to give us freedom in non-soteriological matters but not in soteriological matters. In other words, if our eternal destiny is chosen FOR us, it's really little more than idol curiousity that we are, or are not, free to (say) choose our spouse.

Nevertheless, on a strictly logical level, there is NO incompatibility with someone holding to a partially open future and also embracing TULIP.

Glad to hear you're thinking along these lines.

Greg

ps. To this day I think I am much closer to classical Calvinism on soteriological matters than traditional Arminianism. Go figure

"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul

Seymour
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 105

Posted 5/3/2002 9:15 PM (GMT -6)

Hi Alan! I like you.

My I inquire, what is your dissertation on?

Is a Calvinistic soteriology and an open view of the future compatible? Well I hope so, because that’s currently where I’m at now, although I’d really be surprised if I don’t slide somewhere else before I settle down for awhile. My path to this position, however, is rather odd since when my theological sensibilities where first being formed I naturally slipped into an open theist position without any backlog programming to stand in the way (which I think really accounts for a great deal of the resistance that Calvinists put up to the OV, they’ve just been hot-wired against it.) I am the avant guarde of a new bread, I was actually hot-wired for the OV! More and more kids who just sort of grow up in a new theological climate and are subjected to new programming are going to be OV’ers I think. And am one of the first of the assembly line, someday I’ll be a collectors idem so hold onto me!

But I’ve been coming more towards a Calvinists soteriology by the oddest of routes, reading contemporary Jewish ethical writings were the main factors. Right now I’m addicted to a new drug: radical asymmetry between us and God, a radical heteronomy. This is not to say that there is not any transcendental self, or that there is not any libertarian freedom, but that whatever we have exists in such an off-balanced relationship to God that it counts for zip, (sort of). So I believe that God saves some people who kick and scream and never want to be saved. (Based on Doc’s chapter on Hell in SATPOE I have to wonder if the act of saving someone who wills to be damned might actually be torture to them, it might actually be a fitting punishment, saving someone hell-bent on going to hell is the ultimate revenge, heaven WOULD BE hell for this person. But that is worth another thread, a thread in which I want to ask if Doc is a universalist because I think he is [even though he’ll deny it

]).

But I want to take your very good question even a step further, I want to be able to say that one can hold to a Calvinist soteriology and an open view of the future and still have one’s personal election somewhat up in the air. I’m quoting from your first post with my emphasis here:

quote:
The question I would like to pose for discussion (if this has been brought up before please forgive me) is the relation of OV Theism and Calvinism. It seems to me that, in principle, one could embrace both. That is, all of the five points of Calvinism seem to be consistent with the view that the future is partly fixed and partly open. For the Calvinist whether or not one is among the elect is fixed, but that would not preclude the future being open in other respects.

Why must one’s being among the elect be fixed FROM ETERNITY PAST? Why not let this be one of the things which God is free to change her mind about, yet still remaining 100% her decision? Let’s say God is interested in Suzie, yet Suzie still has all that original sin making her stinky because God hasn’t saved her yet. So God things about it, does he want to save Suzie or not….still thinking. Then he decided yes indeed he does want to save her, so he sends some of that irresistible grace her way, she doesn’t even have to know about it, she could be a Hindu who has never heard the Gospel for all God cares (why do Calvinists A: think irresistible grace respects questions like tradition or access to the Gospel and whatnot and B: think that it is something one knows, that one CAN know that one is elect or not, that someone might be elect without knowing it, or conversely, that one might not be elect without knowing it? Why are all of the elect [according to the Calvinists] SELF-CONSCIOUSLY and SELF-REPORTEDLY elect? If election is true, and if election is knowable, why don’t we find more self-consciously non-elect Calvinists? You know, these would be pastors kids and the like who are raised with TULIP but still for whatever reason lost the divine lottery. Well in order to fill some sort of gap I guess, God has willed [I am afraid] that I be the first self-reported self-conscious non-elect lay-theologian. It’s hard work but someone’s got to do it!)

So God spits some irresistible grace onto Suzie, she might not even like it but tough these are God’s rules and she has to live with ‘em. But then next Tuesday, through no fault or credit of Suzie’s, God changes her mind and decides to scratch Suzie’s name from the Book of Life. God might waffle like this until Suzie dies, which, if the open view is correct, God might not even know the day she will die. So maybe God is saving Suzie but plans to dump her sometime late next spring and Suzie dies early in the Fall so she gets in by this sort of loophole see. Or the reverse could be true, God has Suzie scheduled in to go to a Billy Graham crusade and get saved there but she dies on the way so she, unluckily, gets damned.

So as you can see Calvinists wouldn’t exactly say that I hold to their soteriology, and I’m sure that there are some by-laws somewhere that say that the U and the I must take place eternity past, but I’m not so concerned with the by-laws here, I’m just concerned with TULIP itself.

I have the feeling I’ve just made an utter fool of myself. Go ahead, mock me and get it over with quick, I know I tell you a bunch of idiotic things.

Some folks dance cool, all angels and swaying hips, Sensual as all get out and in. Me, I'm a hick, and I dance like one, I just kinda jump around and grin.
--Greg Brown

Winghead
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 132

Posted 5/4/2002 7:56 AM (GMT -6)

It strikes me that there is an inherit tension between the "points" of Calvinism and Arminianism, and the whole of scripture. Arminianism affirmed certain theological/philosophical ideas. Calvinism opposed them with five points. Someone help me here, but the refining of the "points" on both sides took place over time, until we have them in their current form.

My observation is that regardless of what scripture we attach to these points, their synergy exists in their relation to each other, not necessarily to the whole of scripture. Each point interprets and provides commentary on what people have read in scripture. (Remember, I am talking now of the "points" of Calvinism and Arminianism -- not just TULIP.) Philosophically TULIP and its antithetical points go together. However, the question is whether that philosophical framework actually fits into scripture.

I suggest that when people examine scripture, they find things that favor parts of both sides of the debate. To me, the answer is not to choose what side -- Calvinism or Arminianism -- one is on. One thing the OV does, is to allow us to step completely out of the debate, and look at things from a fresh paradigm. This new paradigm will likely contain theological and philosophical elements from both camps. It also might include insight from traditions (Catholicism?) that developed somewhat outside the 17th century debate.

What this means, is that a Calvinist can move toward the OV without throwing the "baby out with the bath water" -- though they may have to plant a different crop[;}]. Similarly, someone who holds to the OV does not necessarily have to embrace all of Arminian theology. As many have suggested here, the OV is not compatible with TULIP, but there are elements of Calvinist/Reformed thinking that fit the whole of scripture.

When I talk about the "whole of scripture" I am referring to what scripture has systematically taught throughout the old and new testaments. A good principle for dealing with "problematic" verses is to balance them with what is revealed elsewhere. For example, should women keep silent in church (1 Cor 14:34)? I suggest that because of the many other passages on women in the Bible, people correctly understand this passage to not apply universally. Similarly, while there are a few verses that might suggest limited atonement, there are many verses that make it clear that God's desire is that everyone be saved (1Tim 2:4), and that he desires the wicked to repent (Ezek 33:11). These stand against the idea that God arbitrarily chooses only some to be saved. It is also important to not divorce our theology from its Old Testament roots. If we develop a theology based solely on a couple NT verses, we run the risk of error. Our theology of Jesus dying on the cross for our sins is not something new. It is rooted in the OT revelation, going as far back as Gen 3, where the messiah is first revealed (seed of the woman who crushes the serpent’s head), and where God clothed Adam and Eve with animal skins (cf. Lev 17:11).

With regards to soteriology, I think Clark Pinnock's A Wideness in God's Mercy makes some very interesting points.

Yours in Christ,
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)

Winghead
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 132

Posted 5/4/2002 8:03 AM (GMT -6)

Seymour,

quote:
But that is worth another thread, a thread in which I want to ask if Doc is a universalist because I think he is [even though he’ll deny it]).

He is not, though like God, he desires that ALL would be saved.

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)

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 5/4/2002 9:19 AM (GMT -6)

I wonder, too, whether there might be more than one kind of "universalism?"
1. A truly warm-and-fuzzy kind would "reward" everybody no matter how they have acted.

2. The kind of universalism that was attacked by Justinian seems to not have been that kind. (I've not researned it a lot, though. But it seems that way.)

links on justinian vs. Origin and other's universalism (From Google.com):

quote:
www.kingdomquest.com/doep/doepch10.htm
www.j-lorber.de/kee/3/oc-hell.htm
www.ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ mark_mason/chchoice.htm
www.concordant.org/expohtml/TheEons/eon2.html
www.hellbusters.8m.com/upd21.html
www.what-the-hell-is-hell.com/FromHellsEternalDeath.htm

Sorry for the tangent.

Edited by - PotOnWheel on 05/04/2002 2:21:54 PM

Mephi2K
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713

Posted 5/4/2002 12:42 PM (GMT -6)

Wait, wait, wait, wait...

D'oh! I get it now. I was wrong. Why? I forgot these things:

1) Libertarian freedom cannot be NEGATED from the outside, but it can be significantly RESTRICTED such that particular outcomes become "certain"

2) I was thinking of TRADITIONAL Calvinism, which, like Alan says, takes a certain view of God and it's soteriology hand in hand. But there was another way to do it. I wasn't thinking outside the box on this one.

But this is MAD interesting! This really could work. And quite lovely too. Of course, you realize that the issues with the problem of evil caused by taking this perspective would be ENORMOUS.

But that's another story.

I just LOVE being wrong! You can learn so much that way.

Seymour
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 105

Posted 5/4/2002 2:16 PM (GMT -6)

Me:

quote:
But that is worth another thread, a thread in which I want to ask if Doc is a universalist because I think he is [even though he’ll deny it]).

Wing:

quote:
He is not, though like God, he desires that ALL would be saved.

Oh but he is he is, it's in his book SATPOE even though it doesn't appear under the name 'Universalism.' Wait for my new thread about it and see if i can't convince you that he is.

Some folks dance cool, all angels and swaying hips, Sensual as all get out and in. Me, I'm a hick, and I dance like one, I just kinda jump around and grin.
--Greg Brown

Winghead
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 132

Posted 5/4/2002 3:07 PM (GMT -6)

Okay, Mephi, help me out. Explain this "other way" to this poor fellow. Or am I (customarily) missing your sarcasm?

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)

Alan Rhoda
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680

Posted 5/4/2002 11:37 PM (GMT -6)

Howdy, y'all. I have a few replies to various miscellaneous comments made so far in this thread:

Greg Boyd wrote:

quote:

on a strictly logical level, there is NO incompatibility with someone holding to a partially open future and also embracing TULIP.

Glad you agree with my basic point, Greg.

quote:

One nagging problem, however, is the question of why God would bother to give us freedom in non-soteriological matters but not in soteriological matters. In other words, if our eternal destiny is chosen FOR us, it's really little more than idle curiousity that we are, or are not, free to (say) choose our spouse.

Good point. Perhaps the Calvinist would respond that God did initially give us (in Adam) freedom in soteriologic contexts. But Adam blew it, and now all of us have inherited a totally depraved nature that renders us impotent to contribute to our salvation in any sense. There's a verse in Romans, I think, that seems to say something like that--"in Adam all died". Of course, this reply raises other questions, like the wisdom and justice of God's arranging things so that one person could so utterly blow it for everyone else, or the love of a God allowing a person to go to hell when, because of Adam, they effectively could not help but go there.

Seymour wrote:

quote:

Why must one’s being among the elect be fixed FROM ETERNITY PAST?

Good question. As far as I can see, Calvinist soteriology is consistent with the idea that God could elect people "on the fly", as it were, making up his mind upon whom to dispense irresistible grace as new people come into the world. Whether that is exegetically tenable is, however, a different question.

quote:

I want to be able to say that one can hold to a Calvinist soteriology and an open view of the future and still have one’s personal election somewhat up in the air. ... So God spits some irresistible grace onto Suzie, she might not even like it but tough these are God’s rules and she has to live with ‘em. But then next Tuesday, through no fault or credit of Suzie’s, God changes her mind and decides to scratch Suzie’s name from the Book of Life.

Interesting speculation, but as this seems to run counter to "perseverance of the saints" I don't think a good Calvinist need take it seriously as a problem for his soteriology, even if the Calvinist allows for some degree of openness. Also, if God does spit irresistible grace on Suzie then she will like it because that is one of the things irresistible grace does--it effectively moves the will so that someone running from God starts running toward God.

quote:

May I inquire, what is your dissertation on?

Thanks for asking, Seymour. Basically, it's on a long-standing epistemological problem--the so-called problem of induction. I'm developing a response to the problem based on the work of Charles Peirce. In brief, I argue that we always reason WITHIN a pragmatic context and that inductive reasoning can therefore be non-circularly justified if it fulfills its pragmatic function.

God bless y'all,
Alan

Winghead
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 132

Posted 5/5/2002 11:20 AM (GMT -6)

Alan,

Thanks for starting this thread, I am enjoying it.

It sounds like one of the things you are trying to hold onto is individual election. Will you explain why the idea appeals to you?

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)

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 5/5/2002 12:37 PM (GMT -6)

Seymour: I want to ask if Doc is a universalist because I think he is [even though he’ll deny it]).

Doc: If I was a universalist, why would I deny it? Does my track record suggest that I ever hide behind a smoke screen of orthodoxy?

But Winghead is right: I certain WISH it was true. (I'd be interested in knowing where you found my secret universalism in SATPOE. Several have sniffed out annihilationism, which isn't correct, but noone has claimed to have sniffed out universalism. If it COULD be found there, I think it WOULD have been found there, for the book is certainly being read by many who have a vested interest in exposing ALL of my false views.

Seymour: Why must one’s being among the elect be fixed FROM ETERNITY PAST?

Alan responds: Good question. As far as I can see, Calvinist soteriology is consistent with the idea that God could elect people "on the fly", as it were, making up his mind upon whom to dispense irresistible grace as new people come into the world.

Doc: This is pretty much how I interpret Acts 13:48, "as many as had been destined for eternal life became believers." I don’t take this to mean "ordained from before the foundation of the world" but rather, "ordained from the time the Spirit opened the hearts in preparation for the Gospel." Lydia believed Paul because the Spirit had opened her heart (Ac 16:14). But he didn’t open before the foundation of the world. So, I think once the Spirit opens a persons heart (which, in my view, is not a coercive thing, for it can be resisted) God elects them. Now its just a matter of steering an evangelist into within hearing distance.

Final Word One important thing that Alan's speculations demonstrate, I think, is that the open view is very "flexible." It simply stipulates that SOME of the future is open, but not HOW MUCH is open. It is very compatible with a significant degree of divine determination.

If certain opponents of the open view could get out of their "all or nothing" categories, it would save a lot of ink. We wouldn't be hearing all of this "God has to guess about the future and hope for the best" silliness.

Blessings

Greg

"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul

Alan Rhoda
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680

Posted 5/5/2002 3:03 PM (GMT -6)

Winghead: It sounds like one of the things you are trying to hold onto is individual election. Will you explain why the idea appeals to you?

Reply: Actually, Winghead, as far as this thread is concerned, I haven't been trying to defend any particular position with respect to soteriology. My concern has been only to point out that the OV is consistent with more than one view of soteriology and the Calvinist view in particular. I think many OVers overlook this because they lean toward the Arminian camp and because the OV is such a natural extension of Arminian soteriology--in fact I think it is the direction Arminianism must go if it is to be internally consistent--that it is easy to suppose that the two must go hand-in-hand. I have suggested that if we draw a clear distinction between soteriology and the doctrine of God we will see that this need not be so--one could be a Calvinist and accept the OV.

Having said that, I'll tip my hand and admit that I'm not a Calvinist. I've never found the Calvinist charge that Arminians compromise the doctrine of salvation by grace when they teach that we must choose to accept God's offer of salvation to be even remotely plausible. How does a person's accepting a gift make it less of a gift? How does that amount to "works salvation" in anything like the sense in which that concept is opposed in Scripture? It certainly doesn't amount to anything like trying to be good enough to earn God's favor.

With regard to individual election, it seems to me that the relevant passages in Scripture admit of more than one possible interpretation. I think God has the sovereign right to elect particular individuals (Rom. 9), but I don't think Scripture teaches that ALL persons who are saved are saved because God specifically chose them as opposed to someone else. The clearest election passages (e.g., Eph. 1) consistently put things in the plural, e.g., "For he chose US in him before the creation of the world" (Eph. 1:4). This could mean he chose US qua individuals or US qua believers. That is, it could refer to individual election or it could refer to "corporate election"--God choses before the creation of the world that "whosoever believes in him would not perish but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) The text seems to be consistent with either reading. Since I think that God really does "desire that none should perish" I lean toward a corporate election reading of such passages.

Yours in Christ,
Alan

Lege, lege, lege, ora, labora, et relege.

Seymour
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 105

Posted 5/5/2002 3:16 PM (GMT -6)

Alan, best of luck with the disser. it sounds cool, i've only read a smidgen of Peirce but he seems like an alright cat to me.

quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I want to be able to say that one can hold to a Calvinist soteriology and an open view of the future and still have one’s personal election somewhat up in the air. ... So God spits some irresistible grace onto Suzie, she might not even like it but tough these are God’s rules and she has to live with ‘em. But then next Tuesday, through no fault or credit of Suzie’s, God changes her mind and decides to scratch Suzie’s name from the Book of Life.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting speculation, but as this seems to run counter to "perseverance of the saints" I don't think a good Calvinist need take it seriously as a problem for his soteriology, even if the Calvinist allows for some degree of openness. Also, if God does spit irresistible grace on Suzie then she will like it because that is one of the things irresistible grace does--it effectively moves the will so that someone running from God starts running toward God.

Okay i'm busted. i guess i'm not that great of a Calvinist since i still don't hold to 'P', and i can't get rid of some idea of a transendental will that can resist 'I' even if 'I' overpowers it. and i've never believed in the 'L'. But i think i can still embrace the basics of their soteriology as a 'TU' Calvinists.

Doc:

quote:
Does my track record suggest that I ever hide behind a smoke screen of orthodoxy?

Not at all.

quote:
Doc: If I was a universalist, why would I deny it?

Because you don't know your a universalist, and because the U word is already banned in the BGC and because the little old woman with a pocka-dot dress who lives inside of me, the one who knows what she believes and the one who DEFINATLY knows what all of the other people inside me OUGHT to belive, always raises red flags and sounds alarms and screams "DANGER" at the top of her lungs when ever she hears the U word. I don't think you could really deal with the little old woman in a pocka-dot dress yelling at you all day long.

quote:
(I'd be interested in knowing where you found my secret universalism in SATPOE. Several have sniffed out annihilationism, which isn't correct, but noone has claimed to have sniffed out universalism.

In your two chapters on hell. I think i'll have a post ready by later tonight where i give something of a critique of these two chapters.

quote:
If it COULD be found there, I think it WOULD have been found there, for the book is certainly being read by many who have a vested interest in exposing ALL of my false views.

Your synthisis of annihilationism and eternal torment was ingenious, but most of these people who have a vested interest in exposing all you your false views are not nearly ingenous enough to find that you have also sythisised universalism into your account of hell. No, you need an ingenious reader worthy of your text to detect it--someone like me

.

Some folks dance cool, all angels and swaying hips, Sensual as all get out and in. Me, I'm a hick, and I dance like one, I just kinda jump around and grin.
--Greg Brown

Edited by - Seymour on 05/05/2002 8:17:29 PM

Seymour
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 105

Posted 5/5/2002 11:01 PM (GMT -6)

quote:

How does a person's accepting a gift make it less of a gift?

Because in order for a gift to be a gift it must not appear to the one it is given to AS a gift, it must not appear under the name 'gift'. And because as soon as we accept God's gift, we are acctually entering into an economy with God, we are buying our own salvation in one form or another. We are put into debt by recieving his gift, a gift that is of all things a forgiveness from debt! (can one be credited for that? askes FN) And by accepting this debt we also accept an attempt to pay it off, either with thanks or with an orthodox life, or with praise, or by some other means. It is no longer a gift but rather a kind of binding contract, an economic loan.

In order for God to truely give salvation as a gift proper we must not know that we have recieved it, the gift must remain a secret from us, and indeed from God himself who is self-forgetting (self-forgetfulness is, after all, the essance of love, and God is this love). It must be a completely one sided transaction, a giving which recieves nothing in return and creates no debt. This kind of gift, i would argue, is more in line with a Calvinist view of salvation and grace, even though most Calvinists ruin the gift as well by claiming to have been given it themesleves. You can't trust these people, they always mix in something that ruins the good stuff they had going.

Some folks dance cool, all angels and swaying hips, Sensual as all get out and in. Me, I'm a hick, and I dance like one, I just kinda jump around and grin.
--Greg Brown

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 5/8/2002 5:46 PM (GMT -6)

Yo Seymour, you're right: I couldn't tolerate a woman with a poka-dot dress screaming in my head. Tell her nicely to be quiet.

About your ingenious discovery: if you discovered that I ingeniously synthesized universalism, annihilationism and the traditional view, you are more ingenious then me! I await your post.

Now, about the gift business:

Seymour: in order for a gift to be a gift it must not appear to the one it is given to AS a gift, it must not appear under the name 'gift'.

Doc: Why is that? Are no Christmas presents really "presents" because we give them as "presents"?

Seymour: And because as soon as we accept God's gift,... we are put into debt by recieving his gift, a gift that is of all things a forgiveness from debt! (

Doc: If you're put into debt, then it clearly is not a gift. There are certain people I will not accept gifts from for just this reason: they are NOT GIFTS. They have strings attacked. But a true gift IS a gift precisely because there ARE not strings attached. Why do you think God's gift exacts a payment? (See Romans 4 for Pauls lucid logic on the difference between a "gift" and "works". the latter incurs debt, the former does not.

Seymour: And by accepting this debt we also accept an attempt to pay it off, either with thanks or with an orthodox life, or with praise, or by some other means.

Doc: Sounds like God gift is more like a credit card. We don't pay now, but we pay latter. Seymour, if you could only see this. The GIFT is God's love, which is God's life. When you recieve it, it impacts you. You change, here and there, little forward, little back perhaps. But most importantly, the IMPACT isn't a PAYMENT. Its the RESULT of receiving the gift WITHOUT PAYMENT.

Seymour: It is no longer a gift but rather a kind of binding contract, an economic loan.

Doc: If things were as you say, you could rest your case. But if you were right, the gift wouldnt' be a gift. "THE GIFT of God is eternal life." Its a free gift, its a free gift, its a free gift, its a free gift .. x 1,000 its a free gift , its a free gift (three years later) its a free gift its a free gift (ten screw ups later) its a free gift its a free gift (middle of great depression) its a free gift (life going well) its still a free gift (win a religious behavior award) its a free gift its a free gift (loose the religious behavior award in total humiliation while religious christians sneer at the very sound of your name ) its a free gift its a free gift (on into eternity) its a free gift its a free gift.

Hey Seymour, its a free gift.

Knock knock
whose there
free
free who

FREE GIFT.

Pretty tight argument, heh?

I know i piss you off sometimes. But brother, I love you. I want to someday someday see you dance with total free abandon in celebration of
THE TOTAL, UNCONDITIONAL, NO-STRINGS-ATTACHED-UNSURPASSABLE, TRULY BEAUTFUL, LIFE GIVING, DEATH DEFYING, JOY CREATING, LOVE ABOUNDING, INCOMPREHENSIBLE, INDEFATIGUABLE, INEXHAUSTIVE AND EVEN INEXPRESSIBLE

FREE GIFT OF GOD!!!!!!!

Doc

ps. its free

pss. that's why its a gift

"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul

Edited by - GregBoyd on 05/08/2002 10:47:27 PM

Edited by - GregBoyd on 05/08/2002 10:50:44 PM

Winghead
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 132

Posted 5/8/2002 6:11 PM (GMT -6)

Greg,

Don't forget to mention, that a FREE gift does not cost us anything, yesterday, today, or forever! No payments, for eternity.

YBIC,
Winghead

P.S. Get to the point, brother.

Seymour
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 105

Posted 5/8/2002 9:08 PM (GMT -6)

quote:

Yo Seymour, you're right: I couldn't tolerate a woman with a poka-dot dress screaming in my head. Tell her nicely to be quiet.

No you don't understand, the woman in a poka-dot dress is the finnal judge of what is and isn't nice, so you can't nicely tell her to be quite because she would righteously declare that request unnice by essence. She controls the identity of nice.

quote:
...you are more ingenious then me!

Well of course I am!

Now, about the gift business:

quote:
Doc: Why is that? Are no Christmas presents really "presents" because we give them as "presents"?

Yes, Christmas presents are NOT REAL PRESENTS. A gift is only a gift if it breaks the circle of an economy, if it is given with NOTHING IN RETURN. With Christmas and birthdays we EXCHANGE things. These things can not be gifts precicely because they are EXCHANGED. A gift, if such a thing exists, is something which is given outside of exchange, something that only goes one way, a leaving the home which does not return to the home.

Now if you give me a Chrsitmas present and i forget to give you one it is still an exchange because we would both recongnize that this was a lop-sided giving, and that recongistion would be my present in return, i am recongnizing that you did this without payment, and the recongnition IS your payment, it is my token to you.

quote:
Doc: ...But a true gift IS a gift precisely because there ARE not strings attached...

But what would be neccisary for a gift to have no strings attached to it? A TRUE GIFT, if such a thing exists, would only exist BY VIRTUE of never appering AS a gift. it is this not appearing as a gift which would make giving possible in the first place.

quote:
...Why do you think God's gift exacts a payment?

because it appears under the name 'gift'.

quote:
Doc: Sounds like God gift is more like a credit card. We don't pay now, but we pay latter.

Exaclty. This is, indeed, how birthday presents work. We are giving eachother time--time to pay us back when our birthday comes around and you can repay us with a gift.

quote:
But if you were right, the gift wouldnt' be a gift.

Precisely. A gift is not a gift to the degree that it is a gift, and conversly a gift can only be a gift to the degree in which it does not appear as a gift. The gift annuls itself, it offers itself as a sacrifice upon itself leaving only ashes. The gift is its own holocost.

quote:
"THE GIFT of God is eternal life." Its a free gift, its a free gift, its a free gift, its a free gift .. x 1,000 its a free gift , its a free gift (three years later) its a free gift its a free gift (ten screw ups later) its a free gift its a free gift (middle of great depression) its a free gift (life going well) its still a free gift (win a religious behavior award) its a free gift its a free gift (loose the religious behavior award in total humiliation while religious christians sneer at the very sound of your name ) its a free gift its a free gift (on into eternity) its a free gift its a free gift.

Hey Seymour, its a free gift.

Knock knock
whose there
free
free who

FREE GIFT.

Pretty tight argument, heh?

I know i piss you off sometimes. But brother, I love you. I want to someday someday see you dance with total free abandon in celebration of
THE TOTAL, UNCONDITIONAL, NO-STRINGS-ATTACHED-UNSURPASSABLE, TRULY BEAUTFUL, LIFE GIVING, DEATH DEFYING, JOY CREATING, LOVE ABOUNDING, INCOMPREHENSIBLE, INDEFATIGUABLE, INEXHAUSTIVE AND EVEN INEXPRESSIBLE

FREE GIFT OF GOD!!!!!!!

Doc

ps. its free

pss. that's why its a gift

cute. i can't seem to get through the day with someone thinking its their duty to blow sunshine up my ass. It's rather depressing to always have peole trying so hard to be edifying, it's even more depressing to always try to be edifying yourself, oddly i'm only really edified when people cut it out. that's fundagelicalism for ya, those who dispense the gift of a sunshine enima.

Some folks dance cool, all angels and swaying hips, Sensual as all get out and in. Me, I'm a hick, and I dance like one, I just kinda jump around and grin.
--Greg Brown

Edited by - Seymour on 05/09/2002 02:11:35 AM

Edited by - Seymour on 05/09/2002 02:14:09 AM

might-be-don
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830

Posted 5/9/2002 2:30 AM (GMT -6)

seymour says:

quote:
cute. i can't seem to get through the day with someone thinking its their duty to blow sunshine up my ass.

I like you! Have a beer on me, I'll pay you back later.

peace and love, don

A quote from Rev. Gregory A. Boyd, PhD ... " Has anyone seen my keys? "

Winghead
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 132

Posted 5/9/2002 6:24 PM (GMT -6)

Seymour,

quote:
cute. i can't seem to get through the day with someone thinking its their duty to blow sunshine up my ass. It's rather depressing to always have peole trying so hard to be edifying, it's even more depressing to always try to be edifying yourself, oddly i'm only really edified when people cut it out. that's fundagelicalism for ya, those who dispense the gift of a sunshine enima.

Would you rather have us tell you to put on your sunglasses?

Seriously Seymour. You are redefining the meaning of the words. Your logic is correct, that under your definitions, the gift is not a gift. However, neither you, I, or Doc has the privledge of redefining other people's words (i.e., those words in the Bible, written in Greek or Hebrew languages, translated into English) in order to make them agree with our ideas. If you want to convince us of your point, then show us that scripture considers God's "gift" in the way you say. However, you cannot do this, because the rules of language and grammar do not allow it, especially in the context they are used in the Bible.

Try a Sam Adams,
Winghead

P.S. What were we talking about?

"...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 05/09/2002 11:27:49 PM

Edited by - winghead on 05/09/2002 11:31:08 PM

Edited by - winghead on 05/09/2002 11:57:50 PM

Edited by - winghead on 05/10/2002 8:44:40 PM

33 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:01 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

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual