Baptist but not a Calvinist?

HP,

All Dr. Craig is saying is that people have rejected the MK view because they say that in such a system God judges people not only for their morals and actions, thoughts, etc., but for what they WOULD HAVE done or COULD HAVE done, though they never did so. His arguments is that God judges people just the same as in other systems. IOW, Craig does not disagree with the simple foreknowledge system in this respect at all.

I think you need to find something more significant than this for showing the flaws in the system. This is a peripheral issue. And those who argue against the MK framework do so with just the opposite approach than you're taking.

I understand your concern about intent. Craig was not disagreeing with this. He was simply saying that a MK viewpoint does not require God to judge people for all the possibilities which never happened. For example, God will not judge someone for some wrong thought which he might have had, but which never occured. That's called a "counterfactual" - something which might have happened in some world which never existed. Some who oppose MK say God would do so.


Actually, I am just interested with what you think about how the MK system handles the whole election-sovereignty vs. free-will debate. One warning here, this is a very deep subject, and I have barely touched the surface. I think you would need to do some research on it.

Also, what do you say to the argument that a simple foreknowledge system (the system I believe you are espousing) does not have God truly sovereign and in control of the universe, or that it does not allow for a God to truly predetermine (predestinate) what happens, but to only observe what happens? That is what Calvinists say about the simple foreknowledge position.

IOW, your system is much closer to an "open theism" system than is middle knowledge. In SF, God does not in any way predestinate who will trust in His Son, but only allows the opportunity. Since you are so opposed to OT, as am I, I am surprised that you object so strongly to MK when it is much stronger in opposition to OT than is your own system.


Now all this said, I am not trying to start a debate on middle knowledge (which is mainly misunderstood) or simple foreknowledge. This thread is about Baptists who are not Calvinists and whether or not that is possible. (It is. The vast majority of Baptists are not Reformed.) I was simply trying to explain how I can take the position which I do - which is closer to the Reformed position regarding election, and yet hold to a system in which is fully "whosover will" at the same time. I've explained how that can be - to an extent. I have found that those who find themselves in a quandrary between personal election, which is clearly IMO taught in scripture, and free choice, which is also clearly taught in scripture, find middle knowledge intriguing.

Thx,

FA

 

HP,

Middle knowledge definitely does NOT lead to fatalism. Can you explain where you got that idea? I'm confused.

MK was not designed to free us from thinking. ?? It simply is a system which considers that God's thoughts and God's ways are far above our own (Isaiah 55:8, 9), and that we tend to approach God's omniscience and His sovereignty without taking that into consideration.

You're assuming that if God predetermines what will happen - if He is sovereign - then man can not have a free will. But you're thinking like a human being. God is God. You're not.

There's no way to understand these systems by just looking at the surface. I posted two lengthy posts to describe middle knowledge as I understand it. What is it that I shared that you do not agree with?

Thx,

FA

 

Rippon,

Sorry, but I simply do not know how to present the Calvinistic system of omniscience, the simple foreknowledge or middle knowledge system without going into depth. It is philosophy. It is quite deep. I find it very hard to follow the logic involved, and I have a major in math.

Now I mentioned Hunt simply because he was the person chosen to present the Augustinian-Calvinist position on God's omniscience for that book. Nearly every Calvinist holds to such a system. (Can I say "every"?) Who out there talks on this system besides Hunt? White certainly does not, for example. Hunt's a philosopher, not a theologian.

Anyway, I would ask you what you thought of the MK system, but obviously you didn't read those posts. I would have thought that someone who held to election would be interested in a viewpoint that argues that election and free-will are not contradictory.

FA

 

FA: I understand, and this particular subject is not one that is easy to deal with.

HP, I simply was confused about your reaction to middle knowledge. At first you were confusing it with opentheism, and it is farther from open theism than any of the other standard approaches taken.

But what I like about MK is that it does not assume that we can begin to understand how God thinks - again, more than the otehr three systems. Middle knowledge does not impinge upon man as a moral, responsible being. I merely described MK so that you would understand why I view election/free-will as I do. Here is what led to this discussion...

So I was merely explaining how it was not a contradiction. Without some explanation of MK how could I answer your question? I am surprised at your resistance to consider the possibilities of middle knowledge, but that does not bother me. I did want to correct your misunderstandings about this philosophy.

FYI, William Lane Craig is Arminian - FWIW. But this system will work regardless of one's theological position. He describes in one of his books how this system of omniscience can be helpful for the Calvinist.

Understood, and I hope my responses did not come across too critically. I thought that middle knowledge would be something that might interest you, and perhaps others on this board. (All I got from others was a critical comment regarding the length of the posts.) This took me a great investment of time in studying MK when I first heard about it. I have read two books on it and several articles regarding it. FYI, it is favorably accepted at both Dallas Theological Seminary and Talbot School of Theology - both conservative and higly respected insititutions. It is just pretty low on the radar of most theologians.

I realize that you are. I admit I made those previous statements to stirr you up to consider what MK actually teaches. It is not some new off-the-wall philosophy. That book I suggested can be found in most Christian bookstores, and does an excellent comparison of those 4 philosophies.

Right. But God does not predestinate who will come to faith in Christ in SF. And such "predestination" is not really predestination it is argued by its opponents - typically Reformed opponents. MK is a system which accepts fully the free will of man, yet in a system which encourages a consideration of a less limited view of God's omniscience and can be substantiated by scripture more readily (regarding election).

HP,

No problem. Probably a new thread should be started if we really want to pursue this. Hopefully, you know recognize that I have not lightly said that I support a system which allows for both man's ability to choose as well as God's own choosing.

Thx,

FA

 

HP,

Again, you are misunderstanding what I mean. By not "impinging upon man as a moral, responsible being" I merely meant that MK does not force man to do certain things in an irresistible manner, such as with Reformed theology. It does hold him responsible to a moral God for his actions.

Now I'm not sure what you mean by the blue text above, but it appears that you are saying that because we are sinners we cannot but make bad choices. If this is what you mean, then I do not agree. As sinners, we are condemned by a righteous God, I agree. But sinners can do some good. They can choose to seek God, to trust in Christ.

Now the red text above is not something which Mk agrees with. That is reformed theology. There are the same choices available to people as in the SF system - precisely the same. The fact that God can predetermine what choices someone will make while not over-riding that person's choices does not mean that the choices were not legitimate.

You see there are truly two or more possibilities in a MK system. You are thinking from a human perspective, but "our thoughts are not His thoughts, neither are His ways our ways. For just as the heavens are high above the earth so are His thoughts higher than our thoughts and His ways than our ways." (Isaiah 55:8, 9)

And regarding original sin, it depends what your view is regarding original sin. If one has a view of original sin that we cannot ever choose to do right nor choose to seek God, than that is not my view of original sin.

Do you see any other flaws in this system?

FA

 

HP,

Part of the problem here is that this subject is not really Christian theology, but Christian philosophy.

Hence the blue text above is not philosophically true in a MK system.

MK does not say that there is only one possible consequent for a given antecedent. (Red text above.) Philosophers talk about "counterfactuals," not "possible consequences." There are perhaps not an unlimited number of worlds in which various different "consequents" exist, but it is more than one. (Philosophers disagree on whether or not the number is infinite. I wouldn't think it was such, but then, what do I know about such things?)

Now, when God told David when he was with his men at Keilah that "if" Saul came up to Keilah (which he did not in the world that God actualized) that the men of Keilah would indeed hand him over to them. But there were many other possible worlds in which a counterfactual existed such that they did not hand him over to Saul.

The Bible simply addresses the particular counterfactual which was related to David's choices up to that point.

Again, we are thinking like mere men. God could have brought about an almost infinite number of worlds into being. The fact that God knew precisely what world He would indeed predestine does not mean that the choices of individuals were ignored. Just think about it. If you had all the knowledge that God has available to Him, how could that not affect the decisions you made? And God, as a moral, loving, holy Being, would do likewise. All MK says, in contrast to a simple foreknowledge position, is that "yes," individuals have a free will and are morally responsible for their choices. Yet they also say that God is able to predetermine what will happen while allowing individuals freedom of choice. He is able to do so because of His tremendous knowledge of all the possible consequences.

As a specific example of this, consider that when God told Moses that Aaron could be his mouthpiece, He already knew that Aaron would head out to see Moses and would freely choose to join up with him in his quest to free the Israelites. God already knew Moses concerns that the people of Israel would not believe him and that he would refuse to do what God wanted if he had to be the spokesperson.

God also knew that Aaron would rarely, if ever, speak to the people or to Pharaoh. It was always Moses who did so. But Moses freely chose to do God's will, with certain stipulations, but God's will was accomplished anyway - without violating either Moses', Aaron's or the Israelites or Pharaoh's free will. That's a pretty clear example.

FA

 

FA: I disagree (red above). And in MK two or more possible consequents ARE genuinely possible. In simple foreknowledge, it can be argued that God is not really sovereign if such is the viewpoint. Who are we to tell God that they are not really possible?

For example, some have argued that inspiration of scripture is vague, and that it is not really inspiration, but either dictation or man's thoughts or else God is not fully determining preciesly what is being written orspoken. Here's what William Lane Craig has to say on that from a middle knowledge perspective. Very interesting stuff!

[FONT=arial,helvetica][FONT=arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT]
And here's what he says regarding your ideas of the impossibility you expressed:
[/FONT]

See his logic?
Just assume that there is middle knowledge (and God, being omniscient, has it. We do not, of course. He is God. We are not.). In addition to allowing God to make more informed decisions, it allows us to justify more effectively the condemnation of those who are under conditions with regard to salvation in which they are going to be damned without a"fair" opportunity. Now we can argue that God is just and that any onf us are saved is a tribute to God's graciousness. But it still rings a bit hollow until MK steps in and fleshes it out.

What MK argues is that God's knowledge so transcends human knowledge that God is able to know as creator how any exercise of human freedom will go. That is, God knows, for all he has created, how that person will behave in whatever circumstances he might be placed. God is able to know this, moreover, even though the person in question will, if God chooses to create him, enjoy complete freedom of choice.

 

part 2 of response

FA: No. That's not the issue. I agree with this. The issue has to do with whether or not God is truly... God.

FA: Agreed. Not a conflict.

FA: No doubt God does know that, and much more. But the issue is that the Bible specifically says that He not only KNOW, He actually predestined it.

FA: Then you still are not understanding MK. One can do whatever he desires.

FA: But that is not what MK teaches. No disagreement. This is a straw man.

FA

 

Historically, weren't Baptists considered Calvinists?

The historic London Confession is Calvinistic in doctrine. And isn't the SBC Baptist Faith & Message Calvinistic too, though perhaps a bit milder in form?

When did the Baptists become Arminian???

 

FriendofSpurgeon,

As I understand it, "yes" historically, originally, Baptist theologians were Calvinistic in alignment, though typically in a somewhat limited or mild manner. But since those early days a larger and larger contingent of Baptists have not been Calvinist in the sense of supporting the TULIP 100%. You could call them "moderate Calvinists" I suppose, since nearly all Baptists hold to the security of the believer in one form or another.

But the reality is that since a certain autonomy has been part of Baptists denominations from the beginning there has always been a large portion who were not Reformed.

Today more Baptists by far are not 5-pt. Calvinists than are. Now there have always been a certain continguent of Baptists who are Arminian as well - again due to the autonomy factor, though they are a small minority.

But one thing needs to be emphasized: just because a person is not a 5-pt. (or 4-pt.) Calvinist does not mean that he is Arminian. That greatly simplifies theology, and excludes most Baptists today.

Many of those who have even been the president of the SBC have not been Reformed. (Take for example Charles Stanley.) The present President of the SBC, Frank Page, has written a book about the errors of Reformed theology.

Jack Graham, the president of the SBC in 2003 said the following,

Graham is clearly not Reformed. The blue text above is certainly not reformed.

So while many Baptists are Reformed, and there are wide ranges of Calvinistsic beliefs among Baptists, most are not even 4-pt. Calvinists. I cannot speak for 100 years ago. The SBC was founded in 1845 by a Calvinist. But being a Baptist is a lot more than just about being or not being a Calvinist.

And it can also be said that one of the key Baptist theologies is regarding free will. Most Baptists hold to the free will of the individual in a sense very non-Reformed. In general, I find a lot of healthy balance in Baptist theology. (And please do not assume that not being Reformed means you are Arminian.)

And what would you say is the fundamental heart of Calvinism? It would either be the security of the believer or salvation by grace alone. Many Baptists would consider 5-pt Calvinism, or even 4-pointers for that matter, as a sort of "hard Calvinism." (I don't mean necessarily "hyper Calvinism.") And we can find the whole spectrum among Baptists.

FA

 

HP, the point is simply that you and I do not disagree here. Or perhaps I should say that simple foreknowledge and middle knowledge do not differ here.

What I meant is simply that a person is free to do whatever he wants or "wills," just as with Cain.

We're playing word games here. The issues you are selecting are mostly not places where SF and MK disagree. I'm truly sorry that I have not made the views of MK more clear. :tear:

A straw man is when you erect certain arguments as if they represent another's position, then systematically shoot them down. And that is what you have done here. You have objected to some things which are not differences between SF or MK and you have thought, from what I've shared, that MK teaches things or assumes things that it does not. If you really want to shoot down MK, for whatever reason, you can find arguments of those who opposed Craig on the Inet.

I'm going to start a thread on the concept from Chosen But Free, by Norman Geisler... as soon as the person who borrowed it returns it. The book does not deal with MK, and he does not really hold to MK, but it should stir up some interesting discussion, and I'll share the precepts of MK there when it seems appropriate to do so. (He holds a position probably closer to your own, I imagine.)

I think we're wasting our time pursueing this rabbit trail on this thread. I view you as a friend on this board, and I don't want that to change. And I am getting frustrated with all the misunderstandings going on between us. Plus we are straying from the original intent of the thread.

My point was originally simply that "yes" one can be Baptist and not Calvinist. One can even hold to election fervently and yet not be Calvinist - because he believes that man has a free will as well. You do not agree that this is logically possible, but I think I have done a fairly decent job of explaining why I think it is logical, and you have clearly expressed why you disagree. Let's leave it at that.

I think I'll start a thread not on Geisler's book, but on that book on the 4 views of foreknowledge/omniscience. Better idea! I think I'll just try to summarize each position and then ask people to choose their poison and explain why. Could be fun.

FA