Common Misrepresentation of Arminianism

Those two statements together pretty much sum up the reality of our discussion.

Who said they are "left out?" God even uses the evil to accomplish his purpose, but to speculate or presume that God must have determined/cause/created/ordained (or whatever) sin is no biblically supported. Sure, just like Aaron appealed to mystery with regard to the origin of Satan's sin, there is a mystery with regard to how all of it works. We just can't go beyond the words of the scriptures in speculating on what God must have done or not done according to our finite human logic.

What is there to explain? He knows all his works from the beginning. We affirm this truth.

God allowed Pharaoh to be in power, but are you suggesting that this passage teaches that God made him sinful and rebellious? He did the same for David, but God didn't cause him to sleep with Bathsheba.

God blinded Pharaoh from the obvious truth of the plagues in order to keep him sealed in his rebellion so that he would continue to do what he already wanted to do. Like when a cop hides his presence so the speeder keeps speeding. That doesn't make the cop culpable for the speeders crime.

God does use sin and rebellion to accomplish his purposes, like the example of Pharaoh above. It was an active decree of God to hardened Pharaoh, just as it was an active decree to hardened Israel. But blinding them in their already rebellious condition is different than the concept that EVERYTHING they have EVER done from birth was a result of God active determinative decree. They freely chose to rebel. God didn't MAKE them rebel through causally determining their desires etc. They could have believed, but chose not to and they grew calloused. God simply blinded them temporarily in that already rebellious state in order to accomplish a redemptive purpose through them.

He permitted them to become rebellious, but he actively decreed them to be blinded in that rebellion in order to accomplish redemption through their rebellion. Make sense?

Any time it speaks of God "wanting/desiring" something that doesn't come to pass is usually referred to as God's permissive will/decree. For example, does God ever want you to sin? No. Do you sin? Yes. That is His Permissive will.

Even men like Jonathan Edwards and many Calvinistic confessions speak of God's permissive will. You don't affirm that concept?

 

Both Supralapsarianism & Infralapsarianism fall under the label of Calvinism. If I don't properly represent your brand of Calvinism just say so. No need to question the validity of my testimony.

The term "foreknow" means to know something before hand. The question is how does God come to "KNOW" anything if he has always known everything there is to know. Under this presumption God can't even originate a thought because he would have always foreknown what he would think, so each thought of God has eternally existed. The problem with this view is regarding the origin of evil intent.

Satan desired to be like God which is an evil/sinful intent. Did that originate in Satan or God? If Satan, then God came to know of Satan's sinful intent through foreknowledge, and in this case God was "informed" by Satan. BUT, if God always knew of Satan's evil intent then the evil had to eternally exist and thus originate in the mind of God, which is blatantly unbiblical.

Our view is that God intended to create free mutable agents with free will. He came to know of their choices through foreknowledge of the actual events. The evil intent originated in the mind/heart of the agent, not God. God knows of that intent beforehand, but that evil did not eternally exist in the mind of God where as he would be the originator/author of it. Understand?

 

Actually, it's not.

Open Theism, like determinism, attempts to do away with the mystery and tension of the revelation by making a systematized dogma from their finite logical and philosophical speculations about infinite matters. I'm fine with the appeal to mystery.

The overarching thesis of Open Theism is this --
1. God gave human beings a true free will. (I agree on this point)
2. If God knows the future, human beings cannot truly be free. (I think this is speculative)
3. Therefore, God cannot know the future. (I disagree on this point)

Thus, I'm not an Open Theist, but I know it is easier to label and dismiss someone rather than deal with the content of their arguments.

I think He can. I also think he can choose not to know somethings if He wants. Like the way in which Jesus is not privy to the second coming, for example.

 

BTW, Fredrick, you accuse my view of ending in open theism, but what about where your view logical leads? Sinful evil eternally existing in the mind of God. God as the author and originator of evil.

So, which is really worse?

1. God not fully foreknowing of every free choice of man

or

2. Every heinous, horrible, evil intent ever committed in this world eternally existed and thus originated in the mind of our holy perfect God.

If I have to pick one, which I don't believe I have to do because it presumes finite logic dictates an infinite God, then I'd still rather pick #1. Biblically #2 is much less defensible. But, why not just appeal to mystery, which you have to do anyway at some point in the discussion? Why not just say, "I don't understand how it all works, His ways are higher than our way?" and leave it at that? Why do you need to speculate and bring into question the holiness of our God?

 

Weak? That is all in the perspective, I think. I think its weak to presume God needs to play both side of the chess board to guarantee a win. It is much more impressive when someone conquers a real opponent.

Even the scripture says that God gives over dominion to his creatures. It speaks of rulers and principalities of this dark world...that in itself supports more of the view of a God who limits His "control" by allowing others rule and free choice. That is NOT to say God couldn't take control or overrule any power at His pleasure, but its just to say that just as parents can give some authority to their child, so too God could choose to give over some control to his creatures. Scripture supports this concept in the story of Job, where Satan is given control over Job to a degree.

Looking at this objectively, you must realize that with all this so called "glory" also comes all the so call blame and culpability for evil. In my system, there is no reason to lesson the glory due to God. A gift doesn't have to be given irresistibly for it to merit the same amount of credit. I could offer super bowl tickets to 10 friends but only 9 of them receive the gift, so I find another friend to give the last ticket to. Just because the one friend resisted or refused the gift doesn't make the other friend less grateful. I receive no less glory as the giver of that gift simply because it is able to be refused.

You need to be more specific with this accusation. What is the strawman? What is the red herring? And why?

 

Sorry, I read that intent into your question. But just understand this question is tantamount to my asking you if your proposed theology leads to fatalism or hyperism. Understand?

No, I didn't. I simply was reporting the proposed tenets of Open Theism. I don't agree with the concept that foreknowledge negates true free will.

No. I'm doubting that the infinite God's mere knowledge of the future necessitates His determination of everything within that known future.

The divine attribute of foreknowledge is most certainly an infinite concept, so to apply it to finite logical reasoning doesn't necessarily work. Speaking of "before" and "prior" are linear terms of time and space and don't really work with an infinite being. It's all speculation. We must stick to scripture and as far as I can see the scripture never equates foreknowledge with predetermination. In fact, scripture is quite clear that God hates sin and is holy and doesn't even tempt men to evil...much less predetermine it to occur because it eternally existed within his mind. To suggest that because of this infinite characteristic of foreknowledge (which we can't even begin to fully comprehend) that God MUST have predetermined evil and that all evil intents must have eternally existed and thus originated in the mind of God is absurd.

 

I agree, both do harm which is why I don't affirm either. Show me how Calvinism doesn't affirm #2 and remains logically consistent.

On these points we most certainly agree. :thumbsup:

Yes it is, but that is not a badge of honor in light of the fact that scripture itself never warns that these particular doctrines would be revolting to born again believers.

Back when I was in High School debate class the teach forced us to repeat the argument of our opponent back in our own words to assure understanding. That would be a good rule for this forum I think. Sometimes its hard to know what people are really understanding based upon their response. I know what the scriptures say and I believe i've been true to them. You must show where I have not if you expect the discussion to carry on.

Asked and answered. Read the previous post to see my reply to this point.

Agreed...read and deal with my last post to you...

 

Did I say that? Did I say that the enemy "might win?" Of course I didn't, but since you can't deal with what I actually DID say you create a strawman and attack. Sad and revealing...