Calvinism and Open Theism are strange bedfellows?

All he did was cite the early church fathers who said precisely the same thing.

He also assumes the same strawman for the Calvinist system that many around here do. In essence, he is arguing against himself, for there is no position equivalent to what he argues against.

 

Just so you know, I have not forgotten this. I cannot do the research necessary to provide an answer at work and I have not had time while at home. Perhaps tonight.

As for the strawman, I can answer that without research. It is the same old saw... Calvinism is portrayed to be "deterministic" and anything that even remotely suggests otherwise is seen as anti-Calvinistic in nature. That is the strawman, for Calvinism is NOT deterministic and fully takes into account the free moral agency of mankind. As long as some author or theologian (may not be one and the same) continues to beg the question in regards to a proper understanding of God's sovereignty they will always yet be amazed when some see the issue from a biblical perspective which (as Spurgeon has probably said best of all) are not "enemies needing reconciliation" but rather "friends" found in Scripture together.

You are as guilty of the strawman and begging the question as anyone, which is sad because you have been in as many debates as anyone I've seen on the issue and it comes up time and time again, yet you insist on returning to the strawman argument -- because that is ALL you have. You cannot defeat the biblical view without getting liberal with the text (which you have) or without doing damage to God (which you have).

 

And I will add that we should be moving beyond these talking points....I repeat they are old & tired! Consequently we are loosing people who are entirely disgusted by the conversation. Alas, an never ending circular fight.

 

And the absurdity continues with mindless twaddle. When God allows others to make autonomous choices, the choice was predestined to be allowed by our Soveriegn God. But logical necessity requires that the choice outcome was not predestined, or it would not be a choice, but rather a non-choice predestined by God. Calvinists must redefine the meaning of words to pour their false doctrine into scripture.

Next we get God did not predestine the Fall, but that view flys in the face of "God predestined whatsoever comes to pass." If God did not predestine the fall, then you are an Open Theist to a limited decree, unlike other Calvinists who asserts God predestined not only the Fall, but each and every rape and murder and mutilation in whole history of mankind, past, present and future, and then punishes those who carried out God's determinite will. You will not win the lost with such an gospel.

 

Free moral agency is a weasel word phrase to dodge the truth that Calvinism says these so called free moral agents suffer from total spiritual inability, the "T" of the TULIP, and therefore can pick and choose which sin to commit, but are unable to seek God and trust in Christ. Thus, once more into the abyss we go of redefining the meaning of words to hide rather than defend the false doctrines of Calvinism.

 

Van, you are quite a character, especially in that you argue out of both sides of your mouth almost continually.

Individuals born separated from God cannot seek God and trust in Christ unless or until God draws them and enables them.

Total spiritual inability means just that -- an inability to select God based on one's own efforts. It takes an act of God first.

So, what is your argument -- except one thing -- you hate the word "Calvinism."

 

GL, I think (perhaps presume) that you would agree, that no matter how vociferously ( ) one might disagree with Van, he articulates and argues his points well. Always makes me think more about things.

 

While it is true we are born separated from God, only someone separated from God would seek God, so logical necessity requires that folks be separated from God to seek God. You stop looking when you find something.

Next, the parable of the four soils, tells us of one soil that cannot seek God, the first soil, but the other three do seek God. Romans 9:30-33 tells us of folks seeking God through works and through faith, therefore the lost can seek God according to scripture. Your claim is utterly unbiblical. No one with even a modest understanding of scripture could accept it.

And lastly you come to the final canard, that the lost cannot trust in God. First we have all those commands and instructions to trust God, so you offer up the feeble argument that God tells us what we ought to do but not what we are able to do. Pure twaddle.

Next, we have Matthew 23:13 were folks are "entering heaven" and therefore are seeking God and are trusting in Christ. But they have not been regenerated with Irresistible Grace, because they are blocked by false teachers.

Calvinism is not only false doctrine, it is obviously false doctrine. That is why Calvinists offer character attacks,i.e Van talks out of both sides of his mouth, and misrepresentations to shift discussion to the opponents position rather than the DOG.

But no matter how many feathers you put in front of it, or how much lipstick you smear on it, its still the DOG, and not the gospel according to scripture.

 

Every Calvinist who argues for God's permissive will, where God allows autonomous choices by people, defends Open Theism. Therefore when Calvinism attacks folks, calling them Open Theists, they are talking out of both sides of their mouth. Either God is the author of sin, or God does not predestine everything, which is Open Theism to a limited degree. Strange bedfellows indeed!!

 

I think you may be confusing What Open Theism teaches. Open theist go beyond saying God did not predestine everything to saying God does not KNOW everything either.

There are forms of calvinism that would say God did not decree the fall, but rather allowed it, knowing it would happen, and choosing not to create a different world in which it did not happen. So I guess they would argue against the initial premise of this OP, and say that Foreknowledge does NOT necessitate predetermination.

Thoughts anyone?

 

Reply to 12 Strings, glad you are back

We must play by Skandelon's rules and if you advocate any tiny part of Open Theism, you are an Open Theist. Thus you and all non Hyper- Calvinists are Open Theists.

Next, according to Calvinism, God knowing everything presupposes everything is predestined. So just as saying God predestines everything but is not the author of sin is a logical impossibility, saying God knows everything but does not predestine everything is also a logical impossibility

For example, saying God looks at the future as if it was history, i.e. the time traveler's God, and therefore He knows what folks freely chose, does not get around that the future would have to exist to look at as history, and if it exists it is set in the stone of God's foreknowledge.

 

Yes, but if the fall was predestined because God's perfect foreknowledge cannot be altered, then whether decreed or not, the Fall was set in the stone of God's future foreknowledge.

Like pick your poison, its pick your paradox for Calvinism and Arminianism. Both views are unbiblcial inventions of men.

 

I agree that Van argues well. I disagree that Van's arguments are always coherent, which is the point of my post above. He argues against "words" without really understanding what lies behind those words, and at times while arguing against a particular word, he actually argues for it, and vice-versa.

Further, he is rather uneducated, and is getting most of his material from other web sites. I can see the distinct difference in style in his writing as he argues from one site to another, or when he posts his own thoughts. Remember, I read doctrinal dissertations as a part of my consulting business. I can spot different writing styles from a mile off. I often catch my doctoral candidates trying to use someone else's thoughts as well and I have to nail them on it so they do not violate the plagurism clause of the institution. Here, there is no clause, so I have no technical reason do do so, save to know when an argument is imported or not.

 

Van, you are KING of character attacks, ANYONE who even suggests that you may be out of sorts with one of your points gets your full load of character assasination. They are either an EVIL CALVINIST or an EVIL ARMINIAN. The only one who is never incorrect is Mr. Van. Yeah, right...

In any case, I believe that you agreed with me above, so I wonder just what you are arguing about, except that I've described that as well, haven't I?

Jesus said plainly that He has all that the Father sends to Him. He says that no man seeks after God unless God draws them. He says that no man is born of anything other than the will of God. You cannot get around those points once you also agree that we are born separated from God.

 

Resolve them for us then... :thumbsup:

 

Glfredrick asked that I resolve this issue.

Read your bible!!!!!!!!!!! My view takes every verse as it is written, when it says folks loose their spiritual ability, i.e harden their heart, it is logically impossible they did not have some limited spiritual ability to lose. If every point from T to I require nullification of verses after verse after verse, and redefining words so the verse means the opposite of what it says, it is time to rethink your theology.

If you hear the gospel does it contain sufficient grace for you to understand and respond? Or, like the first soil of Matthew 13, can a heart be so hardened by the practice of sin or the intervening action of God, that the person is "unable" to hear and understand. The answer from scripture is some people are "unable" but others are unwilling, i.e John 5:20. How could people be unwilling if they were not resisting the call of the gospel. They heard but did not learn from the Father.

 

Interesting post;

It appears that my posts are so brilliant, I must copy and paste my positions without attribution, like a schoolboy.

Does this post address any positions, or just question my qualifications and character? Why is Calvinism defended by these Ad Hominem logical fallacies if it could be defended with truth? Just saying all Glfredrick has in his quiver are logical fallacies, character assassination by innuendo, with nothing of substance concerning the issue of this thread.

If God knows the future exhaustively, and God's perfection requires that His knowledge of the future is perfect, then the future is fixed and everything is predestined. Thus God is the author of sin.

Both Calvinism, other than Hyper Calvinism, and Arminianism claim everything is not predestined, yet God's knowledge of the future is both exhaustive and perfect. Therefore both teach God is the author of sin if viewed logically, but say God is not the author of sin because they claim like Gnostics, they have secret knowledge that this impossibility is true. Strange bedfellows.