The Closed Theism of Calvinism

Vantastic.....more vile heresy.

That a boy Van....do not pay attention to anyone who offers correction....

just keep listening to the voices in your head..

:BangHead:

 

Nuf said brother icon—nuf said---yet we r the bullies unfairly targeting the poor non reformed Van---yet I’ve never heard skan, web, winn, or any other non-reformed brother take it this far----hopefully some will begin 2 understand r concerns now!

 

GE,
It is one thing to try and learn, or mis-understand some verse or doctrine.
But to blaspheme shamelessly is over the top.Everyone is trying to offer help, but his posts are beyond the hindu guy who was banned the other day.

 

Completely out of line no matter how vehemently you disagree. You have some in your own camp posting on this very board espousing some of these things, yet I do not read any of your responses to them like this. Try being consistent.

 

I do not see others besides your friends posting the evil idea that God is the author of sin,is a monster or other vile garbage.
Not knowing something,or trying to learn is completely different than everyday,repeatedly attacking God,His person and work,and His people.
He has been asked several times to stop this false teaching,and offered help but continues to get worse and worse.
If i see someone from "my side" as you say post something that is error,I will speak up as well.....do you have an example of such,that when error is posted,gets corrected, then refuses to consider the correction?

Van has had almost everyone caution him,yet he is getting worse and worse.

 

So, Van, are you saying that God didn't foreknow that you would believe in Him?

 

Foreknowledge does require a certain future in that it is not changeable. If God knows the future, it will happen just as he knows it.

His knowledge, however, did not cause it.

 

Van,

It is your position that is outside the bounds of historic Christian orthodoxy. If I were you, I would look in the mirror before you start throwing around the term "heresy."

 

You know, it may be time to make some settings changes on our accounts. That way Van's posts will appear as follows:

 

That presumes that the means of hardening is not what God used to prevent them from coming to faith, doesn't it?

For example, if I had a crystal ball and foreknew that you will respond to this post in agreement, but I wanted you to disagree for whatever reason, I might "harden" you or speak in a parable or provoke you in some way to ensure disagreement.

Yes, he knew they "might turn and be healed," as the scripture says. The hardening ensures the response God wants to accomplish a redemptive purpose.

 

Let me take a stab at showing that God does indeed know everything, including what might have been.

Mathtew 11:20-24 -

I follow this conversation and cannot imagine that we are actually having to debate the omniscience of God. Part of the problem both sides have in this argument is applying human logic to the actions and person of God, who is above and outside of human logic.

 

I'll take that as a "no."

So, your entire life and all the good deeds you do and all the work for the kingdom you accomplish as a believer is also unknown to God?

Is God so blind to the future that all your works as a believer remain unknown to him? Think about it. If he knows you will travel oversees and become a missionary, or if he knows you will post doctrine on forum, then he would know that you came to faith in Him, right?

Now, multiply that by millions and millions of Christians that God somehow didn't know would come to faith in him. That would necessitate that he wouldn't know anything that these people did for the rest of their lives. Not only believers but non-believers too. His not knowing if a man would refuse faith would certainly be foreknown by a simple view of their lives and how they lived it, wouldn't it? I just don't see how you view is even tenable, if I'm understanding you correctly.

 

I did not address Iconoclast because his position is orthodox. Yours isn't.

You have not supported without refutation. You are making logical leaps in your argumentation, and you have dismissed any explanation to the contrary. Your position is wrong, unbiblical, unorthodox, and blasphemous.

 

It's not tenable, and it's not orthodox. It's just plain wrong.

I can accept differences in opinion regarding soteriology. I readily admit that my understanding of election could be incorrect. In Van's case, however, he has gone beyond the bounds of Christian orthodoxy.