Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Who?
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Who?
Philetus
New member
Only if they are right, Knight. Only if they are right.
Short pejorative answer, Yeah, but you have to be a seminary prof to know how to dismiss the question so freshmen don't think for themselves or stop paying tuition.
Someone said that it is impossible to get a man to understand something that his salary depends on him not understanding.
This last generation of Calvinists will just have to die in the wilderness. NOBODY is listening to them outside of their own camps anymore.
I hate Calvinism.
themuzicman
Well-known member
I also know who Reader is. Essentially, he's a meaner Nang.
Muz
Muz
themuzicman
Well-known member
Mr. Religion gives a very nice description of how Plato might describe God. Let's look at why this is problematic:
Notice the denial of creation. Somehow, creation didn't ever really "not exist", and thus Genesis 1 and 2 cannot be literal.
And this result from atemporality. If creation was created, then there must be a "before" creation, which implies temporal existance.
Genesis 1 clearly indicates that God moves, speaks, creates, rests, and experiences night and day in some sense.
Given believing scripture or denying the Greek Pagan Philosophy idea of immutability and atemporality, the Calvinist chooses.... the latter.
This is the Greek Pagan idea of perfection: If something is perfect, then it cannot move or do anything, otherwise, it would have either been less than perfect before, or in its new state after moving would be less than the perfect state that it was in.
Of course, the Platonist view of God was significantly different than the Christian view.
To the Platonist, there were varying degrees of things, and at the bottom of the "scale" would be dirt, being purely matter, having no form whatsoever. Going up the scale we have insects, who run purely on instinct, but they do run, so there is a little something there. Men are fairly high on the scale, being rational and intellectual, so we have more "form." God, then, is the perfect "form", having no substance, but being purely form (thought), and immutable, since pure and true form cannot change.
The problem is that immutable beings don't move, they don't speak, they don't engage in relationships, they don't have emotions, they don't DO anything.
That's not the God of the bible. The God of the bible creates, interacts, relents, engages in Covenant relationships, takes to Himself a human nature, and a host of other things that an immutable god cannot do.
So, again, with the choice between immutability and Scripture, the Calvinist chooses the former.
Of course, this all violates immutability, since it implies that God chooses, which would require change.
This is called "meticulous sovereignty" which has little to do with the actual meaning of the word "sovereignty." Sovereignty simply means the ability to rule over and execute judgment over a group of people. Certainly God is capable of doing that without controlling every last decision and movement that is made.
This isn't to say that God couldn't create a world with meticulous sovereignty, but it is quite incompatible with the idea that those whom God makes do certain things are judged for having done them, and quite incompatible with the idea that God engages in loving relationships with those that He meticulously controls.
Thus, again, we have the concepts of Calvinism, and we have the bible, and the Calvinist, of course, chooses the former.
I don't do sword drills with Calvinists. If Mr. Religion wants to explain how each of these verses supports his view in their context, then we can go through this. I would advise everyone reading these verse to both read the context and abandon the assumptions of meticulous sovereignty and immutability when reading them. If you do so, you'll find that the Calvinist inserts these concepts into these verses, rather than finding them there.
Muz
[/quote]
Notice the denial of creation. Somehow, creation didn't ever really "not exist", and thus Genesis 1 and 2 cannot be literal.
And this result from atemporality. If creation was created, then there must be a "before" creation, which implies temporal existance.
Genesis 1 clearly indicates that God moves, speaks, creates, rests, and experiences night and day in some sense.
Given believing scripture or denying the Greek Pagan Philosophy idea of immutability and atemporality, the Calvinist chooses.... the latter.
This is the Greek Pagan idea of perfection: If something is perfect, then it cannot move or do anything, otherwise, it would have either been less than perfect before, or in its new state after moving would be less than the perfect state that it was in.
Of course, the Platonist view of God was significantly different than the Christian view.
To the Platonist, there were varying degrees of things, and at the bottom of the "scale" would be dirt, being purely matter, having no form whatsoever. Going up the scale we have insects, who run purely on instinct, but they do run, so there is a little something there. Men are fairly high on the scale, being rational and intellectual, so we have more "form." God, then, is the perfect "form", having no substance, but being purely form (thought), and immutable, since pure and true form cannot change.
The problem is that immutable beings don't move, they don't speak, they don't engage in relationships, they don't have emotions, they don't DO anything.
That's not the God of the bible. The God of the bible creates, interacts, relents, engages in Covenant relationships, takes to Himself a human nature, and a host of other things that an immutable god cannot do.
So, again, with the choice between immutability and Scripture, the Calvinist chooses the former.
Of course, this all violates immutability, since it implies that God chooses, which would require change.
This is called "meticulous sovereignty" which has little to do with the actual meaning of the word "sovereignty." Sovereignty simply means the ability to rule over and execute judgment over a group of people. Certainly God is capable of doing that without controlling every last decision and movement that is made.
This isn't to say that God couldn't create a world with meticulous sovereignty, but it is quite incompatible with the idea that those whom God makes do certain things are judged for having done them, and quite incompatible with the idea that God engages in loving relationships with those that He meticulously controls.
Thus, again, we have the concepts of Calvinism, and we have the bible, and the Calvinist, of course, chooses the former.
I don't do sword drills with Calvinists. If Mr. Religion wants to explain how each of these verses supports his view in their context, then we can go through this. I would advise everyone reading these verse to both read the context and abandon the assumptions of meticulous sovereignty and immutability when reading them. If you do so, you'll find that the Calvinist inserts these concepts into these verses, rather than finding them there.
Muz
nursemaria
New member
Spoof on Calvinism
Spoof on Calvinism
My hubby sent this to me, it is pretty funny!
http://tominthebox.blogspot.com/2007/01/net-finney-guards-families-against.html
Spoof on Calvinism
My hubby sent this to me, it is pretty funny!
http://tominthebox.blogspot.com/2007/01/net-finney-guards-families-against.html
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Spitfire
New member
The "Reader" who seems to do more yelling than reading.
For humanity as a whole, yes.
Evoken
New member
Ask Mr. Religion said:
We are in agreement when you say that "the will of man is free to choose according to the dictates of his nature" but disagree with the consequences you attribute to the Fall, that is, that man is totally depraved and incapable of doing any good whatsoever.
I would say that grace is not necessary for the performance of morally good actions, as there is a twofold sense of goodness, one natural that is within the limits of the nature of fallen man and the other supernatural, for which grace is necessary. While man is indeed corrupted, this corruption is not such that it would render his nature devoid of every good. After the fall, man still has the capacity of doing good proportionate to his nature, just as he has the capacity of knowing natural religious truths (Romans 1:20). Like a sick person who has his ability to move hindered by sickness, yet he can still move even if on a limited way, and can only be healed by medicine. In a similar manner, fallen man can still do good without grace and he can also stop sinning, but he cannot rise from sin, nor can he do anything out of supernatural love, such as salutary acts (actions related to the supernatural end of man) without the help of grace.
That being the case, it can be said that even heathens can perform good works. Holy Scripture attests to this fact in various places: Daniel 4:24, Matthew 5:47, Romans 2:14. It also attests to the fact that man should prepare himself for justification by performing morally good actions and that man must turn himself to God: Ezechiel 18:30, Zacharias 1:3, Psalm 50:19, Matthew 3:2. This presupposes the ability of man being able to choose by his own will to do good, so, his will is not a slave to sin in such a way that all he does is sinful.
Experience also attests to this, some atheists for example, perform morally good actions even tho they do not believe in God. If the consequences you attribute to the fall were true, I believe that this would not be possible and that given the amount of unbelief in the world, we would be in a world far more "hellish" than the one we live today.
So, it must be said that fallen man, since he is not devoid of every good, can still do some good in proportion to his nature. Although this good is not meritorious. that is, it does not by itself lead to the salvation of one's soul. Nor can man, as said above, raise from sin by his own power without grace, which is from God.
Since Scripture says that many are called but that few are chosen (Matthew 22:14) and since God desires all men to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4), then it follows that God gives everyone the grace necessary for salvation. But, since man has free will, he can reject God's grace and refuse to cooperate with him (Acts 7:51).
It must be noted that divine providence does not imposes necessity on all things, as God wills some things to occur by necessity and others by contingency. Predestination (which is not predetermination, but infallible foreknowledge of the future) includes the free will of man and the contingency that this entails. God's sovereignty thus does not frustrates free will but includes it as part of the divine plan.
So, God's unconditional election can hold while still leaving man free to reject him. A good example of this is how God choose his disciples, yet some of them deserted him and in the case of St. Peter, even went as far as to deny him (Mark 14:66-70). Likewise, we see in the Gospels how Jesus Christ calls those who for one reason or the other, refuse to believe in him. Certainly, if those whom he was calling could not come to him unless he turned them to him first, would he not just turn them so that they believe instead of just preaching to them in vain?
Here you seem to be on one side of two extremes: either Christ died for all men and thus all men are saved, or Christ died only for the elect and only the elect are saved. However, Scripture states that Christ is the savior of all men (John 4:42, 1 John 2:2, 1 Timothy 4:10), that is, the sacrifice was made for everyone but it is effects are made actual only on those who believe (John 3:16-17, John 20:31, Mark 16:16). In other words, by the atonement Christ intended to make salvation possible for all men, but not actual for all men. St. Thomas puts it quite nicely: "Christ is the propitiation for our sins, efficaciously for some, but sufficiently for all, because the price of his blood is sufficient for the salvation of all; but it has its effect only in the elect." (Commentary on Titus, I, 2:6).
So, there is a middle ground between both extremes and it is one that is consistent with God's justice, mercy and his desire that all men be saved (1 Timothy 2:4). Your stand would have God desiring the salvation of all men when he already saved a few. The idea you are pushing forth also seems to contradict the divine commission (Matthew 28:19-20), why preach and baptize people if they are already saved after the sacrifice on the cross? Seems rather pointless don't you think? If the redemptive effects of the atonement were made actual for all of the elect at the time it took place, then the elect are already saved and there is no need to preach or even bother reading the Bible.
As stated above, grace can be resisted (Acts 7:51), so while God does extends grace to all men, not all accept this gift. However, it is also clear that those whom the Father calls come to the Son (John 6:45).
That being said, a distinction must be made between efficacious and sufficient grace. The first secures the man who receives it and ensures his salvation, or simply ensures that he does some salutary act. The second simply empowers the person who receives it to do some salutary act, or to persevere in a state of grace. The first is not dependent upon man, but on God alone, as a consequence, since God's will cannot fail, it cannot be resisted. The second is born out of a cooperation between man and God and man can resist it and ultimately reject it and fall into sin. A good illustration of how sufficient grace operates in man is in the instance where St. Peter begins to walk in water but then falls and start to drown once he doubts (Matthew 14:29-31). If only efficacious grace were operative, then in this case, St. Peter would not even doubt, but would walk over the water without sinking an inch.
So, we can say that while God does gives efficacious grace to some, he gives sufficient grace to all (Titus 2:11). This is also presupposed by the fact that the atonement made salvation possible for all men, but is made actual only by some.
To this, I would reply again with both instances of St. Peter in which he not only doubts (Matthew 14:29-31) but explicitly denies Jesus Christ (Mark 14:66-70). Also, St. Paul is well aware that even after being "born-again" he could fall away (Corinthians 9:27). There are several more parts on Scripture that shown that a person can fall away after being "born-again" (2 Peter 2:20-21, 2 Peter 3:17, Romans 11:22, Galatians 5:1-4).
This is why there is the whole concept of forgiveness, repentance and penance. In fact, the "Our Father" presupposes that man can fall to sin but that he can be restored again when it says "Forgive us our trespasses...". If that were not the case, then it doesn't really makes sense to pray to God asking for forgiveness.
Evo
Last edited:
Evoken
New member
I would think that it is not accurate to say that the future is unknowable. We mere humans can make predictions about the future and know what will happen beyond the present (things like weather forecasts come to mind). We know this because we know the effects that some causes produce, we see a cloudy sky we know that it will rain, for example.
Likewise, God too knows the effects that every cause produces, so he can know the future of all things that happen either by necessity or by contingency infallibly. As every cause owns his being to him as the primary efficient cause, he knows their effects in a comprehensive manner (Ecclesiasticus 23:28-29).
Evo
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
You ignored or never bothered to read my material carefully. "God created time and rules over time, using it for his own purposes and glory. But God’s experience of time nothing like mankind experiences time. God’s does not experience a patient endurance through eons of endless duration, instead God has a qualitatively different experience of time than we do." When God spoke the universe into existence God created time, saw events in time, and acted, e.g., the seven days of creation, in time.
What part of "This does not mean God is impersonal, indeed, God speaks to us, rejoices in us, and loves us." don't you understand? Don't add to my words, just read them carefully.
"God’s perfections and attributes are unchangeable. They do not increase, or decrease in number, quality or power." Again you seem to want to put words in my mouth, yet I have not written them. Which of God's pefections and attributes changes in number, quality, or power when God chooses? Do you understand immuatbility or are you just assuming it is equated with taking action? It is not. Review my words and leave your anti-Calvinism biases aside....if you can.
Now you are making up terms? The verses cited are in contextual agreement with my words. Yours words and no accompanying scripture are something you pulled out of thin air.
I have clearly stated that God rejoices, hates, and loves. Please read carefully. You are trying to map more humanism into your theology than the bible allows.
Apparently you don't even bother to review any scripture before posting a reply to a post that contained 107 verses that were carefully aligned with my words. For each section of my post, isolate each sentence I wrote in one column. In another add the verses I cited. Then tell me what you find disagreable and why. I did the heavy lifting for you, crafting the interpretations of the messages contained in these verses, so this should not take you too long to do.
If this is the way you come to your doctrinal conclusions, then I now understand why you can only resort to rhetoric.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
That about sums you up, Clete.
Let's see, I guess we also need a new rendering here:
Rev. 19:13 He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Logic of God.
Actually it is sort of sad to see how you view these important verses. You throw things out there like this because you have seen it somewhere and think that it is useful. I suspect you also want to be clever. Unfortunately you obviously do not fully understand the history behind this rendering or the grammar. Have you actually taken any formal Hebrew and Greek grammar courses?
Do you fancy yourself to be a Gordon Clark "calvinist"? A Gnostic? Or a non-Trinitarian? Best to not use things like this unless you want to be answering these questions each time you are dealing with theologians.
themuzicman
Well-known member
So, you deny immutability? You already stated that creation has always existed in God's mind. Was God's mind wrong for a while, before He created?
Your problem is that I did read your post carefully, and there are HUGE inconsistencies in it. You fail to explain how God does not experience a succession of events (time), and yet there can be a "before creation" and "after creation" for God. You fail to explain how God can be eternally "now" for every moment in time, and yet take to Himself a human nature in the carnation.
I did read them carefully. A God that cannot change (immutability) and has no emotions (impassibility) cannot begin a relationship, because a timeless, immutable being cannot start anything and cannot engage relationship.
It's logically impossible.
Ah... you're beginning to moderate... this is good... this is good...
First God is completely immutable, and now it's only his attributes and character that does not change. With this, I agree.
Actually, what I've said only points out the obvious errors in your arguments. And you don't bother to even post scripture, much less give us your exegesis of it.
And "meticulous sovereignty" isn't a term I invented. It's been around far longer than I have. It accurately describes your view. "Sovereignty" as I've defined it is the normal definition.
Actually, you're refuting yourself. Immutability cannot have changes in emotion... Unless you're backing off your original claims, of course.
You've done no lifting at all. You've stated your systematic theology and then the proof texts that you think support them, but you don't bother to give any exegesis.
Given the complete lack of logical coherance in your position, along with the lack of Scriptural foundation, I stay away from your position.
Muz
It's not that strange when you understand the meaning of the word in the original language.
Logos carries essentially the identical meaning as our word logic which is not limited to the formal rules of necessary inference as most people who disagree with such a translation assume. Both logic and logos refer to reason, the spoken word, concepts, argument (especially formal/legal arguments), thought, etc.
The term "Word" is not incorrect but it is incomplete and not as accurate a translation for Logos as our term Logic is. Had the the translators of the King James Bible used Logic rather than Word, no one would have argued with them over it and our understanding of the English word 'logic' would be a lot broader and more accurate than it is today.
In short the translation is an accurate one and better suited to the point I wanted to make when I quoted the verse.
Resting in Him,
Clete
themuzicman
Well-known member
Unfortunately, the debate about what John meant by "logos" in John 1 is ongoing. That's one possibility. But that's not the only one.
Another is that 'logos' is a Greek idiom for a "god-man."
Another is that 'logos' refers to the Jewish concept of Wisdom.
No on really understands it.
Muz
Another is that 'logos' is a Greek idiom for a "god-man."
Another is that 'logos' refers to the Jewish concept of Wisdom.
No on really understands it.
Muz
Most of us do not consider the Apocrypha to be Scripture.
The future is knowable as possible or probably, not as certain or actual (weather forecasters are often wrong; insurance companies are statistically accurate, but do not know when or how any individual will die or get sick).
Cause and effect are far more predictable than free moral choices that inherently have an element of uncertainty in their contingent vs caused choices. God knows the character of Peter before his denial, but this cannot be extrapolated to mean that He exhaustively foreknows every moral and mundane choice of every free agent from eternity past.
It is a wrong assumption (determinism) to think our choices are ultimately caused by God. This is not genuine freedom. We are responsible for our choices as those in the image of God. This explains evil and moral responsibility/accountability.
The Early Church Father/Apologetes developed a similar philosophical concept about logos. John's use of the term had roots in philosophy, but the Holy Spirit inspired new depth, meaning, and application of it. It would be a mistake in word studies, in my opinion, to press the logic idea too far (analagous vs identical). The historical information on this term is vast, but languages evolve and permutate over time, let alone under the inspiration of the Spirit for Scripture. We cannot apply every old thought about logos to the Johannine usage of it at his time in history.
'Logic' implies impersonal, but Word/logos application is personal. A person uses logic, but is not identical to logic. Perhaps Clete uses it as a personification?
themuzicman
Well-known member
Except that they aren't always right..
The scope, here, is the free decisions of men...
Apocrypha?
Muz
- Status