It's a difficult task to try and talk someone out of what they earnestly believe to be the TRUTH. It goes both ways.
Does Calvinism Make God Unjust?
- Thread starter Robert Pate
- Start date
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
In other words you have no sincere desire to engage at a substantive level. Got it. Carry on.
“The wise man builds his house upon the rock (truth), while the foolish man builds his house on sand (opinion)” (Matthew 7:24).
We must be careful to discern between matters of human opinion and matters of divine truth. You have plenty of opinions but nothing that backs them up such that they would warrant carrying any truth value for consideration.
AMR
Duplicate
That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. I still believe you have another gospel and another god.
Here is divine truth.
"God so loved the WORLD that he gave his only begotten Son, that WHOSOEVER believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" John 3:16.
How am I supposed to have a serious discussion with someone who worships "Another gospel?"
AMR is an intelligent and articulate poster. However, that doesn't automatically make him a spokesman of truth.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
You assume the affirmative so the burden is upon you to support it. Mount an actual argument once in a while versus just opinionated statements. You want to discuss the topic, then offer up something worth working with besides these usual empty statements.
Critics of Calvinism need to master the difference between assertions and arguments. They need to become aware of their unexamined assumptions. The anti-Calvinist needs to learn that just because something seems to be wrong to them, that creates no presumption that their perception is correct. These folks need to become cognizant of how often they beg the question. It's not the Calvinist's job to make your argument for them. Too many Calvinist critics are intellectual freeloaders. Unless there's a reason to accept your opinions, there's nothing for the Calvinist to disprove. We have nothing to work with. Unable to furnish even prima facie reasons for your objections, you fall back to the usual ad hominems.
A year has nearly passed since noting this peculiarity of your behavior here. Nothing has changed. You need to improve. Will you?
AMR
Well, I'm still that old lovable GM I always was. Take it or leave it. I have enough information about Calvinism to know it's a false belief system. I have nothing to prove to anybody but myself and I've already done that. Therefore, I explain Calvinism to my fellow posters and warn them against it. I also speak to them the truth of the Grace Gospel. (Paul's Gospel) My job isn't to talk you out of believing in Calvinism. If you're looking for someone to accomplish that, look elsewhere.
It doesn't take a membership in Mensa to warn people against something that is inherently false.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
It appears to me that you like Calvinism because it is complicated and confusing, which brings about controversy which you enjoy. Human intellect has nothing to do with faith. I know of some very intelligent Mormons that believe in that Joseph Smith baloney, just like you believe in that John Calvin baloney.
To AMR I would add one more thought. I don't have to know everything about Catholicism to know it's not the Gospel. I don't have to know everything about Jehovahs Witness or the Mormons to know they don't preach the true Gospel. I could go on, however, I think you get the gist. I know enough about these, Calvinism and other Cults, in order to know I'm not hearing the TRUE Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. As long as I have the TRUE Gospel, why should I be concerned with the false ones? I'm not an Evangelist, Pastor, etc. I'm retired and getting closer to the "Boneyard" each day I live my life. I'll be 66 this December 25, 2016. I've lived MOST of my life already. I saw the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and now I'm seeing a bit of the 21st Century. Lord willing I'll see 2017? I'm happy God allowed me to hear the TRUE Gospel in 1962. Right before hearing the Gospel, I asked my Mom: "Are we going to Hell?" She stated: "Probably?" We weren't even a church-going family, I was 12 years old when I asked my Mom that question and within a few months after that, our family heard the TRUE Gospel and placed our faith in Christ as our Savior. At the time, my Mom had been brought up as a Lutheran and my Dad (a WW2 Marine) was brought up a Methodist. They both were not practicing their "belief systems" as my Sister and I were growing up. We went to church on Easter and Christmas, maybe. After our family heard the TRUE Gospel we continued in that same church for a myriad of years.
In 2011 I was looking for a Christian forum to share on. I came across the name of a guy I knew had belonged to the same church affiliation I had belonged to. His name was "Bob Hill." I was never able to come in contact with him here, however, I found out later he was ill with Alzheimers. There's another poster here that I know, as well, from that same church. I understand he still attends that church. He doesn't remember me, however. Just a little info about my life.
In 2011 I was looking for a Christian forum to share on. I came across the name of a guy I knew had belonged to the same church affiliation I had belonged to. His name was "Bob Hill." I was never able to come in contact with him here, however, I found out later he was ill with Alzheimers. There's another poster here that I know, as well, from that same church. I understand he still attends that church. He doesn't remember me, however. Just a little info about my life.
Never wear them. Especially, "Leisure suits." I only wore ties and sports jackets in my "Nightclub" days in the 80s. I was quite a dancer back then.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
It is very interesting to see you confess as bolded above, a singular true Gospel, which is the same belief I hold. There are not numerous gospels but on one True Gospel of Jesus Christ. One True Gospel of Grace as promised through the new Covenant of Grace ratified by the blood of Christ on the cross, that alone frees sinners from obligation to the Law for righteousness. Romans 3:21-26
Why you go along with the MAD errors, is surprising . . .
Why you go along with the Calvinist Cult is surprising. Well, maybe not that surprising.
No, it is not incorrect of the whole and my Open Theism is not appreciably different than any other Open Theists. You just like to cling to anything that you THINK makes Open Theism look bad.
This exchange with you is frankly exhausting. It reminds of the exchanges I used to have with James Hilston where the use of the normal meaning of words was abandoned and no effort was made to respond to the point being made rather than picking at the words used to make it. This "incorrect of the whole" business is a perfect example. It just simply isn't "incorrect of the whole" at all and if you think it is then you've misunderstood something. But that's the reason this exchange is so cumbersome and tiring. The fact is I know that you have not misunderstood but you've misinterpreted and you've done so on purpose and you know that you've done so and don't care or else have convinced yourself that your intellectually honest persona is real. So, you're either dishonest or can't think straight. In either case, it makes it all but impossible for me to muster the energy required to overcome the emotional inertia required to even continue the discussion.
I couldn't care less what you think of me, Lon. I OFTEN think your polite, contemplative demeanor is a lie and I'm nowhere near convinced that it isn't and comments like this all but prove it to me, not to mention the fact that you believe in a god that condemns people to Hell before they've ever done anything to deserve it.
False. God is primarily concerned with man and his salvation to the point of sacrificing the Life of His own Son to salvage His relationship with mankind. But to suggest that Open Theism is some sort of humanism is flatly false - and you knew that when you made this comment - more evidence that makes me not trust you.
Now I know that this is a primary concern but it is not the primary concern. The primary concern for the Calvinist is the preservation of the attributes which they have decided make a being qualified to be a god. Those attributes being immutability (First principle of all of Augustinian doctrine), Impassibility, Omniscience, Omnipresence and Omnipresence. The "sovereignty" (i.e. the absolutely total meticulous control of every event that occurs) of god is only strongly asserted by the Calvinist because they think god would break if something happened that he didn't always know for certain was going to happen.
This conversation will end immediately if you ever call me an Arminian again. I am not an Arminian - period. The belief in free will is a primary premise of Arminian doctrine but that is not so of Open Theism and a belief if free will is not a sufficient condition to place you into the Arminian camp. If you persist I will take it as proof that you are here to simply lie and I do not participate here with people who do that. I won't warn you again. Not that you'd care.
This is where you begin what seems to me to be the wishy-washy, in the middle sort of stance you take between Calvinism and Arminian doctrine. I find it laughable, considering the comments you've made about being more logical than I am.
I would agree entirely that "relational" is one of God's PRIMARY attributes and I've stated in this exchange that one is forced to choose between God's quality as a person vs how big and how powerful and how much He knows. A point you'll demonstrate for us before this post is over.
"As far as you are concerned" is irrelevant.
Scripture is philosophy. The trick is to remain rationally consistent with it.
No, Lon! Free will is NOT a primary premise of Open Theism! It is used as a premise to be sure but NOT a primary one! Do you even know what a first principle is?
Justice! (Another of God's qualities, by the way.) That's a first principle. Free will is a necessary condition for the existence of justice. God is just. THEREFORE we have free will.
See that, Lon? Free will is a CONCLUSION. That's what you call all the stuff that comes after the word, "Therefore". Premises come BEFORE the "therefore", conclusions after. Got it?
First principles are not conclusions, they are primary presuppositional premises upon which all of your conclusions are based. The Calvinists use the attributes of God that Aristotle taught as their a priori starting point, immutability being chief amoung them, and everything in the whole of the Augustinian construct, including the whole of Calvinism, is derived from them.
No one - no one - says that God was surprised in the sense you mean it. It is not that God never understood it as a possibility or that he "had no idea" that it could happen. God knows future possibilities as just that, possibilities.
Open theism holds that, because agents are free, the future includes possibilities (what agents may and may not choose to do). Since God’s knowledge is perfect, open theists hold that God knows the future partly as a realm of possibilities. This view contrasts with classical theism that has usually held that God knows the future exclusively as a domain of settled facts. There are no “maybes” for God.
The debate is not about the scope and perfection of Gods’ knowledge, for both open theists and classical theists affirm God’s omniscience. God always knows everything. The debate, rather, is about the content of the reality God perfectly knows. It comes down to the question of whether or not possibilities are real.
I’m always puzzled as to why many defenders of the classical theism spin the debate with open theists as a disagreement over the perfection of God’s knowledge. For example, they publish books with titles like How Much Does God Know? (Steven Roy) and What Does God Know and When Does He Know It? (Millard Erickson). Since open theists believe God always knows everything, why do they continue to argue as if we don’t?
- See more at: http://reknew.org/2015/07/how-people-misunderstand-open-theism/#sthash.eY6Urmxt.dpuf
The debate is not about the scope and perfection of Gods’ knowledge, for both open theists and classical theists affirm God’s omniscience. God always knows everything. The debate, rather, is about the content of the reality God perfectly knows. It comes down to the question of whether or not possibilities are real.
I’m always puzzled as to why many defenders of the classical theism spin the debate with open theists as a disagreement over the perfection of God’s knowledge. For example, they publish books with titles like How Much Does God Know? (Steven Roy) and What Does God Know and When Does He Know It? (Millard Erickson). Since open theists believe God always knows everything, why do they continue to argue as if we don’t?
- See more at: http://reknew.org/2015/07/how-people-misunderstand-open-theism/#sthash.eY6Urmxt.dpuf
Again, I just simply don't believe that you are this stupid, which is what you'd have to be in order to not understand the meaning of what is being said.
The fact that God did not know from eternity past that the Columbine shootings would take place does not mean that God was surprised that they happened. I wasn't surprised that they happened! How could God have been? I didn't know that they were going to happen but that doesn't mean I was completely blown out of my mind as though the possibilities of such an atrocity was completely outside of my mind's ability to conceive, which is what you seem to be suggesting is true of God and His stated expectation of finding faith in Israel but not doing so. It's frankly childish thinking actually. It demonstrates, if it is real, that your mind has been corrupted by Calvinism, which I have often called a mental disorder.
I've not only read them, I participated in them. Nowhere does anyone say that God had no idea about anything! No one says it because no one believes that, Lon! Open Theism DOES NOT teach that. I just simply cannot bring myself to believe that you actually think it does. You're lying!
And you claim to be a Calvinist and still use the term! Laughable!
You don't get to do this sort of thing and then claim to be logical or to even have a rational worldview. You cannot have it both ways, Lon. Arminianism is in contradiction to Calvinist doctrine. They cannot both be true. They can both be false, but heaven forbid you to consider that as a possibility!
It describes no such thing. Haphazard, my eye!
Are you being haphazard when you accomplish something? You're not omniscience or omnipresent or omnipotent and yet you are completely capable of having a vision for the future and making plans for its accomplishment and setting about working with, through, around and in spite of all kinds of various people and other obstacles in order to make that vision a reality. Why is it that Calvinists (and Arminians alike) believe that God is not capable of doing the same?
Then if such things aren't important for you then don't you dare allow the claim that you're logical to ever come out of your mouth again.
No, what you are trying to do is to have your cake and eat it too. You are forced to relagate the simple and every day experiencial understanding of relationship, that every human being has, to something too deep for you to grasp in order to preserve your Calvinist first principles.
I've said it over and over and I'll say it again. You are FORCED to choose between God's qualities vs. God's quantitative attributes and you have chosen and the above statement is proof of it. You throw out common sense in favor of pagan Greek philosophical ideas about what God is supposed to be.
Without concern for other's feelings.
We aren't talking about baseball here, Lon. These issues impact eternity and they are not matters of opinion.
I've only been doing this for two decades, Lon. I know what Calvinism is and I know what Arminianism is. I don't need to ask you.
Believing that you can only trust in a god that knows everything in advance is a VERY Arminian thing to say and it is flatly pathetic. Do you trust your own mother? She doesn't know the future, she's not Omni-anything, she's not even immortal, never mind immutable. You literally trust your own family more than you trust God. You have one bar set for your trust in fleshly human beings but say that you cannot trust in God by the same measure. PATHETIC!
Blasphemy.
This paragraph disgusts me to the point that the thought of just not posting on TOL anymore at all actually crossed my mind.
I don't even have words to respond to such a disgustingly blasphemous statement. I could no more worship your god than I could this desk I'm sitting at. In fact, I'd sooner worship this desk than to worship the arbitrary, blatantly unjust, fool's idol that you call god.
I mean, this statement literally makes me sick to my stomach! How can anyone worship such a being? What would it even mean to worship such a god? How does it even make any rational sense at all to call such a thing "just"?
No, Lon! I don't get it! God planned for sin, He did not create sin nor did He create a world where sin was an unavoidable consequence of His creation (same thing).
I was obviously unaware of Sanders statements but I don't take issue with the point he makes in the article to which you linked but only with the terminology he uses. His use of the word "mistakes" is regretable primarily because people like you will now forever have a weapon with which to bludgeon Open Theists with.
God DOES NOT make mistakes in the way you're suggesting. God is infinitely wise and has complete access to and full understand of all facts related to any decision He makes and His every action is the wisest possible action and there can never be a situation where God makes a mistake in the sense that He does one thing and should have done another.
This is stupidity!
Are you out of control in your car if, when you park your car, it isn't exactly in line with the parking curb?
Have you ever attempted to define the concept of "exactly as you intended"? It cannot be done.
More idiotic stupidity. The nation as a political unit was brought into a position of political power by God. It isn't difficult for God to pull such things off. He doesn't have to force anyone's will and He doesn't have to take a peak into the future to see what's coming.
Ordinarily, I let a stupid comment like this one end the conversation because it proves that you are not attempting to have, or are incapable of having a conversation. Call the fact that I'm continuing mercy, or gluttony for punishment whichever you prefer.
It isn't rationalizing. The entire point was that one must guard against rationalizing by just ignoring the plain reading for any reason you can come up with. The entire point of my comment was to emphasize the importance of intellectual honesty. The mental gymnastics required to turn what I said in "rationalizing" is only possible in a broken mind.
You can deny it all you like but you are forced to prefer certain attributes over others as I've demonstrated that you have already done and that has been repeatedly demonstrated here on TOL hundreds of times. It is not avoidable. You will choose (and have chosen) between maintaining God's character and maintaining His quantitative attributes.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Last edited:
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
If you believe another gospel is being touted then the burden is upon you to demonstrate so from careful Scriptural analysis. Just stating your opinion is not going to move a discussion forward. Make an actual argument, not from mere Scripture quotation, but bolstered by proper interpretative methods that perhaps can support your opinion. An example: here :AMR:
AMR
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Of course it does not. But, unlike yourself, when I offer up "I believe..." this or that, my opinion is followed by some studied analysis and rationale that is free for the undertaking to examine and substantively discuss. You go on and on about the Paul's "grace gospel" or other what-nots but to date have never provided anything that resembles an argument in support of your opinions. It seems all you do is read bumper stickers. That is shallowness. Teach us all for the reasons for your opinions such that all are perhaps edified. Sloganism is not what Christianity is about. Take that light out from under your basket once in a while, GM.
AMR