Reformed Theology: Somewhere Between..

[Derf]

I'm older, on theology change, I move a LOT slower so need more patience than others used to have to extend. The good news is, if you get me there (meaningfully from scripture of course) I'd stay there fairly solidly as well. I was Amyraldian for a very long time.

Interesting. Did you call it Amyraldian at the time, or only find out afterward? Maybe that's a different conversation...

 

[Derf]

Hello Derf,
Genesis 3:22 It is a possession of sorts, just like all knowledge can be seen as such. The scriptures encourage us to 'get' an education, for instance. Proverbs 4:5,7 even paying for it

I think you're still confusing knowledge with the ability to choose. Adam and Eve had that ability to choose between good and evil before they got the knowledge of good and evil from the wrong tree. Else God wouldn't have told them not to do it. And knowledge may be necessary for a well-rounded choice, but people make choices all the time without the full information necessary or even available to them.

Also, you said this:


A number of agreeable sentences here :thumb:


J.I. Packer, John Piper, and these other learned men aren't saying they don't study, they are saying that 1) after studying, they realize there is more that they don't know, than they do, 2) that it is a learned and scholastic opinion, and 3) that it is also a challenge that others can't do better either.

No contention here. My issue is that it is a fallback position too quickly resorted to. As soon as something that is unknown comes up to the Calvinists I know, they resort to the one type of text that no one can answer. And no one can answer it because it is universally applied, not because it is singly applicable. It's a conversation stopper.

My specific point was that there is a probable balance between judgment and consequence. Also, in another thread regarding hell, the question was: "Why eternal if punishment? Punishment is more retributive how long does that take to satisfy?" I thought it a good question but dragged my luggage in here regarding it. Apologies, but that is where the 'mystery' lay on this specific. I 'think' the answer lies in consequences but it left me with more question than answers. Again, not a lot to do with this thread, so apologies for importing.

If by "balance" you mean there's a certain amount of punishment for a each crime, maybe. But I don't see that in scripture, at least applied to eternal punishment or eternal bliss. It smacks too much of purgatory, which denies the power of the cross, imo.

I simply see this: I am a finite being, therefore anything I think, do, feel, reflects that limitation. God does not have that limitation. It doesn't mean He isn't relational, it just means He is as Ephesians 3:20,21 says He is, and well beyond me. Example: A 1st grader can check my basic math, rightly. A first grader cannot check my algebra (although they are learning it early these days in simple forms).

Not to belabor the point, but the gap between finiteness and infiniteness is in the same vein as the "secret things of God" passage. Not that there aren't differences (nor secret things of God that we can't know), but it is used to squelch conversation. Listen for it in others (and maybe yourself)--you will see that when a topic comes up that is hard to express/explain, the magic verses/words are pulled out to get out of the jam.

Now, about the "glory" citation. If you remember the passage from Through the Looking Glass, Humpty Dumpty gives his own definition for "glory" (http://sabian.org/looking_glass6.php, search for "glory") as "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!". Then he proceeds to explain that it means what he decides it will mean, and he further explains that whoever defines the words is "Master".

I didn't really have any problem with your definition of "glory" but it made me remember the passage from the book and smile. In a broader sense I think this is part of the problem many times between differing theological positions--the definitions of words are not quite the same. For instance, your Amyraldianism seems to take issue with the "limited atonement" part of TULIP, if I understood my quick search (never heard the term before and had to look it up) well enough, so they equivocate on the word "will" in a very similar way to what freewill theists advocate (not the equivocation, but the implications), allowing for a will of God that does not have to come to pass--that all men be saved--because the greater will is that they have the ability to choose.

If that was where you were before, you seem to have moved in the other direction from me, as I have gone more toward than away from the idea that Jesus died for all.

It's also quite likely that I haven't got the full understanding of Amyraldianism. :think:

 

[Desert Reign]

I'm not trying to caricature Calvinism. I'm trying to understand its faults in order to describe them,

Thanks. I was just trying to help. Your point 2 argues that [Calvinism says that] God's will is for people to freely believe and without coercion.
I was simply trying to say that if your view of Calvinism is self-evidently negative or self-contradictory by stating this, then the actual position is even worse because according to Calvinism, God doesn't allow any free will at all. As Lon says, free will is regarded as rebellion, not as something positive. Nope, per Calvinism, God coerces (call it by some other word if that offends anyone) both the elect to salvation and the non-elect to damnation.
Actually, they call it irresistible grace. But I personally think coercion is a fair comment of it.
That explains the I in my signature.

 

[Desert Reign]

Plus, I'm not trying to caricature Calvinism. I'm trying to understand its faults in order to describe them, either to its adherents or to those that might be heading that way.

Another comment: to get people to understand Calvinism better (and thus to see its faults clearly) the issue of language is really central. Like many cults, language is twisted. Perhaps Calvinists don't do this deliberately but at very least the most educated and outspoken proponents must surely be aware that a number of the words and phrases they use are defined significantly differently to the common definitions or understandings of those phrases.

Free will: in the common understanding this means the ability to choose freely and without coercion from a number of possibilities. In Calvinism it means the ability to act according to your greatest inclinations. If you don't feel comfortable with that definition, my translation of it would be: the ability to act. Period. Because it is a truism that whatever we do, we do according to our greatest inclinations at the time of the act. Thus, the ability to make a choice, especially a moral choice, is defined away.

Faith: in the common understanding, a mental attitude or act of believing in something or someone akin to trust and personal acceptance. In Calvinism, an ability which no one naturally posesses, to believe in the Gospel but which God allows certain individuals to have. And then, it is not the ability itself but the actual attitude of believing. Such an attitude is given by God - it is not the result of a choice by the individual.

Depravity: in the common understanding, moral bankruptcy. In Calvinism, the natural inability, as stated above, to believe the Gospel. It's a serious assumption: that man, who we commonly understand to have the ability to believe in things and people, does not have the same ability when it comes to God. The change in language is exceedingly confusing and deceptive because if man doesn't naturally have that ability then there is nothing morally wrong with man because of it. And yet it is termed depravity.

Decree: in the common understanding, a command issued by a monarch or sovereign that must be obeyed by the subjects of that monarch. A decree usually consists of a specific action that all or specified subjects must carry out or an act that they would routinely do but must refrain from doing from then on. In Calvinism, a state of affairs that God wants to happen but which he does not command anyone or anything to do and which happens merely because he wants it to. I am sure Calvinists will correct me here: because any attempt to describe this definition will descend into incoherence.

An example of a phrase might be:

'God will save anyone who believes in Christ, whoever they might be' means 'God will save all those who come to Christ for the simple reason that only the elect will come to Christ - and God will certainly save all the elect.' In the common tongue, this means 'Whoever you are, if you choose to follow Christ, God will save you.'

I could go on, but this is food enough for thought.

 

[Lon]

I think you're still confusing knowledge with the ability to choose. Adam and Eve had that ability to choose between good and evil before they got the knowledge of good and evil from the wrong tree. Else God wouldn't have told them not to do it. And knowledge may be necessary for a well-rounded choice, but people make choices all the time without the full information necessary or even available to them.

I don't believe so, not confused. Without the serpent, I don't believe the choice 'could' have happened.

No contention here. My issue is that it is a fallback position too quickly resorted to. As soon as something that is unknown comes up to the Calvinists I know, they resort to the one type of text that no one can answer. And no one can answer it because it is universally applied, not because it is singly applicable. It's a conversation stopper.

Often times it has to be because it delves into speculation rather than knows. Conversely, simply because there is a known (freewill), the rejection of it leaves the unknowns in its place. That's why it tends to be bothersome to free will theists, they expect an answer because they believe they have it and expect another system to have something it it's place. We do, it is the 'counsel and character of God' but that isn't quite the answer looked for. I empathize, I think.

If by "balance" you mean there's a certain amount of punishment for a each crime, maybe. But I don't see that in scripture, at least applied to eternal punishment or eternal bliss. It smacks too much of purgatory, which denies the power of the cross, imo.

AMR, reading along with us, gave me this link. It is a side issue however, not important to this thread. Again, apologies for importing.

Not to belabor the point, but the gap between finiteness and infiniteness is in the same vein as the "secret things of God" passage. Not that there aren't differences (nor secret things of God that we can't know), but it is used to squelch conversation. Listen for it in others (and maybe yourself)--you will see that when a topic comes up that is hard to express/explain, the magic verses/words are pulled out to get out of the jam.

I think it an important point to belabor. The book of Job deals primarily with how far we can peer behind the curtain. Scripture is replete with God reminding us we are the creation, He the Creator. God asks Job "Where were you?" Job shuts his mouth and says he spoke out of turn. There is a holiness (setting apart) often that demands we become sanctimonious any time we feel the weight of God saying "where were you!?" Lest we stop our mouths "I have spoken too much, well beyond my means." I might suggest that perhaps the Calvinist is more comfortable with it than our counterparts. One thing is certain: it is no longer because of freewill or synergism for us. Or yet another way: For the freewill theist and synergist, "man's choice" is the focus so there is no worry about walking on holy ground in sandals. For the Calvinist, with "God's will" we often remove our sandals or do not presume to tread. I believe that may help explain, at least the reason for the frustration, if not alleviate it (I don't think it can remove it, with such a paradigm shift).

Now, about the "glory" citation. If you remember the passage from Through the Looking Glass, Humpty Dumpty gives his own definition for "glory" (http://sabian.org/looking_glass6.php, search for "glory") as "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!". Then he proceeds to explain that it means what he decides it will mean, and he further explains that whoever defines the words is "Master".

I didn't really have any problem with your definition of "glory" but it made me remember the passage from the book and smile. In a broader sense I think this is part of the problem many times between differing theological positions--the definitions of words are not quite the same. For instance, your Amyraldianism seems to take issue with the "limited atonement" part of TULIP, if I understood my quick search (never heard the term before and had to look it up) well enough, so they equivocate on the word "will" in a very similar way to what freewill theists advocate (not the equivocation, but the implications), allowing for a will of God that does not have to come to pass--that all men be saved--because the greater will is that they have the ability to choose.

If that was where you were before, you seem to have moved in the other direction from me, as I have gone more toward than away from the idea that Jesus died for all.

It's also quite likely that I haven't got the full understanding of Amyraldianism. :think:

I came to Limited atonement realizing Jesus likely did not die for Jezebel or Pharaoh or Manasseh. I don't believe His blood is retroactively applied. "Sins of the whole world" became manward to God, in my understanding. IOW, that there is no propitiation for all of men, but Christ. He is the only way truth and life. Atonement also means "at one with God" and only those made right, are at one with God. So, while I still wrestled with portions of Limited atonement (I believe God so Loved the world), I do realize there is limitation on the atonement. It was about 5 years ago now that I accepted the "L"imitation and became Calvinist.

 

[Lon]

Thanks. I was just trying to help. Your point 2 argues that [Calvinism says that] God's will is for people to freely believe and without coercion.
I was simply trying to say that if your view of Calvinism is self-evidently negative or self-contradictory by stating this, then the actual position is even worse because according to Calvinism, God doesn't allow any free will at all. As Lon says, free will is regarded as rebellion, not as something positive. Nope, per Calvinism, God coerces (call it by some other word if that offends anyone) both the elect to salvation and the non-elect to damnation.
Actually, they call it irresistible grace. But I personally think coercion is a fair comment of it.
That explains the I in my signature.

The "I" while a negative, is correct. Can you or I or another resist damnation? :nono: I know of no 'unavoidable' consequence. Such requires God's intervention.

A little off topic:
I would point out, that your T-P acrostic is man-centered, that is, it is what necessarily comes from freewill perspective. It is importing, but that's not a great surprise, or shouldn't be. Note that every one of your counters, changes the focus from concerns regarding God and man, completely flipping each and every one of them.

Total Depravity you changed to Total Misanthropy. Note where the original means "man" cannot save himself to your "God" hates man.

Next
Unconditional Election you changed to Uncertain Election, again moving the focus this time, from God, to man. (you could have posted the Remonstrance in opposition btw)

(This latter part for your benefit, rather than thread concerned)

 

[musterion]

Musterion,

Has AMR ever once actually answered one of your questions?

Just asking.

Ask him one yourself and see. Try the one about God damning for unbelief those whom He rendered incapable of belief...does it make Him a liar? That seems to be the touchiest one round these parts. I'm still working through his last reply to me.

 

[Desert Reign]

The "I" while a negative, is correct. Can you or I or another resist damnation? :nono: I know of no 'unavoidable' consequence. Such requires God's intervention.

In the same sense of resisting grace, yes, we can both resist grace and we can resist damnation. We resist grace by rejecting God's offer of salvation in Christ. We resist damnation by accepting it.

A little off topic:
I would point out, that your T-P acrostic is man-centered, that is, it is what necessarily comes from freewill perspective. It is importing, but that's not a great surprise, or shouldn't be. Note that every one of your counters, changes the focus from concerns regarding God and man, completely flipping each and every one of them.

Total Depravity you changed to Total Misanthropy. Note where the original means "man" cannot save himself to your "God" hates man.

Well, let's see then:

Calvinists: Total depravity - Man centred
Me: Total Misanthropy - this is a comment on your doctrine, not on man. Misanthropy means that the God of Calvinists hates man, not that God hates man. It implies the opposite, that God actually loves man and sent his son to die for all mankind. Your doctrine teaches that God only loves a few of mankind, those you call 'the elect'. So my T is God-centred.

Next
Unconditional Election you changed to Uncertain Election, again moving the focus this time, from God, to man. (you could have posted the Remonstrance in opposition btw)

Let's see again then:
Calvinists: Unconditional election - God centred.
Me: Uncertain election - once again, this is a comment on your doctrine, not on man or on God. Whilst you claim that election is unconditional, you cannot claim that you or anyone else knows who is elect and who is not. Indeed Calvinism teaches the negative - that it is impossible for human beings to know the basis of God's election because it is hidden in the will of God'. And whilst you counter this by asserting that if a person has all the signs of faith and works then he must be elect, it is only a subjective assessment. It is not an argument. In your actual doctrine there is no certainty that someone is elect.
My doctrine, that of the openness movement generally, teaches that our salvation is certain, based on the actual faithfulness of God to the individual, whoever that individual is. There is no doubt. There is no question overhanging the debate as to whether the individual is elect or not. This is therefore very much a God centred belief and focus. Whilst your U is also God centred, it is not God-honouring. You claim that faith is solely the gift of God, yet your doctrine leads only to doubt, not to faith!

But wait, you forgot to mention the L and the P!

(This latter part for your benefit, rather than thread concerned)

You are quite right not to go there.

 

[Lon]

In the same sense of resisting grace, yes, we can both resist grace and we can resist damnation. We resist grace by rejecting God's offer of salvation in Christ. We resist damnation by accepting it.

Well, if you are a freewill theist. There is no way out of damnation without Christ. Think about it a bit more deeply? :think:

Well, let's see then:

Well, apologies to the OP for a bit of off-topic then....

Calvinists: Total depravity - Man centred
Me: Total Misanthropy - this is a comment on your doctrine, not on man. Misanthropy means that the God of Calvinists hates man, not that God hates man.

Well, it is a bit of :dizzy: thinking but it is really not you defending God, but free will and the condition of fallen man. I do not despise it, because I was one. I just think I understand it fairly well.

It implies the opposite, that God actually loves man and sent his son to die for all mankind. Your doctrine teaches that God only loves a few of mankind, those you call 'the elect'. So my T is God-centred.

A much better sig and moniker than "One against Calvinism" as your sig now implies. Just a thought, genuinely offered (not that I don't mind the publicity).

Let's see again then:
Calvinists: Unconditional election - God centred.
Me: Uncertain election - once again, this is a comment on your doctrine, not on man or on God.

Of course it isn't. This time, truly, think more deeply. It is, in fact, a reflection on you and what you do (or do not- "uncertain") understand.

Whilst you claim that election is unconditional, you cannot claim that you or anyone else knows who is elect and who is not. Indeed Calvinism teaches the negative - that it is impossible for human beings to know the basis of God's election because it is hidden in the will of God'. And whilst you counter this by asserting that if a person has all the signs of faith and works then he must be elect, it is only a subjective assessment. It is not an argument. In your actual doctrine there is no certainty that someone is elect.

No more or less than the Arminian or Open Theist? :think: This is worth the expounding of conversation, I think, if you are willing. You touch briefly on it below:

My doctrine, that of the openness movement generally, teaches that our salvation is certain, based on the actual faithfulness of God to the individual, whoever that individual is. There is no doubt. There is no question overhanging the debate as to whether the individual is elect or not. This is therefore very much a God centred belief and focus. Whilst your U is also God centred, it is not God-honouring. You claim that faith is solely the gift of God, yet your doctrine leads only to doubt, not to faith!

Tell me then, is Knight, without any doubt, a Christian? How do you know? How about me? How do you know? I assert you can know if you are saved, and that you can ONLY tell if you are saved. A couple of readily apparent reasons what that 'must be so' can progress from here and it is an important discussion if you are willing.

But wait, you forgot to mention the L and the P!

You are quite right not to go there.

Well, we can keep going then:

L- Limited Atonement. You, "Luck of the Draw."

If it is luck of the draw, it certainly is for the Open Theist, but most specifically 'for God.' At least, in your caricature, it is only a worry for man. Notice yet again the flip-flop in your concern and emphasis.

It is VERY good if you get into these discussions and actually see what 'motivated' you to adopt the caricature. A full pendulum swing, is in fact, human-reactionary. A 'better' reaction is scripture. A human reaction isn't quite the depth I'd hope Calvinism would impress upon another. It certainly didn't me. I started reading quite a bit. On this, I was Amyraldian for a long time. I generally rejected "Limited" while accepting "atonement" as limited, because 'only' those who are believers are made right with God. There are certainly scriptures about God's choices in the matter, but the OV doesn't emphasize those scriptures.

That leaves Perseverance. I've no idea the loose thinking that sent the acrostic off to Persecution. It seems a vitriolic emoting rant than a logical connection, so I'd have to have your input (it probably doesn't mean much to others either, almost a "and take this too!" disgruntled afterthought grunt. -Lon

 

[Clete]

Honestly, I rarely get you, or think you are that clear. In fact, I think, at times, you are unclear, and shallow. On top of that, I'm arrogant. Such just makes bad communication all around.

Actually probably a good plan. I am often left guessing where you are headed and should just stop and ask for directions. Not that you are particularly terrible, just that we don't think the same way. I'd never ask you for directions on a road trip. We genuinely don't communicate well.


It doesn't matter whether the extemporaneous 'on the face of it' was there are not. It answered your question and allows for further deeper interaction if one is so inclined.

This means nothing to me. I have no context, like trying to read your mind. Let me just look at words that have no meaning, but their own out of any context expression:
This is a logical mess, Clete. And two dimensional. And often false (it is an incorrect sentence). I am every bit as arrogant, but worse, think I can readily demonstrate my logical prowess. I'll say "yes" yet again.


I can't play trombone. I know when someone else is playing it wrong.


Honestly? You are a two-dimensional thinker and often go for the cursory without a lot of depth. It is partly personality, you are phlegmatic, and in keeping, it is also a bit arrogant in that you project your worldview without realizing you are often wrong, thinking more often that you are right and/or communicating when you aren't. It is hard to talk to phlegmatics because they must be confronted more bluntly than others. I've a bit of choleric, especially in these kinds of discussions, and we don't generally get along well. I have an amiable side that seeks a meeting of ways, but that isn't especially embraced or cared for in phlegmatics. It is almost like we should never cross paths.

Blah, blah, blah....the answer to your question is yes...blah, blah, blah.

Good grief man! Can you not just answer a simple question? I asked it three different ways and there is no way on this earth that you didn't understand what I was asking when I asked it the first time.

And the communication problem is yours, not ours. All I'm doing is asking an honest question that you're scared to answer. But at least you answered it!

So, you acknowledge that there is a way to know the difference between difficulties caused by ignorance vs. flat out falsehood.

The question you dodged is just as important, if not more so...

HOW?

That is not a trick question, its a straight forward question that I'd just about bet my house that you have no answer for that won't implode your entire theological worldview.

This is a question about epistemology, not personalities profiles. I could not possibly care less whether you're phlegmatic, the English language works and I make every effort to say exactly what I mean. You'd do better to stop trying to anticipate where I'm going and just answer the questions. If your doctrine is true, it can survive answering my questions. There's no need to be scared of a rational examination of your doctrine and I'm not interested in scoring cheap superficial points. What I want is to destroy Calvinism for real. If I beat you, which is my goal, I'll have done so for real not because I caused you to trip over your own shoe laces on some trivial point.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Ask him one yourself and see. Try the one about God damning for unbelief those whom He rendered incapable of belief...does it make Him a liar? That seems to be the touchiest one round these parts. I'm still working through his last reply to me.

Oh I've asked him plenty! That's why I asked you the question. It seems you have had the same experience I had many moons ago.

I suppose, whether you ever get a coherent answer to any question, the mental exercise is worth the effort.

God bless!

 

[Derf]

I don't believe so, not confused. Without the serpent, I don't believe the choice 'could' have happened.

Maybe, but speculative. I prefer to think that God would have rather said, "If you listen to the serpent you will die", if that were the case. But we don't have the other case to consider.

Often times it has to be because it delves into speculation rather than knows. Conversely, simply because there is a known (freewill), the rejection of it leaves the unknowns in its place. That's why it tends to be bothersome to free will theists, they expect an answer because they believe they have it and expect another system to have something it it's place. We do, it is the 'counsel and character of God' but that isn't quite the answer looked for. I empathize, I think.

AMR, reading along with us, gave me this link. It is a side issue however, not important to this thread. Again, apologies for importing.

I think it an important point to belabor. The book of Job deals primarily with how far we can peer behind the curtain. Scripture is replete with God reminding us we are the creation, He the Creator. God asks Job "Where were you?" Job shuts his mouth and says he spoke out of turn. There is a holiness (setting apart) often that demands we become sanctimonious any time we feel the weight of God saying "where were you!?" Lest we stop our mouths "I have spoken too much, well beyond my means."

Always a good caution to watch that we don't speak too much where we don't have the information. My complaint, again, is that it is used when someone doesn't have the answer, though the answer may be available. This is a broad brush that is likely not very accurate, but it is an observation of mine regarding Calvinists.

I might suggest that perhaps the Calvinist is more comfortable with it than our counterparts. One thing is certain: it is no longer because of freewill or synergism for us. Or yet another way: For the freewill theist and synergist, "man's choice" is the focus so there is no worry about walking on holy ground in sandals.

I think the right wording is "For the Calvinist, '"man's choice" is the focus' is the focus", if you get my drift. I don't think, for the ideal Freewill theist if there is such a thing, that man's choice is the focus, but scripture's description of what is truth.

For the Calvinist, with "God's will" we often remove our sandals or do not presume to tread. I believe that may help explain, at least the reason for the frustration, if not alleviate it (I don't think it can remove it, with such a paradigm shift).



I came to Limited atonement realizing Jesus likely did not die for Jezebel or Pharaoh or Manasseh. I don't believe His blood is retroactively applied. "Sins of the whole world" became manward to God, in my understanding. IOW, that there is no propitiation for all of men, but Christ. He is the only way truth and life. Atonement also means "at one with God" and only those made right, are at one with God. So, while I still wrestled with portions of Limited atonement (I believe God so Loved the world), I do realize there is limitation on the atonement. It was about 5 years ago now that I accepted the "L"imitation and became Calvinist.

I'd sure be hesitant to say Jesus didn't die for those guys when Paul calls himself the chief of sinners. If Paul is telling the truth, then those guys are eligible, but not without repentance. Same with any wicked person who repents or righteous person who goes wicked, I suppose, in light of Ezek 18:21 and following.

And can we say that there are some too wicked for God to save? I'd expect the "where were you" rebuke at any minute, if I did! How wicked do you have to be to get bumped up to the "too wicked to be called just 'wicked'" category? Hitler is our current day example. But what did Hitler do? He persecuted people for their race and religion, just like Paul. Was Hitler unsaveable? What limits do we put on the limitless grace of God?

 

[Lon]

Blah, blah, blah....the answer to your question is yes...blah, blah, blah.

Good grief man! Can you not just answer a simple question? I asked it three different ways and there is no way on this earth that you didn't understand what I was asking when I asked it the first time.

If you would explain a bit more of your thinking "before" asking a question, It would clarify. I have no room for casting stones, however. I do, generally, take criticism of my own unclarity, better, however.

And the communication problem is yours, not ours. All I'm doing is asking an honest question that you're scared to answer. But at least you answered it!

:nono: Let's compare IQ's and grades etc. I have, occasionally, seen you take blame for your lack of clarity, I'm just not sure how to elicit it.

So, you acknowledge that there is a way to know the difference between difficulties caused by ignorance vs. flat out falsehood.

This kind of Open Theist apologetic approach, has others jumping through poodle hoops. 1) It is demeaning 2) It is, most often, shallowly agendized and egregiously sophomoric 3) generally avoided by me. 4) It rarely, if ever proves anything but a platitude 5) generally beneath me and along the lines of unappreciated humor. It isn't that I don't get it, it is that my humor palate is more sophisticated. 6) It is an OV standard tack that I find, more often than not, beneath me

The question you dodged is just as important, if not more so...

HOW?

It would be incredibly more expedient, instead of a one-sided conversation, to not treat another as if he/she is the object of meaningless agendized hoops and actually care enough to understand where another is coming from. Because I detest these kinds of leading/loaded questions as inane, demeaning, and agendized, I rarely cooperate. Why? Because the guy doing it isn't interested in "no it certainly does not mean that" afterwards. It carries its own censure (only reveal so much and prove my logical prowess and I really don't care what they other guy wants to talk about, he has to jump through 'my' hoops')

That is not a trick question, its a straight forward question that I'd just about bet my house that you have no answer for that won't implode your entire theological worldview.

"Loaded" question in this case and generally seen as dubious and unacceptable. Do you wonder that I'm not the only one that doesn't like them??? :think:
I don't even think I'd mind if it wasn't the only dialogue bullet in your doctrinal discussing gun.

This is a question about epistemology, not personalities profiles. I could not possibly care less whether you're phlegmatic, the English language works and I make every effort to say exactly what I mean. You'd do better to stop trying to anticipate where I'm going and just answer the questions. If your doctrine is true, it can survive answering my questions. There's no need to be scared of a rational examination of your doctrine and I'm not interested in scoring cheap superficial points. What I want is to destroy Calvinism for real. If I beat you, which is my goal, I'll have done so for real not because I caused you to trip over your own shoe laces on some trivial point.

Resting in Him,
Clete

You work at things backwards, purposefully, because it is an Open Theist commercial, nothing more or less, and your dialogue will reflect that, to whatever level you are capable of asserting it. I already knew you didn't care about anything but your single-track mind business. You will be more irritated that I don't 'just jump through hoops.' You've declared victory and I've no idea, being that you employ leading and loaded questioning, what we are 'really' talking about.

You aren't really interested in discussion, but rather being a lawyer where I'm a pawn. I 'should' be considered a hostile witness. And you will never achieve your over-inflated lofty goal. You, frankly, aren't capable of it, despite your own high opinion, which I view, equally as arrogantly, as inept and shallow, not thoughtful or meaningful. Shallow meaningless to the rest of us victories, make you happy and stroke your easily satisfied pride.
Next hoop, How?
Preference in this case. The trombone player may 'like' what he is playing. When I say 'wrong' it reflects the greater audience as well as some principles of appropriate patterns. Somebody may be able to sit and listen, like his mother.

I had said it depends because I cannot tell if an astrophysicist is getting an answer wrong or not. You simply asked (unclearly/broadly) if it were 'possible.' That answer to that is "yes."

 

[Desert Reign]

Well, if you are a freewill theist. There is no way out of damnation without Christ. Think about it a bit more deeply? :think:

I don't call myself a freewill theist. I permit myself to be called an open theist because I realise that this is a phrase that many people understand and it is close to what I also believe which is distinct from those of the reformed persuasion. In essence I don't call myself anything other than Christian.

Well, it is a bit of :dizzy: thinking but it is really not you defending God, but free will and the condition of fallen man. I do not despise it, because I was one. I just think I understand it fairly well.

Free will is not something I am prone to defend. And this shows again how far away you are in fact from understanding my views. You lump me with Arminians and other so called open theists and hey presto you know everything about me!

As I have said before, I am agnostic about the existence of free will. I use the term because other people use it and it has a reasonably well understood and accepted meaning. And I sometimes talk as if I believed in its existence because it is a whole lot simpler than offering long explanations that the average person will not understand anyway. Free willers are closer to me than tulipers and it is simply convenient to associate with them.

Tell me then, is Knight, without any doubt, a Christian?

Yes.

How do you know?

Because God is faithful to his promises. He didn't send Jesus, his own son into the world and even to die, and then to renegue on his promise to save us in Christ. Knight believes and trusts in Jesus and there is no doubt as to his salvation, of his being a child of God.

How about me? How do you know?

Same. I even said the same about Nang, notwithstanding I thought she was perhaps the most obnoxious Calvinist I have ever met.

I assert you can know if you are saved, and that you can ONLY tell if you are saved.

You may indeed assert it. But I am talking about Calvinism, not your personal assertions. There is no logical, psychological or moral reason to justify that your belief that you are saved is any more valid than my belief that Knight is saved. You criticised my statements (quite unjustifiably) as being man-centred. I don't know how you can keep a straight face here. It is really all about you, isn't it? Be honest: your Calvinism only works for you because you know you, Lon, are saved. Even though that knowledge has nothing whatsoever to do with Calvinism, it gives you the security you need to carry on believing something that is so illogical, immoral and unbiblical. As someone recently said on here, how come there are no atheists who are Calvinists?

L- Limited Atonement. You, "Luck of the Draw."
If it is luck of the draw, it certainly is for the Open Theist,

Why? There is no luck in it at all. I am in the purposes of God. Purposes. Not luck. It was his purpose for me to live like his son Jesus and to that purpose he called me and when I accepted that call, he also saved me and he will also glorify me. I really don't understand your comment whatsoever.
Oh, you aren't going to say it's only luck that you were born into a Christian family, are you? Like someone else said recently. Because I wasn't. Or are you going to say it was luck that I was born into a Christian country? I'd hardly say that about England. But even if you go all the way and say it was luck that I was born in a Christian era in the west, which is broadly more Christian than in the East, then you are surely clutching at straws. Because I was born who I am. I wasn't born someone else. You are looking at it completely from the wrong angle here. There is no luck involved anywhere. Except in Calvinism.

Alternatively: back at you - if the election that you believe in is entirely independent of anything each man does or is, then there ought to be from our perspective a random distribution of Christians around the world. But there aren't are there? You could easily show statistically that God's election correlates closely with historical Christian cultures. And that it ebbs and flows with the strength of those cultures. Nothing hidden about that.

It is VERY good if you get into these discussions and actually see what 'motivated' you to adopt the caricature. A full pendulum swing, is in fact, human-reactionary. A 'better' reaction is scripture. A human reaction isn't quite the depth I'd hope Calvinism would impress upon another. It certainly didn't me. I started reading quite a bit. On this, I was Amyraldian for a long time. I generally rejected "Limited" while accepting "atonement" as limited, because 'only' those who are believers are made right with God. There are certainly scriptures about God's choices in the matter, but the OV doesn't emphasize those scriptures.

You have to believe me when I say that being Amyraldian does not qualify you to understand how I, an open theist (apparently), think theologically. There is nothing in common. And in my experience 95% of the discussions we have had in the past have been curtailed due to failure of communication. In fact I have occasionally looked back on past conversations between us trying to understand what went wrong and although I noticed in retrospect a few occasions where I misunderstood you, it was almost constantly the other way round. I am really happy that this recent round of correspondence has been a lot better (though you never answered my questions to you about omnipotence) but in summary I am convinced that you are making a great many wrong assumptions about my beliefs and misinterpreting a great many of my writings.

That leaves Perseverance. I've no idea the loose thinking that sent the acrostic off to Persecution. It seems a vitriolic emoting rant than a logical connection, so I'd have to have your input (it probably doesn't mean much to others either, almost a "and take this too!" disgruntled afterthought grunt. -Lon

It's simple: by their fruits shall you know them. Nothing loose there. And certainly nothing vitriolic - perhaps you need to consider if you are not reading too much into my words and motives?

 

[Desert Reign]

I think the right wording is "For the Calvinist, '"man's choice" is the focus' is the focus", if you get my drift. I don't think, for the ideal Freewill theist if there is such a thing, that man's choice is the focus, but scripture's description of what is truth.

Amen!

 

[Lon]

There is no logical, psychological or moral reason to justify that your belief that you are saved is any more valid than my belief that Knight is saved.

A fair point I will ruminate over.

You criticised my statements (quite unjustifiably) as being man-centred. I don't know how you can keep a straight face here. It is really all about you, isn't it? Be honest: your Calvinism only works for you because you know you, Lon, are saved. Even though that knowledge has nothing whatsoever to do with Calvinism, it gives you the security you need to carry on believing something that is so illogical, immoral and unbiblical. As someone recently said on here, how come there are no atheists who are Calvinists?

:think: Irony, or purposeful? I generally don't take offense where none is intended and "something" about my thinking, even less, if even wrong or not. Your response looks like a caricature of that on steroids. Bother me? No, it is an opportunity to set the record straight. Then again, I don't have an acrostic against Free-will theism or Open Theism (tends to be the same, but you are correct I get sloppy where you are concerned and different, apologies, no intended offense, it is a lot to keep track of on TOL).

Why? There is no luck in it at all. I am in the purposes of God. Purposes. Not luck. It was his purpose for me to live like his son Jesus and to that purpose he called me and when I accepted that call, he also saved me and he will also glorify me. I really don't understand your comment whatsoever.

Because, according to Open Theism, God doesn't know who is going to be saved until they are saved, and it is as much of a surprise to Him as to you, when you become one. OR I may be missing something, I don't wish to be strawmanning it.

Oh, you aren't going to say it's only luck that you were born into a Christian family, are you? Like someone else said recently. Because I wasn't. Or are you going to say it was luck that I was born into a Christian country? I'd hardly say that about England. But even if you go all the way and say it was luck that I was born in a Christian era in the west, which is broadly more Christian than in the East, then you are surely clutching at straws. Because I was born who I am. I wasn't born someone else. You are looking at it completely from the wrong angle here. There is no luck involved anywhere. Except in Calvinism.

Interesting that we'd both accuse each other of it, then :think:

Alternatively: back at you - if the election that you believe in is entirely independent of anything each man does or is, then there ought to be from our perspective a random distribution of Christians around the world. But there aren't are there? You could easily show statistically that God's election correlates closely with historical Christian cultures. And that it ebbs and flows with the strength of those cultures. Nothing hidden about that.

A lot of assumptions going on there, certainly.

You have to believe me when I say that being Amyraldian does not qualify you to understand how I, an open theist (apparently), think theologically. There is nothing in common. And in my experience 95% of the discussions we have had in the past have been curtailed due to failure of communication.

Fair enough.

In fact I have occasionally looked back on past conversations between us trying to understand what went wrong and although I noticed in retrospect a few occasions where I misunderstood you, it was almost constantly the other way round. I am really happy that this recent round of correspondence has been a lot better (though you never answered my questions to you about omnipotence) but in summary I am convinced that you are making a great many wrong assumptions about my beliefs and misinterpreting a great many of my writings.

I will own that. Conversation is two-way, but I'll even try to make sure to listen more carefully. If it is at all helpful, I don't have nearly the same frustration in reflection upon our previous conversations (may not help at all).

It's simple: by their fruits shall you know them. Nothing loose there. And certainly nothing vitriolic - perhaps you need to consider if you are not reading too much into my words and motives?

You feel persecuted by me, Calvinists in general? I'm not understanding.

 

[Desert Reign]

Because, according to Open Theism, God doesn't know who is going to be saved until they are saved, and it is as much of a surprise to Him as to you, when you become one. OR I may be missing something, I don't wish to be strawmanning it.

The question being discussed was luck. Being surprised by something has nothing to do with luck. I can be surprised by the Christmas presents I get from my family but I don't consider myself lucky to get those presents. There was nothing random or accidental in the giving of them. They were given out of family love, which is a strong purpose and the antithesis of luck.
And I can't think of any reason why God should know who is going to be saved before they are saved. Why would it matter? Other than indirectly it would simply disprove the Calvinist belief in the time-eternity worldview. But that aside, there is nothing morally imperfect about not knowing something before it happens.
The Calvinist doctrine of election requires you to be lucky. That is the case by definition because this so called election does not depend on anything man does or does not do. That's what luck is. Saying that it depends on the hidden counsel of God is not an answer. It is just a refusal to give an answer, or an acknowledgement that there is no conceivable rhyme or reason in it.

You feel persecuted by me, Calvinists in general? I'm not understanding.

I was referring to leaders of the reformation.

 

[Lon]

Maybe, but speculative. I prefer to think that God would have rather said, "If you listen to the serpent you will die", if that were the case. But we don't have the other case to consider.

It is my logical conclusion, so open of course to scrutiny and correction.

Always a good caution to watch that we don't speak too much where we don't have the information. My complaint, again, is that it is used when someone doesn't have the answer, though the answer may be available. This is a broad brush that is likely not very accurate, but it is an observation of mine regarding Calvinists.

I think it a fair point, press me on any time you desire a clearer answer.

I think the right wording is "For the Calvinist, '"man's choice" is the focus' is the focus", if you get my drift.

Probably needs a bit more attention because as I read it, it is simply saying that a Calvinist is focused on the Free will theists choice. Originally, my statement went no further than to say, for instance, that "Who is saved" depends on who responds to the gospel and free will is the vehicle for the difference. IOW, freewill is your answer. There is an absence in my answer specifically because I don't think it was so much about me choosing, but God choosing me. "Why?" Well, that's the difference I was trying to express here.

I don't think, for the ideal Freewill theist if there is such a thing, that man's choice is the focus, but scripture's description of what is truth.I'd sure be hesitant to say Jesus didn't die for those guys when Paul calls himself the chief of sinners. If Paul is telling the truth, then those guys are eligible, but not without repentance. Same with any wicked person who repents or righteous person who goes wicked, I suppose, in light of Ezek. 18:21 and following.

It isn't meant to be accusatory, nor confrontational. What changed when I became a Calvinist? I started asking more about "what did God do" more than "What did I do?"

And can we say that there are some too wicked for God to save?
I'd expect the "where were you" rebuke at any minute, if I did!
How wicked do you have to be to get bumped up to the "too wicked to be called just 'wicked'" category? Hitler is our current day example. But what did Hitler do? He persecuted people for their race and religion, just like Paul. Was Hitler unsaveable?

It isn't that, but rather that the blood of Christ doesn't apply retroactively.

What limits do we put on the limitless grace of God?

Scripture?

 

[patrick jane]

Scripture?

2 Corinthians 12:9 KJV -

 

[Lon]

The question being discussed was luck. Being surprised by something has nothing to do with luck. I can be surprised by the Christmas presents I get from my family but I don't consider myself lucky to get those presents. There was nothing random or accidental in the giving of them. They were given out of family love, which is a strong purpose and the antithesis of luck.
And I can't think of any reason why God should know who is going to be saved before they are saved.

It is more different than that, there would be many many more presents under the tree than are opened.

Why would it matter? Other than indirectly it would simply disprove the Calvinist belief in the time-eternity worldview.

All, in fact, but open theists, it isn't just Calvinists.

But that aside, there is nothing morally imperfect about not knowing something before it happens.

My point was to say rather that it is much closer to 'luck of the draw' than Calvinism. I'd think, in scenario, it is more like this for us: God calls, all hear. When the people respond come, there is a present under the tree for all, but no left-overs. Now your comment:

The Calvinist doctrine of election requires you to be lucky.

No, it simply leaves another question atf: "How did He know?"

That is the case by definition because this so called election does not depend on anything man does or does not do. That's what luck is.

If 25 people, who don't know a thing about each other, are called to an inheritance, it isn't luck that drew them together, whether they knew the reason they were called or not.

Saying that it depends on the hidden counsel of God is not an answer.

I agree. It is simply saying "I don't know." As the inheritance analogy, only the one who called has the answer to those particular 25, and like the Christmas present analogy, only God would know why there were an exact number of presents for those who actually came. Was it specifically because they chose to come? Weren't a few of them on their way some place else that Christmas, but were redirected (Saul to Paul etc. )?

It is just a refusal to give an answer, or an acknowledgement that there is no conceivable rhyme or reason in it.

Worse, it is "I don't know!!!"

I was referring to leaders of the reformation.

Persecution of the saints.

I'm still not understanding, do you mean John Calvin's actions in Geneva?