Reformed Theology: Somewhere Between..

[Derf]

Derf,

I must have miscommunicated and therefore apologize if you take this from my post, which was intended to only note that what you have been advocating herein is perhaps not in accordance with the confessional basis of the OPC. It was a gentle call for you to "check in" with the community of saints with which you have covenanted your membership.

If you do not understand the importance of a church's confessional basis, the use of a confession as a normed norm I can understand why you seem put off in your response. However, if you do, then why the Romanist insults? Where I have advocated against sola scriptura? Nowhere. If the Confession (the normed norm) has itself been framed upon Scripture (the norming norm), one would be remiss to ignore it, which is but one reason why the OPC and other NAPARC churches use them.

If you want to advocate, based upon your study of Scripture, that the Confession is wrong, this is not the place for such a discussion between two men who are members of churches that affirm the Confession. Such a discussion properly takes place within your session as a start. That is your duty as a member. Or, if you seek clarification about the summaries contained in the Confession, which are held by both our denominations to be accurate summaries of Scripture, yet subordinate to Scripture, I am happy to provide what I am able or at least refer you to other useful content.

If it was my note below my post that was offensive to you, again I will claim I have miscommunicated and express my apology for the same. It was intended for the casual readers alone, who likely will not be familiar with how conservative Presbyterianism functions, to short-circuit the usual "man-made" doctrine canards the misinformed tee up, and to note how conservative groups take the members' walk of faith seriously. It was not directed to you or I, who should know these things by virtue of our church affiliations and most assuredly was not some veiled threat of our membership status. In fact that was the point of my "box checkers" comment in my post, in that there are those lurking about who take great glee in finding fault among others and causing strife where none is warranted.

Does this help? I hope and pray it be so.

AMR

It wasn't the stuff at the bottom, but that you asked for the information for some reason, and then use it, seemingly, to squelch the conversation, which is the reason I didn't want to give it in the first place. Should anybody suggest errors in the Confession without discussion? My understanding of the Confession is that it is a secondary standard--important, but not the final arbiter. And if it's secondary, then how would anyone discover errors in it without actually considering there might be errors in it?

If our (or our elders') vows to uphold the secondary standards lock us in to the impossibility of ever questioning them, then we've gone away from "Sola Scriptura".

I wrote before:

My concern here is that if I reveal something (a "label") that is somewhat representative of my positions, it does 2 things:
1. it squashes the "somewhat" representation in favor of a "wholly" representation, at least potentially.
2. It squashes the conversation, because you then get to pull from vast resources that target that label (and their previously aired points) more than my points. While those resources may be pertinent, they also may not be, and then I'm left to decide if they apply by actually reading them, which I won't have time to do.

I guess I didn't expect the third option: that conversation in a discussion forum would be squashed by an appeal to church government.

I'm sorry for the rash and harsh reply--that was uncalled for. But do you understand my concern? That if we lock ourselves into a particular interpretation or understanding of the bible, there's no way to correct ourselves--there's no room for semper reformanda.

Just so you know, I have discussed some of these things with some of the elders, and the result is much the same--as soon as the argument appears lost, they appeal to the Westminster Confession. Do you see the connection to the "romanist insult"? What did Luther and Calvin do, but question the "secondary standards" of the church of their time? And what happened to them? They were hunted under threat of death. Does it seem at all possible to you that they, and/or the Westminster divines, could have gotten something wrong? If so, then we should be able to discuss it frankly--and at length, if need be. If not, then you probably have a much higher opinion of them than they did of themselves.

At the same time that I'm interested in discussing these kind of things with my elders or other members, I'm also very sensitive to the possibility of stirring up strife in my local church. So the conversation has been effectively squashed there--mostly voluntarily.

Here, then, is a place to bring forward ideas for discussion--real discussion, uninhibited by bounds of church decorum and protocol, though hopefully still done in Christian love (and I fail, too, sometimes).

In my short research into the idea of an open future, I've found very few really good arguments against it--most are emotional arguments (like "you are diminishing God's glory") or are against some of the outworkings of the idea (like "then people won't be able to trust God to do what He says He will do"). Surely there are emotional arguments on the openists' side, too.

But why do we need to sharpen iron against iron, except to divulge problems and get rid of them. So far I haven't found an air-tight theological system--we can all use the sharpening. But that shouldn't be at the expense of our unity. And we shouldn't ever fear the truth, even if it might tarnish our secondary standards a bit.

Again, please forgive me for my rant. But let's not hold up our personally favorite belief systems as a supposed impenetrable shield to keep out every shred of disagreement--doing so would have squashed the Reformation itself.

 

[Derf]

Hi Lon,
Sorry for taking so long to get back to this.

Hello Derf,

So....am I a 'lucky' or 'purposeful' parent? :think:

I guess I'm not quite thinking well enough, as I don't see the connection.

And even tells them before they do it, they will do it...

God told Adam and Eve that they were going to eat of the tree before they ate of it? I missed that portion of scripture.

These are examples of variables, but I am fairly sure that parameters limit those. That means, necessarily, there is a sense of 'fatalism' to our lives. What do I mean. I mean "I cannot flap my arms and fly." "Fatalism" is often in the eye-of-the-beholder. Let's say, for argument, that I embraced it, and puppetry: I'm very happy to be involved in God's Creative work. It doesn't matter if my will is stolen, or imagined, or non-existent, as it does that I play a part in His plan.

You're only happy with being a puppet if the puppet master makes you happy to be. That happiness is an illusion, because if the puppet master makes you unhappy with being a puppet, then you will happily be unhappy, right? Because in both cases you are doing just what the master wants--without any choice in the matter. You've destroyed the meaning of happiness.

Scripture asserts it Colossians 1:17 John 15:5


I am nobody to qualify or assert what God must be. I'll have to leave that alone, to you.
Parables must always be carefully unpacked and we must carefully use any story as compared to pedantically clear teaching scriptures. Story is the road that truth travels in order to show us how truth plays out in life with example. Parable, equally, is the road of example to teaches principle.

I can assert all day long and get it all wrong. But when God gives us a description of what He's like--what His kingdom is like--what His subjects are like, shouldn't we pay attention before claiming something different? Certainly we have to be careful. We're not out looking for actual wedding clothes to wear to the feast. But we should consider carefully whether we are going about our business, even if it's religious business, when the King calls us to His son's wedding. Or do we just say it's a parable and not deal with it at all?

Romans 9?

Does it all come down to that one chapter? If it does, let's tear into as deep as we can. But when we're done, let's not just go off to the next one. I don't have the answer about Rom 9, but context must play a part. Rom 8 and Rom 10 context, for instance.

Except "I" have never been down that road before. How could I be bored with it?

Well, I was talking about the readers of the story, not the players.

Sure, just like there are genealogies that go on for pages. Boring as they are, they teach us that people are important to God, even if we know nothing about them. I don't even win awards on TOL after 10 years being here. I'm just happy, for two moments, you think me interesting enough to read what I am writing just now. It will likely be boring ever after this, but for a moment...

In Him -Lon

I appreciate your comments. I'm more interested in 1 person that disagrees with me and is willing to discuss it, than a thousand others that won't.

Derf

 

[Lon]

Hi Lon,
Sorry for taking so long to get back to this.

Hello Derf, no problem.

I guess I'm not quite thinking well enough, as I don't see the connection.

I believe conversation works this way and so am glad to need to clarify or even 'further clarify.' The point here was whether my parenting allows my kids freedom, or if it has determinative principles that negate, in some sense, freedom. This debate reaches into the area of philosophy and psychology as well as theology generally, we all wrestle with 'nature vs nurture,' 'freedom/choice vs fatalism,' and 'Behavioral(Pavlovian/Skinnarian) vs. Cognitive learning and response.
My question was to elicit a recognition that we come generally, from one of two camps and tend to think, reason, and rationalize accordingly. Thus, as a 'behavioralist' I think I control a lot more of my children's actions than happenstance and chance. It isn't as 'controlling' as it might appear, but it is purposeful and so it is also less 'free' than the parent who is 'stimulating' their child, etc.

God told Adam and Eve that they were going to eat of the tree before they ate of it? I missed that portion of scripture.

You should have asked 'when?' instead of jumping to something that didn't make sense, I think. Peter, for instance, was told that he was going to be led where he didn't want to go regarding his death. He was told he would deny his Lord 3 times, etc. Do you not believe in prophecy? Do you not believe in God's omniscient Foreknowledge?

You're only happy with being a puppet if the puppet master makes you happy to be. That happiness is an illusion, because if the puppet master makes you unhappy with being a puppet, then you will happily be unhappy, right? Because in both cases you are doing just what the master wants--without any choice in the matter. You've destroyed the meaning of happiness

Well, I provided 'happiness' but what I am saying is, that am God's, for His purposes. I have an independent will, that was provided by sin, but it isn't something I want to hold on to above all else. I think 'self-preservation' and self-interest greatly influences our theology perspectives.

I can assert all day long and get it all wrong. But when God gives us a description of what He's like--what His kingdom is like--what His subjects are like, shouldn't we pay attention before claiming something different? Certainly we have to be careful. We're not out looking for actual wedding clothes to wear to the feast. But we should consider carefully whether we are going about our business, even if it's religious business, when the King calls us to His son's wedding. Or do we just say it's a parable and not deal with it at all?

I need to backtrack:

A sovereign (at least a good one) will make sure his will is done by punishing bad behavior or banishing the one behaving badly.

I am not comfortable with asserting what 'at least a good sovereign' must or must not do. I used to think I was qualified for that, but I've since began backpedaling as they were my demands on God, rather than He, God, dictating to me, creation, what is what.

Does it all come down to that one chapter? If it does, let's tear into as deep as we can. But when we're done, let's not just go off to the next one. I don't have the answer about Rom 9, but context must play a part. Rom 8 and Rom 10 context, for instance.

It is well beyond that chapter, especially as Paul is quoting multiple OT passages as well. We can talk about all of Romans, it is only 16 chapters.

Well, I was talking about the readers of the story, not the players.

I don't believe an omniscient God gets bored. My mom used to tell me if I was bored, it was my fault. It 'seems' to me, your objection is following after a finite human thought:

Certainly we (most of us here, anyway) we agree that God could control every minute detail, and He could decide what all those details are going to be before He sets them all in motion...
Maybe that's because it would be pretty boring for us readers to read, "And before the foundation of the world, God decided Lon would eat a hearty breakfast of pancakes and sausage on Jan 6, 2016, prior to going to work and having indigestion.

Such is often expressed by Open Theists. Do you happen to subscribe to that notion?

I appreciate your comments. I'm more interested in 1 person that disagrees with me and is willing to discuss it, than a thousand others that won't.

Derf

Kind words. Thanks. -Lon

 

[Derf]

Hello Derf, no problem.

I believe conversation works this way and so am glad to need to clarify or even 'further clarify.' The point here was whether my parenting allows my kids freedom, or if it has determinative principles that negate, in some sense, freedom. This debate reaches into the area of philosophy and psychology as well as theology generally, we all wrestle with 'nature vs nurture,' 'freedom/choice vs fatalism,' and 'Behavioral(Pavlovian/Skinnarian) vs. Cognitive learning and response.

Two things here--1. I don't think these are all either/or propositions, although my mind goes blank trying to remember anything from psychology class--sort of a defense mechanism, I believe . 2. We were talking about whether we had freedom to will/want something different from what someone wants us to will/want. If I were a prisoner, I would have no freedom to leave my cell, but I would have freedom to desire to leave my cell--there may be ways for the warden to take away that freedom (brainwashing, for instance), but that's the question--does God give us the brainwashing to only want what He wants us to do, in which case everything we want is "His will" (despite the fact that our hearts are desperately wicked?), or does He allow us to want stuff that does not conform to His will. Except you resort to some type of brain washing, I don't think you can actually get your kids to "want" what you want, without them actually wanting what you want. Hope that's not too many "wants".

My question was to elicit a recognition that we come generally, from one of two camps and tend to think, reason, and rationalize accordingly. Thus, as a 'behavioralist' I think I control a lot more of my children's actions than happenstance and chance. It isn't as 'controlling' as it might appear, but it is purposeful and so it is also less 'free' than the parent who is 'stimulating' their child, etc.

Again, the "free" here is less a matter of ability to "do" and more of an ability to "want" to do something different from what you say. Depending on how well we discipline, we may be able to get our children to "want" the same things we want for them, perhaps because they experience pain or loss. God does that sometimes to us (both before and after we believe, I would guess, in order to achieve the desire in us rather than just the "stimulation" of us, if I understood your usage of the term.

You should have asked 'when?' instead of jumping to something that didn't make sense, I think.

Maybe, but my previous example was of Adam and Eve--you were obviously thinking of something different. Apply what you said to Adam and Eve, and you will find that it doesn't make sense, as you pointed out to me. And that's the whole thing we're debating here--does it make sense that God decided what all of our decisions would be before we were around to decide them ourselves? I'd say "no".

Peter, for instance, was told that he was going to be led where he didn't want to go regarding his death. He was told he would deny his Lord 3 times, etc.

These are two different things. The first reflects back on my prisoner illustration--Peter was going to be led, as a prisoner, to his death, but he was specifically told it was where he didn't want to go--thus He was forced to do something against his will, but his will wasn't changed to desire that leading. Was Jesus telling him exactly how he was going to die, or that he was going to die in martyrdom, but not exactly how? I don't know. But it could be either from the info we have, right?
Your second example is of course a standard anti-openness example, and a good one. I don't have that good an answer for it, but does that example apply to everything that ever happens? Or is it a special case? I don't think you have an answer for that, do you?

Do you not believe in prophecy? Do you not believe in God's omniscient Foreknowledge?

Yes and yes. But I would guess we would differ a little on what "omniscient foreknowledge" means.

Well, I provided 'happiness' but what I am saying is, that am God's, for His purposes. I have an independent will, that was provided by sin, but it isn't something I want to hold on to above all else. I think 'self-preservation' and self-interest greatly influences our theology perspectives.

I don't mean to be harsh here, but if your independent will, meaning that you can make choices that either conform or not to God's will, is something that makes you in some way in the image of God, As God also has an independent will, then it is more than a little disappointing to hear you give credit to "sin" for it.

I need to backtrack:

I am not comfortable with asserting what 'at least a good sovereign' must or must not do. I used to think I was qualified for that, but I've since began backpedaling as they were my demands on God, rather than He, God, dictating to me, creation, what is what.

Ok, then tell me what a "good God" would be like? If you can't go to the bible to find out, then the bible has lost a lot of it's use, in my mind, and it makes any religion (or none) equally tenable.

It is well beyond that chapter, especially as Paul is quoting multiple OT passages as well. We can talk about all of Romans, it is only 16 chapters.

sounds good.

I don't believe an omniscient God gets bored. My mom used to tell me if I was bored, it was my fault. It 'seems' to me, your objection is following after a finite human thought:

Maybe. Teach me how to have non-finite human thoughts. I'm willing to learn.

Such is often expressed by Open Theists. Do you happen to subscribe to that notion?

Is that what you see in my posts? Is it so outlandish an idea? You seem to think the label is important to apply to me. I'm desperately trying to find out what scripture teaches. I'm willing to trade labels as often as possible to do that. I'm not devoted to a particular brand of Christianity if it might be shown to be in error. And I haven't found any that don't have that possibility.

Kind words. Thanks. -Lon

 

[Dialogos]

In my short research into the idea of an open future, I've found very few really good arguments against it--most are emotional arguments (like "you are diminishing God's glory") or are against some of the outworkings of the idea (like "then people won't be able to trust God to do what He says He will do"). Surely there are emotional arguments on the openists' side, too.

Ok, so lets take a very non-emotional fact and see if Open Theism is a theology that is robust enough to account for it.

In the book of Revelation, John is shown a multitude that no one can count standing before the Throne:

“After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, "Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!" (Revelation 7:9-10 ESV)”​

If the future is open, how could God have shown John something that isn’t settled? How could God have had any confidence whatsoever that a great multitude would be saved in the first place? Who are these people, are they just some virtual place holders? Nameless, faceless masses because the people that this vision represents haven’t been born and may or may not choose Christ?
How can God guarantee that they will be saying this in the first place? Don’t they have the free will to choose to say it or not or, or maybe something different entirely?
What happens to free will in heaven? Do you have to praise God in heaven even if you don’t feel like it?

I would argue that Open Theism can’t answer any of these questions with any degree of biblical or theological acumen.

 

[Lon]

Greetings once again, Derf

Except you resort to some type of brain washing, I don't think you can actually get your kids to "want" what you want, without them actually wanting what you want. Hope that's not too many "wants".

Isn't that the thing, though? To want what another wants? That's what parenting is, correct? It is, especially for the purposeful Christian parent, discipleship. Proverbs 22:6 You might call that freewill but I call it appropriately focused will. Only Christ can make a will that has any meaningful descriptors (for me).

Again, the "free" here is less a matter of ability to "do" and more of an ability to "want" to do something different from what you say. Depending on how well we discipline, we may be able to get our children to "want" the same things we want for them, perhaps because they experience pain or loss. God does that sometimes to us (both before and after we believe, I would guess, in order to achieve the desire in us rather than just the "stimulation" of us, if I understood your usage of the term.

How 'true' is John 1:3;15:5? Colossians 1:17? It may seem a bit disjointed to the conversation, but these verses came to mind reading your response. How far do these three verses apply in your mind? In my mind: "all the way" and it applies to your next paragraph as well:

Maybe, but my previous example was of Adam and Eve--you were obviously thinking of something different. Apply what you said to Adam and Eve, and you will find that it doesn't make sense, as you pointed out to me. And that's the whole thing we're debating here--does it make sense that God decided what all of our decisions would be before we were around to decide them ourselves? I'd say "no".

See also James 4:13-16 1 Corinthians 4:7 We were talking about whether Romans 9 was isolated. It is not

Jeremiah 10:23 O Jehovah, I know that the way of man does not belong to man; it is not in man who walks to direct his steps.
Proverbs 20:24 Man's steps are of Jehovah; how can a man then understand his own way?

Jeremiah 29:11 For I know what I have planned for you,'says the LORD. 'I have plans to prosper you, not to harm you. I have plans to give you a future filled with hope.

Proverbs 16:9 The mind of man plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps.

Proverbs 3:5 Trust in Jehovah with all your heart, and lean not to your own understanding.
Proverbs 3:6 In all your ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct your paths.

Proverbs 21:1 The king's heart is in the hand of Jehovah as the rivers of water; He turns it wherever He will.

Psa 33:9 For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood.
Psa 33:10 Jehovah brings the counsel of the nations to nothing; He breaks the plots of the people.
Psa 33:11 The counsel of Jehovah stands forever, the thoughts of His heart to all generations.
Psa 33:12 Blessed is the nation whose God is Jehovah; the people He has chosen for His inheritance.
Psa 33:13 Jehovah looks down from Heaven; He beholds all the sons of mankind.
Psa 33:14 From His dwelling place He looks on all the people of the earth.
Psa 33:15 Together He forms their hearts; His understanding is to all their works.

Psa 37:18 Jehovah knows the days of the upright, and their inheritance shall be forever.
Psa 37:23 The steps of a good man are ordered by Jehovah; and He delights in his way.
Psa 37:24 Though he fall, he shall not be cast down; for Jehovah upholds his hand.

Job 14:5 For his days are fixed, the number of his months is with You, and You have set his bounds so that he cannot pass;

Isaiah 46:9 Remember former things from forever; for I am God, and no other is God, even none like Me,
Isaiah 46:10 declaring the end from the beginning, and from the past things which were not done, saying, My purpose shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure;
Isaiah 46:11 calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my purpose from a far country. Yes, I have spoken, I will also cause it to come; I have formed; yes, I will do it.

Rom 9:19 You will then say to me, Why does He yet find fault? For who has resisted His will?
Rom 9:20 No, but, O man, who are you who replies against God? Shall the thing formed say to Him who formed it, Why have you made me this way?
Rom 9:21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel to honor and another to dishonor?

John 10:27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.

These are two different things. The first reflects back on my prisoner illustration--Peter was going to be led, as a prisoner, to his death, but he was specifically told it was where he didn't want to go--thus He was forced to do something against his will, but his will wasn't changed to desire that leading.

Yet, it was following Christ, that would lead to that end. He was, in fact, making the greater choice which involved the other. I do acquiesce that the two are different, but there is some sameness here. For the Christian, it is "not my will, but Thine." Luke 9:23; 22:42

Was Jesus telling him exactly how he was going to die, or that he was going to die in martyrdom, but not exactly how? I don't know. But it could be either from the info we have, right?
Your second example is of course a standard anti-openness example, and a good one. I don't have that good an answer for it, but does that example apply to everything that ever happens? Or is it a special case? I don't think you have an answer for that, do you?

I do, but perhaps it would not suffice for you. My answer it is a special case, but not wholly special in that it doesn't also happen to us. Again John 15:5 as well as the rest of these scriptures given.

Yes and yes. But I would guess we would differ a little on what "omniscient foreknowledge" means.

I think that difference is appreciated and understood. I think such takes a lot more time in scriptures and tends to be an individually convinced thing. That's why I don't believe anyone but God can make a Calvinist. I believe, from these and many other scriptures (my scripture reading over time) that God is sovereign and we are called to negate our will and choose His because of John 15:5 and Colossians 1:17 and etc.

I don't mean to be harsh here, but if your independent will, meaning that you can make choices that either conform or not to God's will, is something that makes you in some way in the image of God, As God also has an independent will, then it is more than a little disappointing to hear you give credit to "sin" for it.

Maybe you are 'feeling harsh' I'm not seeing it :idunno: I think it a good observation and important to the conversation. Genesis 3:22-23 "Now man has become like us..."

Ok, then tell me what a "good God" would be like? If you can't go to the bible to find out, then the bible has lost a lot of it's use, in my mind, and it makes any religion (or none) equally tenable.

Not as far as I'm concerned. The book of Job takes 3 perspectives from 3 individuals who 'thought' they were right concerning the goodness of God. Of all of them, the others were told by God, to beg favor of Job, HOWEVER, Job also was called to account for 'presumption.' I don't believe the Bible loses a thing as far as 'useful' is concerned, if we are found as lacking as Job, Eliphaz, and Bildad.

sounds good.

As I've expanded, it is more than just Romans 9, but I believe Paul embraces the rest of scripture given here in post, in a clear and deliberate manner.

Maybe. Teach me how to have non-finite human thoughts. I'm willing to learn.

I don't think I 'have' to teach you: What is your favorite movie and how many times have you watched it?

Is that what you see in my posts? Is it so outlandish an idea? You seem to think the label is important to apply to me. I'm desperately trying to find out what scripture teaches. I'm willing to trade labels as often as possible to do that. I'm not devoted to a particular brand of Christianity if it might be shown to be in error. And I haven't found any that don't have that possibility.

It is important for discussion merely because it forces the conversation back to presuppositional conversations and I want to be sure I'm thorough in addressing not so much what we agree on, but where we differ. I'm just trying to ascertain how far into presupposition we'd have to carry parts of conversation. IOW, a conversation with you would be different, necessarily, than talking to an Open Theist. He/she would require a lot more for 'proofs.' So much so, in fact, we'd likely be talking about the broader issues because the 'givens' aren't at that point. So, for me, it is mostly a communication concern, not a lot more than that, but it does genuinely affect where we are and where we go in conversation.

An Arminian isn't going to object to the definite foreknowledge of God, so I can use that agreed premise, whereas I'd have to go back or attack a proof from a different angle with an Open Theist. I'm trying to ensure I'm communicating most effectively.

In Him, -Lon

 

[Derf]

It all boils down to presuppositions, doesn't it? And how can one argue with another's presuppositions? I'd say by first arguing with one's own presuppositions. I've tried to do that.I think you're saying you have, too, and that's how you arrived at Calvinism. I can't argue against someone who has arrived at their final destination. But I'm a glutton for punishment, so I keep trying.

Greetings once again, Derf
Isn't that the thing, though? To want what another wants? That's what parenting is, correct? It is, especially for the purposeful Christian parent, discipleship. Proverbs 22:6 You might call that freewill but I call it appropriately focused will. Only Christ can make a will that has any meaningful descriptors (for me).

Yes, but what you are actually saying is that only Christ can make a will, but not a willer. Do you really believe God can't make someone that has a will of his own? Or can you honestly say it is possible for God to make someone that doesn't want what He wants, when He decides what everyone will want? A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. If he makes his enemies to want to be enemies and friends to want to be friends, both are doing what He wants, therefore both are "friends".

How 'true' is John 1:3;15:5? Colossians 1:17? It may seem a bit disjointed to the conversation, but these verses came to mind reading your response. How far do these three verses apply in your mind? In my mind: "all the way" and it applies to your next paragraph as well:

It does seem disjointed. Are you asking me if I think the bible is true? Yes I do. Are you asking me if I agree that those verses somehow say that God wills sin--that everything our children do, including the disobedience, is what He wants them to do? God forbid. But instead, He works with us, just like we work with our children, to bring us to delight in doing His will. And what happens if we don't? Hell awaits.

See also James 4:13-16 1 Corinthians 4:7 We were talking about whether Romans 9 was isolated. It is not


Yet, it was following Christ, that would lead to that end. He was, in fact, making the greater choice which involved the other. I do acquiesce that the two are different, but there is some sameness here. For the Christian, it is "not my will, but Thine." Luke 9:23; 22:42

We're still talking past each other here, I think. The fact that there exists a will that we need to set aside shows that there is in fact something that is not His will that happens in this world. Same thing in the Lord's Prayer, where Jesus tells us to pray for God's will to be done here on earth as it is already in heaven apparently. So something's not right here on earth with regard to how we are doing God's will. But if it's His will to not do His will, then what's the difference between heaven and earth? The struggle is so very evident amongst Calvinists when they dichotomize the "decreed" will vs the "revealed" will. Why would a "wholly" sovereign God (to borrow from AMR) need such a dichotomy?

I do, but perhaps it would not suffice for you. My answer it is a special case, but not wholly special in that it doesn't also happen to us. Again John 15:5 as well as the rest of these scriptures given.

Sure it happens elsewhere. I never denied that. Does it happen in every event that happens, every thought we think (especially the bad ones)? Was Peter sinning when He denied Christ? Is God the author of sin? Did God decree from before the foundation of the world that Peter would do it? I don't see how you can answer any of these with anything but a "yes". But I know you will stop short of the author of sin one, because you don't believe God authors sin. I don't either. Somehow you believe God can decree (synonyms: order, command, rule, dictate, pronounce, proclaim, ordain; direct, decide, determine) everything that will ever happen in intimate detail, without being the author (cause) of it. I don't think scripture mandates this idea--that God decreed from before the foundation of the world everything that ever happens. And if we read it into scripture when it's not there, through our presuppositions or whatever, then we are adding to scripture, aren't we?

I think that difference is appreciated and understood. I think such takes a lot more time in scriptures and tends to be an individually convinced thing. That's why I don't believe anyone but God can make a Calvinist. I believe, from these and many other scriptures (my scripture reading over time) that God is sovereign and we are called to negate our will and choose His because of John 15:5 and Colossians 1:17 and etc.

I don't think that makes you a Calvinist. I think it makes you a Christian. If we are called to negate our will and choose His, is it possible for anyone not to do this? If it is, is it God's will that someone not do this? If it is God's will that someone not do this (choose His will), can you see the knot you've tied God into? That God's will is that someone reject His will? That would make you a Calvinist, in my estimation.

Maybe you are 'feeling harsh' I'm not seeing it :idunno: I think it a good observation and important to the conversation. Genesis 3:22-23 "Now man has become like us..."

Not as far as I'm concerned. The book of Job takes 3 perspectives from 3 individuals who 'thought' they were right concerning the goodness of God. Of all of them, the others were told by God, to beg favor of Job, HOWEVER, Job also was called to account for 'presumption.' I don't believe the Bible loses a thing as far as 'useful' is concerned, if we are found as lacking as Job, Eliphaz, and Bildad.

My premise was that if we can't learn from the bible at least something about what God is like, then the bible is useless. I think you are now saying that we cannot learn from the bible what God is like (you agree with my "if"), but you disagree with me about the uselessness of it? If the Bible points us to Jesus Christ, who came to fulfill God's will, but we can't really tell even that much about God--that He loved us so much that he sent His son to die for us--what do you think the bible is useful for? I don't think there's much point in a continuing discussion, since we're basing it on scripture--the scripture God gave us to lead us to Him, but that you've now declared doesn't do so.

Job is a beautiful example. Job and his friends all had some preconceived notions aobut God, some presuppositions. And God destroyed them. But to do so, He had to tell us something about Himself--something that was true about Him. So with your example you've illustrated that we CAN learn something about God from the bible, and therefore the other conclusion--that the bible is worthless, is obviously false. So we can learn something about God and perhaps about what kind of "king" He is. Maybe even from parables...

As I've expanded, it is more than just Romans 9, but I believe Paul embraces the rest of scripture given here in post, in a clear and deliberate manner.

I don't think I 'have' to teach you: What is your favorite movie and how many times have you watched it?

I don't think you CAN teach me how to think infinite thoughts.

I don't have a favorite movie. If you go by how many times I've watched one, then it would be some silly kid's movie like Beauty and the Beast, since I watched those with my children over the years, and we happened to own that one. If I had to pick the first one that came to mind that I actually liked for a long time, it would be Disney's Junglebook, the cartoon. And I've watched it maybe a couple of dozen times.

It is important for discussion merely because it forces the conversation back to presuppositional conversations and I want to be sure I'm thorough in addressing not so much what we agree on, but where we differ. I'm just trying to ascertain how far into presupposition we'd have to carry parts of conversation. IOW, a conversation with you would be different, necessarily, than talking to an Open Theist. He/she would require a lot more for 'proofs.' So much so, in fact, we'd likely be talking about the broader issues because the 'givens' aren't at that point. So, for me, it is mostly a communication concern, not a lot more than that, but it does genuinely affect where we are and where we go in conversation.

An Arminian isn't going to object to the definite foreknowledge of God, so I can use that agreed premise, whereas I'd have to go back or attack a proof from a different angle with an Open Theist. I'm trying to ensure I'm communicating most effectively.

In Him, -Lon

I'm not sure how to help you here. It was a basic presupposition of mine that someone questioned to make me think about this topic in the first place--the supposition that the bible says the future of everything is predetermined. That can be stated in an Arminian way by saying: "the future is settled to the extent that God can look at it to determine how to make it different", which means it's only settled by what God decides to do. That leads directly into Calvinism, which says God decided what to do (everything) without needing to know the future--which makes much more sense, but leads to a purposeless Bible. If God can change our will to make us want to change our will, why not just give us that will in the first place. Even the Westminster Confession struggles with that idea, when it says "nor is violence offered to the will of the creature".

What is "violence offered to the will of the creature"? Isn't it "changing the will" or "forcing the will"?

You'll notice I completely ignored the quoted list of verses for now, including Rom 9. I can go through those in a separate post, but I'm wondering if I have the time for something that may not be worthwhile.

Derf

 

[Lon]

It all boils down to presuppositions, doesn't it? And how can one argue with another's presuppositions? I'd say by first arguing with one's own presuppositions. I've tried to do that.I think you're saying you have, too, and that's how you arrived at Calvinism. I can't argue against someone who has arrived at their final destination. But I'm a glutton for punishment, so I keep trying.

It is a good springboard into the rest of this post of yours, and our overall conversation. I was trying to figure out how to trim us down to more bite-sized, but as I read your post through before hitting response, I was finding that I can't really trim here. In a lot of ways, this post of yours has a great flow to the needed conversation and meaningful. Thanks for your continued discussion. I can't really trim much and being satisfied with the result, wouldn't (am enjoying it and it isn't really that unwieldy anyway).

Yes, but what you are actually saying is that only Christ can make a will, but not a willer. Do you really believe God can't make someone that has a will of his own? Or can you honestly say it is possible for God to make someone that doesn't want what He wants, when He decides what everyone will want? A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. If he makes his enemies to want to be enemies and friends to want to be friends, both are doing what He wants, therefore both are "friends".

You've essentially written my response here as well. I would think, the only point left is that you turn it around. We are both wrestling, at this point, with whether God is the author of sin. Both of us would see holes and flaws (I'm guessing) in our respective answers regarding free will. It is my contention that 'making' a free will is 'already' making a will purposefully against God. God can't do that (my succinct rejoinder). That would have you agreeing with hyper-Calvinism, in a weird twist, as far as my ascertaining. I cannot see a way that God can make a creature, with an independent will, that doesn't also automatically mean God designed man to sin. I gave Genesis 3:22 because it is only after man's fall that He 'now' knows good and evil to 'have' a choice. I could acquiesce, in some sense, God may have made man to be able to make free choices, but that would never have allowed him to choose the forbidden tree. God simply couldn't have created it in Adam's nature to 'want' to sin or God becomes the author of sin, in my mind. IOW, I leaned toward Calvinism to avoid both the implications of hypercalvinism and Arminian implications of God being the Author of sin. I'm not sure any of us really escapes the implication, but this goes back to your first good paragraph, that we then build off of our suppositions and embrace a theology based on those suppositions. When I say "Only God can make a Calvinist" It is an observation that many suppositions would have to be changed over time, and I think in that, it would take an act of us reading God's Word, that could convert us from one systematic to another. It is just too daunting to suppose anything less than inundation in scripture, over time, could allow for such a change.

It does seem disjointed. Are you asking me if I think the bible is true? Yes I do. Are you asking me if I agree that those verses somehow say that God wills sin--that everything our children do, including the disobedience, is what He wants them to do? God forbid. But instead, He works with us, just like we work with our children, to bring us to delight in doing His will. And what happens if we don't? Hell awaits.

I was rather saying that these scriptures say literally 'we can do no one thing, at all, without Him.' It was rather a set-up, not for you, but for me to talk of the extent to which I believe this to be true. Now, it may be that this also would support your idea of a will, since 'can do nothing' implies a 'will to do otherwise.' But that is the idea I think is corrected by John 15:5 and Colossians 1:17 and John 1:3 Whenever I used to read John 15:16 I interrupted Jesus with "Of course they chose You. How can Jesus be saying 'you did not choose me?'" John 1:36-38; 41-42; 45
It is right there in they text they chose to follow Jesus, isn't it? That perplexed me as an Arminian. I was slowly moving toward an Amyraldian view reading John and Romans.

We're still talking past each other here, I think. The fact that there exists a will that we need to set aside shows that there is in fact something that is not His will that happens in this world. Same thing in the Lord's Prayer, where Jesus tells us to pray for God's will to be done here on earth as it is already in heaven apparently. So something's not right here on earth with regard to how we are doing God's will. But if it's His will to not do His will, then what's the difference between heaven and earth? The struggle is so very evident amongst Calvinists when they dichotomize the "decreed" will vs the "revealed" will. Why would a "wholly" sovereign God (to borrow from AMR) need such a dichotomy?

I think that verse, among others, demands that I can't be a hyperCalvinst ("God only has one will"). It is also true as well, that I can't be an Arminian ("God doesn't impose His will"). I think it logically and scripturally requires that God is using things against His will, to accomplish His will -- I think every Christian perspective would agree with this particular sentence. Romans 8:28 We all are trying to logically synthesize that sin is not God's desire, but that God is purposing through Christ, remedy.

Sure it happens elsewhere. I never denied that. Does it happen in every event that happens, every thought we think (especially the bad ones)?

I think yes: Act 17:28

Was Peter sinning when He denied Christ?

Matthew 10:33 Matthew 26:75 Yes.

Is God the author of sin?

Again, for me, Calvinism was the answer against both hyperCalvinism and Arminian theology, because both, to me, point to God authoring sin. It probably is thought odd that I became a Calvinist, when such is often associated with God's decrees and will, but the difference between God's prescriptive and decretive will made sense to me (this one from James Hilston).

Did God decree from before the foundation of the world that Peter would do it? I don't see how you can answer any of these with anything but a "yes". But I know you will stop short of the author of sin one, because you don't believe God authors sin. I don't either. Somehow you believe God can decree (synonyms: order, command, rule, dictate, pronounce, proclaim, ordain; direct, decide, determine) everything that will ever happen in intimate detail, without being the author (cause) of it. I don't think scripture mandates this idea--that God decreed from before the foundation of the world everything that ever happens. And if we read it into scripture when it's not there, through our presuppositions or whatever, then we are adding to scripture, aren't we?

One of the better things in a discussion like this is we can start to see the problems of our own respective systematic theologies. For me 'creating a free will that can sin' is simply the other side of a similar coin. My largest concern, for all of us, is that we carefully incorporate all scripture toward the answer. I believe John 15:5, Colossians 1:17, John 1:3, 1 Corinthians 4:7, Acts 17:29, Romans 9 etc.

I don't think that makes you a Calvinist. I think it makes you a Christian. If we are called to negate our will and choose His, is it possible for anyone not to do this? If it is, is it God's will that someone not do this? If it is God's will that someone not do this (choose His will), can you see the knot you've tied God into? That God's will is that someone reject His will? That would make you a Calvinist, in my estimation.

That's fine. I'm not hung up on the label, it just helps others know where I'm coming from. 1 Corinthians 3:4-9 I think you have a good point.

My premise was that if we can't learn from the bible at least something about what God is like, then the bible is useless. I think you are now saying that we cannot learn from the bible what God is like (you agree with my "if"), but you disagree with me about the uselessness of it? If the Bible points us to Jesus Christ, who came to fulfill God's will, but we can't really tell even that much about God--that He loved us so much that he sent His son to die for us--what do you think the bible is useful for? I don't think there's much point in a continuing discussion, since we're basing it on scripture--the scripture God gave us to lead us to Him, but that you've now declared doesn't do so. Job is a beautiful example. Job and his friends all had some preconceived notions about God, some presuppositions. And God destroyed them. But to do so, He had to tell us something about Himself--something that was true about Him. So with your example you've illustrated that we CAN learn something about God from the bible, and therefore the other conclusion--that the bible is worthless, is obviously false. So we can learn something about God and perhaps about what kind of "king" He is. Maybe even from parables...

It is more probably, I'm just uncomfortable saying "God must...if..."
I don't like asserting what I'm incapable of actualizing, especially concerning God. "God cannot lie" is a scriptural given Hebrews 6:18. But if left to my own, without scripture to back the Character of God, I'd have said it more like Titus 1:2 "God will not lie." IOW, I try not to assert a thing about God unless scripture backs me up to the hilt. I 'can' say "God cannot lie" but if it weren't for scripture saying it, I'd have rather just said "God does not lie." (Not sure if it is yet conveying as clearly as I'm trying to give the gist of my reluctance and hesitancy with "a righteous God must..." or "a good God will..." but that's really the more specific hang-up.

I don't think you CAN teach me how to think infinite thoughts.

No, but my point was that such isn't necessary, 'rather than trying' :chuckle: (I knew where you were heading, tried to head it off at the pass :mmph: did not work :nono: )

I don't have a favorite movie. If you go by how many times I've watched one, then it would be some silly kid's movie like Beauty and the Beast, since I watched those with my children over the years, and we happened to own that one. If I had to pick the first one that came to mind that I actually liked for a long time, it would be Disney's Junglebook, the cartoon. And I've watched it maybe a couple of dozen times.

Were you 'bored' the second time? :nono: One of my favorites is Silverado, I've seen it probably 27 times, still not bored with it. I was just trying to say that God knowing in exhaustive definite detail is not boring. Nor inane puppetry :nono: Nor robotic repetition. God is involved with us in the here and now. I do not know exactly how all this works, but I don't attach a human-hang-up to equate to problems with/for God. Like you, I'm sure we cannot grasp the infinite OTHER than as we too have eternity in our hearts. Ecclesiastes 3:11

I'm not sure how to help you here. It was a basic presupposition of mine that someone questioned to make me think about this topic in the first place--the supposition that the bible says the future of everything is predetermined. That can be stated in an Arminian way by saying: "the future is settled to the extent that God can look at it to determine how to make it different", which means it's only settled by what God decides to do. That leads directly into Calvinism, which says God decided what to do (everything) without needing to know the future--which makes much more sense, but leads to a purposeless Bible. If God can change our will to make us want to change our will, why not just give us that will in the first place. Even the Westminster Confession struggles with that idea, when it says "nor is violence offered to the will of the creature".

What is "violence offered to the will of the creature"? Isn't it "changing the will" or "forcing the will"?

You'll notice I completely ignored the quoted list of verses for now, including Rom 9. I can go through those in a separate post, but I'm wondering if I have the time for something that may not be worthwhile.

Derf

I'm okay one way or the other. You had mentioned wanting to go through Romans a bit more in depth so I was more accommodating you, or trying to be at least. In Him, and thanks -Lon

 

[Derf]

I agree with much of what you've written, and in the interest of "trimming", I left out some of that. Maybe it will help. One thing I agree about is the continued conversation, and I think the list of passages you gave was part of that, so I don't want to neglect it. I'll see what I can do in another post.

...

You've essentially written my response here as well. I would think, the only point left is that you turn it around. We are both wrestling, at this point, with whether God is the author of sin. Both of us would see holes and flaws (I'm guessing) in our respective answers regarding free will. It is my contention that 'making' a free will is 'already' making a will purposefully against God. God can't do that (my succinct rejoinder). That would have you agreeing with hyper-Calvinism, in a weird twist, as far as my ascertaining. I cannot see a way that God can make a creature, with an independent will, that doesn't also automatically mean God designed man to sin.

There's that finite mind of yours, I suppose. But I'd rather suggest that God CAN design a mind that is ABLE to sin without designing it TO sin. I think this shows your bias towards the point I'm having trouble with--that God knows everything that will happen (including our every decision to sin) and therefore designed everything TO happen that way.

I gave Genesis 3:22 because it is only after man's fall that He 'now' knows good and evil to 'have' a choice. I could acquiesce, in some sense, God may have made man to be able to make free choices, but that would never have allowed him to choose the forbidden tree. God simply couldn't have created it in Adam's nature to 'want' to sin or God becomes the author of sin, in my mind.

This is pretty important. If God made it possible for man to choose right verses wrong, it doesn't mean that he made him with the knowledge of good and evil. I don't know that I can detail all that is involved, but the "knowledge" part seems like could only come from exercising the ability to do wrong. And they definitely had that ability or there's no reason for God to threaten death for disobedience.

...many suppositions would have to be changed over time, and I think in that, it would take an act of us reading God's Word, that could convert us from one systematic to another. It is just too daunting to suppose anything less than inundation in scripture, over time, could allow for such a change.

Any good change, anyway. I would expect a bad change is possible without the inundation.

I was rather saying that these scriptures say literally 'we can do no one thing, at all, without Him.' It was rather a set-up, not for you, but for me to talk of the extent to which I believe this to be true. Now, it may be that this also would support your idea of a will, since 'can do nothing' implies a 'will to do otherwise.' But that is the idea I think is corrected by John 15:5 and Colossians 1:17 and John 1:3 Whenever I used to read John 15:16 I interrupted Jesus with "Of course they chose You. How can Jesus be saying 'you did not choose me?'" John 1:36-38; 41-42; 45

I guess there are a few ways to take the John 15 passage. The context seems to indicate that they can't bring forth fruit without him--and it must be talking about good fruit, as there are indeed people that bring forth bad fruit (like lying, for instance) that Jesus would not be responsible for, right? So it must at least mean that without Him we can't do anything [good]. With that assumption, I agree that "can do nothing" implies a will to do otherwise. But now I have to ask what "good" means, which seems a little silly, since it's not in the verse you cited. I notice that the word "if" is used, and "so" and "that" are used in a similar way, a number of times to suggest that the things Christ is telling them to do is not a for sure thing. They actually had to do the things. Without Him they could do none of these things, but "without Him" is defined as not doing those things (Jn 15:10). Jn 15:15-16, where Christ calls them friends and says He chose them, is bracketed by "Ye are my friends, if ye do what I command you" and "These things I command you, that ye love one another", as if they could do otherwise. So is that "choosing" He is talking about in verse 16 the same as for salvation? I think it's possible to make a case that it's not--that instead it's a choosing for apostleship--for being sent to gather fruit (other people). And Jesus definitely chose them--we have record of that. And we also know that the disciples didn't choose Jesus to be God's anointed. Maybe that sounds like I'm choosing interpretations for my own benefit, but it's not unhelpful to consider other interpretations of passages (not "greek to english" but "what does he really mean" type of interpretations). If the disciples were concerned about what was about to happen, or it they were going to become concerned, especially if they were all going through a time of testing, then these words were to reassure them that Jesus wouldn't discard them for a momentary lapse in loyalty.

...
I think that verse, among others, demands that I can't be a hyperCalvinst ("God only has one will"). It is also true as well, that I can't be an Arminian ("God doesn't impose His will"). I think it logically and scripturally requires that God is using things against His will, to accomplish His will -- I think every Christian perspective would agree with this particular sentence. Romans 8:28 We all are trying to logically synthesize that sin is not God's desire, but that God is purposing through Christ, remedy.

I think yes: Act 17:28


Matthew 10:33 Matthew 26:75 Yes.


Again, for me, Calvinism was the answer against both hyperCalvinism and Arminian theology, because both, to me, point to God authoring sin. It probably is thought odd that I became a Calvinist, when such is often associated with God's decrees and will, but the difference between God's prescriptive and decretive will made sense to me (this one from James Hilston).

Maybe Arminianism vs Hyper-Calvinism is a false dichotomy. Calvinism, I think, tries to walk the line between them, but perhaps you think it necessary because of a false premise--that God knows everything we are going to do before we do it??

...
It is more probably, I'm just uncomfortable saying "God must...if..."

Me too, but if God says He's going to do it, or says He is like something, then we need to see if we can understand what He is saying to us. If we are really going to get to know Him, which it seems like He wants, we have to get to know something about Him.

I don't like asserting what I'm incapable of actualizing, especially concerning God. "God cannot lie" is a scriptural given Hebrews 6:18. But if left to my own, without scripture to back the Character of God, I'd have said it more like Titus 1:2 "God will not lie." IOW, I try not to assert a thing about God unless scripture backs me up to the hilt. I 'can' say "God cannot lie" but if it weren't for scripture saying it, I'd have rather just said "God does not lie." (Not sure if it is yet conveying as clearly as I'm trying to give the gist of my reluctance and hesitancy with "a righteous God must..." or "a good God will..." but that's really the more specific hang-up.

I understand that hesitancy. I cringe greatly when someone says "That's not the kind of God I can believe in", but if it's opposite of what God has told us about Himself, surely we need to make that statement sometimes.

...
Were you 'bored' the second time? :nono: One of my favorites is Silverado, I've seen it probably 27 times, still not bored with it. I was just trying to say that God knowing in exhaustive definite detail is not boring. Nor inane puppetry :nono: Nor robotic repetition. God is involved with us in the here and now. I do not know exactly how all this works, but I don't attach a human-hang-up to equate to problems with/for God. Like you, I'm sure we cannot grasp the infinite OTHER than as we too have eternity in our hearts. Ecclesiastes 3:11

I get what you're saying, about the movie thing. I'll think about whether it applies to my illustration.

I'm okay one way or the other. You had mentioned wanting to go through Romans a bit more in depth so I was more accommodating you, or trying to be at least. In Him, and thanks -Lon

I'm feeling like I've missed something I was going to comment on, but I need to go for now.
Blessings,
Derf

 

[Derf]

Hi Dialogos,
I apologize for ignoring your post. I'll see if I can answer it. I can't say I'm the best advocate for open theism--I'm not sure I would call myself one, even, though I haven't seen too many substantive complaints against the main tenet. (No, I can't say I've read everything against it, either.)

Ok, so lets take a very non-emotional fact and see if Open Theism is a theology that is robust enough to account for it.

I don't mean to take issue too quickly, but I'm not sure which thing in your discussion below you are calling a "fact". Is it that John was given a revelation? Or is it what the revelation was? I trust that John wrote down accurately that he was given a revelation and wrote down accurately what he saw. I'm not sure what unwritten details we can glean from it, however.

In the book of Revelation, John is shown a multitude that no one can count standing before the Throne:

“After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, "Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!" (Revelation 7:9-10 ESV)”​

Praise the Lord!
I think I'm not completely convinced the ESV has translated this correctly, but it supports the open view more than the settled view, imo. If "no one" could number them, then I guess God didn't actually know how many either, right? Maybe that's WHY it says no one could number them.

If the future is open, how could God have shown John something that isn’t settled?

Because we aren't given a number, it's a little hard to say what this means in terms of actual number of humans. What would it look like if it's wrong?

How could God have had any confidence whatsoever that a great multitude would be saved in the first place?

Why not? Do you think His offer of salvation is not attractive to some? Let me ask you this--if God had a particular number He was looking for, is it possible that He would be willing to wait until that number believe before making these events take place? Can you tell me from the passage what year John is visiting/viewing? Or the day or the hour?

Who are these people, are they just some virtual place holders? Nameless, faceless masses because the people that this vision represents haven’t been born and may or may not choose Christ?

Which names or faces did you recognize from the passage? You are exactly right that as far as we can tell from the passage, they are nameless and faceless. Do you think John was actually time-traveled to this event and saw it as it will happen in the future? That might be the case, but I don't know that we are given enough detail to determine so. Or perhaps he was given a vision--something God presented to his eyes or to his mind to give him an idea of what was going to happen in the future, because that was what God had planned?

How can God guarantee that they will be saying this in the first place?

It seems to me that God is describing (in pictures, I suppose) to John what the feeling in heaven will be when we look back on what could have happened to us and reflect on God's wonderful love and mercy shown in the death of "the Lamb" that was visible to the whole crowd.

Don’t they have the free will to choose to say it or not or, or maybe something different entirely?

Maybe they all really think God did something praiseworthy in sacrificing His son for them?? And that Jesus did something praiseworthy when he died for them? And if they didn't want to be there, they wouldn't be there? And if they didn't want to say it they wouldn't be there?

Do you think this will be what heaven is like--everybody standing around just praising God? It might be, but God seems like a fairly practical person, and He may give us jobs to do. And while we are doing those jobs, we will reflect on how God made us to work but the work will not be onerous. It won't be by the "sweat of our brows", but His yoke will be easy, and His burden will be light. And that would be a good reason to praise Him, too.

What happens to free will in heaven?

I'm not entirely sure. Why don't you tell me?

Do you have to praise God in heaven even if you don’t feel like it?

don't you want to? Do you think it will be possible to not want to? My guess is that everybody that doesn't feel like it is not there, but somewhere else.

I would argue that Open Theism can’t answer any of these questions with any degree of biblical or theological acumen.

You are probably correct. I would argue that other theological systems would have about as hard a time answering them according to the bible.

You seem to think there won't be any free will in heaven. Does that mean you will be forced to praise God against your will there? Or does that mean you will be forced to "want" to praise God? What is heaven like? I think you will reach the same conclusion I have--that there's nobody in heaven that doesn't want to praise God--but we're all trying to figure out how it comes about.

It seems to me that the whole idea of heaven presented in scripture is that there are a whole bunch of people and angels that actually recognize God's power and majesty and holiness and wisdom and love and mercy and a countless list of other attributes, and they give voice to that recognition.

Praise the Lord, indeed!
Derf

 

[Derf]

Hi Lon,
Here's your list with some comments interspersed. Hopefully I've managed to colorize everything like I wanted to. I rearranged some to handle like verses together.

Originally Posted by Lon
Jeremiah 10:23 O Jehovah, I know that the way of man does not belong to man; it is not in man who walks to direct his steps.
Proverbs 20:24 Man's steps are of Jehovah; how can a man then understand his own way?
Proverbs 16:9 The mind of man plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps.
Psa 37:23 The steps of a good man are ordered by Jehovah; and He delights in his way.
Psa 37:24 Though he fall, he shall not be cast down; for Jehovah upholds his hand.
Proverbs 3:6 In all your ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct your paths. It's interesting that in that last verse, acknowledging Him is a condition of the LORD directing our paths, but in the others, it's not. Does that mean that God does or does not direct the paths of those that don't acknowledge Him? And why would there be a distinction if the LORD directs everybody's paths?

Jeremiah 29:11 For I know what I have planned for you,'says the LORD. 'I have plans to prosper you, not to harm you. I have plans to give you a future filled with hope. If you look back a couple of verses, God is warning His people not to be deceived. Why would He say that and punctuate it with a promise of blessing? What would be the effect of them being deceived? The same thing--they would be prosperous and not harmed? This seems to be a promise that they need to not despair, because if they did, they would not realize the blessings He has in store for them. It's a contingent passage.

Proverbs 3:5 Trust in Jehovah with all your heart, and lean not to your own understanding. This is a good idea. I recommend it! Why is it in this list?

Proverbs 21:1 The king's heart is in the hand of Jehovah as the rivers of water; He turns it wherever He will. Have you ever tried to turn a river (or stream, more likely) from its course? How did you do it? Did you will the river to go a different direction? Or did you put barriers up that the water had to go around? It's a vivid picture of what God may do with kings that don't want to do what He wants.

Psa 33:10 Jehovah brings the counsel of the nations to nothing; He breaks the plots of the people.
Psa 33:11 The counsel of Jehovah stands forever, the thoughts of His heart to all generations. What exactly is the "counsel of Jehovah"? And how does it compare with the "counsel of the nations"? If Jehovah brings the counsel of the nations to nothing in favor of His own counsel, doesn't that mean that the nations had some kind of counsel that was different from what God wanted them to have? That perhaps according to some He gave them in the first place?

Psa 33:12 Blessed is the nation whose God is Jehovah; the people He has chosen for His inheritance.
Psa 33:13 Jehovah looks down from Heaven; He beholds all the sons of mankind.
Psa 33:14 From His dwelling place He looks on all the people of the earth.
Psa 33:15 Together He forms their hearts; His understanding is to all their works.Do you think that means God fashions our hearts to be desperately wicked? Does He understand our works because He fashioned our hearts particularly to do those works, evil and non-evil alike?

Psa 37:18 Jehovah knows the days of the upright, and their inheritance shall be forever.
Job 14:5 For his days are fixed, the number of his months is with You, and You have set his bounds so that he cannot pass;Just like Hezekiah, I suppose. Fixed, but not fixed beyond changing?

Psa 33:9 For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood.
Isaiah 46:9 Remember former things from forever; for I am God, and no other is God, even none like Me,
Isaiah 46:10 declaring the end from the beginning, and from the past things which were not done, saying, My purpose shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure;
Isaiah 46:11 calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my purpose from a far country. Yes, I have spoken, I will also cause it to come; I have formed; yes, I will do it. Is it any surprise that God can do what He decides to do? And is it any surprise to you that if God decides to do something, that He could tell us what He decided to do, long before He does it? This whole passage in Isaiah is a diatribe against false gods that can't do anything, and our God, the true and living God, can decide what He wants to do and make sure it happens, no matter who might stand in His way. He can even use kings from other lands.

Rom 9:19 You will then say to me, Why does He yet find fault? For who has resisted His will?
Rom 9:20 No, but, O man, who are you who replies against God? Shall the thing formed say to Him who formed it, Why have you made me this way?
Rom 9:21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel to honor and another to dishonor? I'm a bit ashamed that I don't have a good answer to this one, and I have to use somebody else's that I read one time.

Spoiler

3 Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels. 4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make [it]. 5 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying, 6 O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay [is] in the potter's hand, so [are] ye in mine hand, O house of Israel. 7 [At what] instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy [it]; 8 If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. 9 And [at what] instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant [it]; 10 If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them. [Jer 18:3-10 KJV]

Is the clay something that is decided from the beginning how it will always be? Or can God actually change the destination (dare I say "predestination"?) depending on how the clay responds? Is that what happened to Israel? It kind of seems like it.

John 10:27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.If these guys weren't able to believe, why did Jesus a few verses later say, "But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him." (Jn 10:38)? Would He really tell them that they can't possibly believe in Him (because they aren't His sheep), and then turn around and tell them that they may know and believe?
​

I'm sure some of these responses are weaker than others. But I'm in the process of questioning a lot of what I grew up with--some of this questioning was started when I started attending a Calvinistic church, because they had some different interpretations of things that were pretty settled in my mind. And some of that was good! But if what I grew up with can become unsettled, is it any wonder that Calvinistic teaching can become unsettled, too? Don't we all want to unsettle things that aren't correct so that we can find the things that are?

Or do we assume we are correct in all things? I'm not aiming this at you, necessarily, as you have been through some of this yourself.

In Christ, who is the light of the world,
Derf

 

[Danoh]

Please be respectful and do not disrespect anyone(no matter their comments)


So, about a year ago a good friend of mine introduced reformed theology to me. My first thought was,"ummm what?", but as he explainned the thought behind it, the more I could see some agreement I have always had. I do no not hold to all five points of Calvinism. The truth is im torn between.

Any thoughts on reformed theology?

It will be of great, great help to you to ever keep in mind that just because a thing appears to make sense, that alone does not make it sound.

That just because a thing appears to jibe with how you yourself reason through a thing also does not mean it is sound.

Constantly seek holes in every argument, including your own.

As you adhere to this principle you begin to find your being able to separate your own or another's ideas and or reasoning from what is actually sound.

Of course, because few are this rigorous, what you'll find is that most present their particular cause from within a frame of reference long since no longer able to challenge itself.

Every thought must be brought under the above scrutiny if you are to truly begin to bring your every thought against the knowledge of God to the obedience of Christ, 2 Cor. 2:10.

Brace yourself, the traditions of men are headed your way - your own, as well as that of others, including, more often than you think, those of your own fellows.

Objectivity can be attained though; just a matter of vigilance in one's search for its principles.

In this, even the Apostle Paul's "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good," 1 Thess. 5:21, does not function within some "well, what this means to me" vacuum.

A passage like that needs to be taken apart as to its parts - what is prove all things, and how does that work, and what is the standard said proving would be based on, and what would constitute holding a thing fast or not, and so on.

This is how you get out of yourself and into the Scripture for it's answers.

The best to you in this...

 

[Lon]

Hi Derf, Great job trimming. It may not seem that way, but when you hit quote to respond, it will be a lot shorter.

I agree with much of what you've written...
There's that finite mind of yours, I suppose.

"Our." It is probably most often a result of what one finite mind understand over against another's understanding. Another reason I leaned Calvinist is specifically because they embrace the mystery of it rather than attributing it to freewill (it seems a more correct answer to me). We have a will, no doubt, but adding 'free' to it as well as thinking we are 'made' this way rather than 'become' this way, explains a lot of where the departure between systematic theologies begin. As I began reading scriptures from this perspective, I became a Calvinist.

But I'd rather suggest that God CAN design a mind that is ABLE to sin without designing it TO sin. I think this shows your bias towards the point I'm having trouble with--that God knows everything that will happen (including our every decision to sin) and therefore designed everything TO happen that way.

Genesis 3:22 suggests that didn't happen to me. There is no choice (freewill) for evil without 'knowing' good and evil.

This is pretty important. If God made it possible for man to choose right verses wrong, it doesn't mean that he made him with the knowledge of good and evil.

Gen 3:22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—"

I don't know that I can detail all that is involved, but the "knowledge" part seems like could only come from exercising the ability to do wrong. And they definitely had that ability or there's no reason for God to threaten death for disobedience.

For me, it was a foreknowledge of their coming temptation as well as instructions how to avoid it as well as the consequences. At the point there would still not have been a 'desire' thus no 'free' will to do so. I believe it required the serpent, thus the 'gift' of freewill was given by his temptation and their acceptance of it.

Any good change, anyway. I would expect a bad change is possible without the inundation.

:up:

I guess there are a few ways to take the John 15 passage. The context seems to indicate that they can't bring forth fruit without him--and it must be talking about good fruit, as there are indeed people that bring forth bad fruit (like lying, for instance) that Jesus would not be responsible for, right? So it must at least mean that without Him we can't do anything [good]. With that assumption, I agree that "can do nothing" implies a will to do otherwise. But now I have to ask what "good" means, which seems a little silly, since it's not in the verse you cited. I notice that the word "if" is used, and "so" and "that" are used in a similar way, a number of times to suggest that the things Christ is telling them to do is not a for sure thing. They actually had to do the things. Without Him they could do none of these things, but "without Him" is defined as not doing those things (Jn 15:10). Jn 15:15-16, where Christ calls them friends and says He chose them, is bracketed by "Ye are my friends, if ye do what I command you" and "These things I command you, that ye love one another", as if they could do otherwise. So is that "choosing" He is talking about in verse 16 the same as for salvation? I think it's possible to make a case that it's not--that instead it's a choosing for apostleship--for being sent to gather fruit (other people). And Jesus definitely chose them--we have record of that. And we also know that the disciples didn't choose Jesus to be God's anointed. Maybe that sounds like I'm choosing interpretations for my own benefit, but it's not unhelpful to consider other interpretations of passages (not "greek to english" but "what does he really mean" type of interpretations). If the disciples were concerned about what was about to happen, or it they were going to become concerned, especially if they were all going through a time of testing, then these words were to reassure them that Jesus wouldn't discard them for a momentary lapse in loyalty.

It is a qualification of "no thing/nothing." For you, a needed clarifier, for me not necessary. For this, I think it good just that we recognize our respective suppositions. That alone, helps us think through what we respectively believe and are responsible to God for. For me, that's is perhaps the most important part of a conversation like this: It gives us the tools to analyze our presuppositions and bring them before the throne of Christ, in order that we might honor Him and surrender what is needed before Him.

Maybe Arminianism vs Hyper-Calvinism is a false dichotomy. Calvinism, I think, tries to walk the line between them, but perhaps you think it necessary because of a false premise--that God knows everything we are going to do before we do it??

This is a really important doctrine so 2 links for your reading: Is God Omniscient? The Omniscience of God

Me too, but if God says He's going to do it, or says He is like something, then we need to see if we can understand what He is saying to us. If we are really going to get to know Him, which it seems like He wants, we have to get to know something about Him.
I understand that hesitancy. I cringe greatly when someone says "That's not the kind of God I can believe in", but if it's opposite of what God has told us about Himself, surely we need to make that statement sometimes.

I don't have a problem with someone repeating scripture, but rather asserting what is beyond their expression, even if it appears logical or perhaps even more evident to them.

I get what you're saying, about the movie thing. I'll think about whether it applies to my illustration.
I'm feeling like I've missed something I was going to comment on, but I need to go for now.
Blessings,
Derf

His blessings and thanks for a meaningful conversation -Lon

 

[rako]

Please be respectful and do not disrespect anyone(no matter their comments)


So, about a year ago a good friend of mine introduced reformed theology to me. My first thought was,"ummm what?", but as he explainned the thought behind it, the more I could see some agreement I have always had. I do no not hold to all five points of Calvinism. The truth is im torn between.

Any thoughts on reformed theology?

I was confirmed in the PCUSA, but one of the reasons I left it for Traditional Christianity was because I read Spare the Child: The Religious Roots of Corporal Punishment, about how Calvinist penal theology played a major role in promoting physical beatings of children in Reformed families and culture in the USA. It helps explain why this form of upbringing is more common in the Evangelical and "conservative" Calvinist homes.

Calvin's penal form of theology was not passed down in the Church, it was his own "take" on things, so it is not a "Catholic" teaching, nor do I find it a pleasant or - combined with his teaching on irresistible grace, etc. - even logical one.

 

[rako]

Thanks for your Visitor message, Mr. Religion, recommending me to see your thread " One on One: BR X - A Calvinist's Response (Ask Mr. Religion vs. Enyart)"

Unfortunately I think I can't PM you back because I don't have a full account.

I have a generally positive view of the PCUSA, and know that it's possible to interpret different theologies like Calvinism different ways, to put different spins and lights on their arguments and issues.

For me, a big part of my rejection of Calvinism is subjective, perhaps. That is, perhaps one could rationally make defenses of penal substitution, but it feels bad enough to me, especially after reading the excellent "Spare the Child" book that Calvinism is not for me. I just don't believe or like that kind of punishment-oriented theology.

In other words, while you and Calvinist theologians may be able to make rational explanations for Calvinism's theology to make it appear valid, and I expect that I could even lose debates, at the subjective level my soul basically vomits it out.

But thank you again for welcoming me here, and it really is nice to hear from you.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I have a generally positive view of the PCUSA...

Thank you. Please note that I am not a member of the liberal PC(USA), a group that has essentially abandoned its confessional basis. My denominational affiliation is with the PCA, one of the conservative NAPARC group of churches.

AMR

 

[Derf]

I was confirmed in the PCUSA, but one of the reasons I left it for Traditional Christianity was because I read Spare the Child: The Religious Roots of Corporal Punishment, about how Calvinist penal theology played a major role in promoting physical beatings of children in Reformed families and culture in the USA. It helps explain why this form of upbringing is more common in the Evangelical and "conservative" Calvinist homes.

Calvin's penal form of theology was not passed down in the Church, it was his own "take" on things, so it is not a "Catholic" teaching, nor do I find it a pleasant or - combined with his teaching on irresistible grace, etc. - even logical one.

Hi Rako,
Corporal punishment is an important topic, but I don't think Calvinism is alone in recommending corporal punishment and doing so from a biblical point of view. At the same time, it can be over-applied, both in harshness and in frequency. Even society at large struggles with how harsh a punishment should be, but that doesn't mean we give up on it altogether--we should be looking for the right amount when necessary, at the right times, and sometimes showing mercy--not by picking favorites, but by giving our children second (and third and more, depending on the offense) chances to mold them toward what they should be--just as God did to the Jews, and as He does to us, His children.

 

[Derf]

Hi Derf, Great job trimming. It may not seem that way, but when you hit quote to respond, it will be a lot shorter.

But I'll soon take care of that!

"Our."

My restriction to "your" was intended to be tongue-in-cheek. Yes, I agree mine is finite as well.

It is probably most often a result of what one finite mind understand over against another's understanding. Another reason I leaned Calvinist is specifically because they embrace the mystery of it rather than attributing it to freewill (it seems a more correct answer to me). We have a will, no doubt, but adding 'free' to it as well as thinking we are 'made' this way rather than 'become' this way, explains a lot of where the departure between systematic theologies begin. As I began reading scriptures from this perspective, I became a Calvinist.

I'm not sure I can tell what the distinction is between having a "will" and having a "free will". I suppose it's like "wholly sovereign". If our will (free or otherwise) is determined by somebody else, then it's not really our will, is it? It's the determiner's. I still think you are equating the desire with the ability to desire. And you seem to be saying God can't give the one without giving the other. That's a pretty big limitation to put on an infinite God, don't you think? That means that Satan is actually responsible for creating something--not just corrupting what God created. Maybe I'm taking the implications too far...:think:

Genesis 3:22 suggests that didn't happen to me. There is no choice (freewill) for evil without 'knowing' good and evil.

I'll have to disagree with you here. If God tells us what to do versus what not to do, and expresses the penalty if we do the wrong thing, we "know" good and evil in a sense. I don't know that things are much different today when we debate laws and punishment for disobedience. If I tell you (as a civil magistrate) not to murder, you know the difference between good and evil. If you commit murder, you know more about it--you've experienced it--but you still knew about it before hand.

I think this "know" is the same "know" that Jesus used when he said to the goats, "I never knew you." in Mt 25:41-46. Jesus obviously "knew" them in the sense that He knew who they were and saw their deeds.

I will admit that it suggests God has a more intimate knowledge of evil than just knowing the difference. It makes it sound like either God has committed acts of evil (not tenable); or maybe the "us" in Gen 3:22 is not just God; or maybe His infinite mind (as opposed to "ours") could comprehend the effects of evil without actually committing them. I'm not sure. I think I'd lean toward the latter.

Also we might need to understand what it means to be like God, which is rather difficult for us. If God had a will already that was like the one you say we were given at the fall, and it was a bad thing for us, then did God have

1. a desire to do something different from what God wanted? (not tenable in my mind, but deduced from what you said)
2. An understanding of the effects of sin. (most likely)

Gen 3:22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—"
For me, it was a foreknowledge of their coming temptation as well as instructions how to avoid it as well as the consequences. At the point there would still not have been a 'desire' thus no 'free' will to do so. I believe it required the serpent, thus the 'gift' of freewill was given by his temptation and their acceptance of it.

So it sounds like you admit that the eating from the tree is not what gave them that "free" will, and it sounds like you don't believe God gave them such. So that was a gift from Satan? Well, ok, but then if the will is the bad thing, then they would have the bad thing even if they never ate of the tree. The eating of the tree was a bit superfluous, right?

And there's no responsibility, right? Since Satan gave them the bad thing--"the Devil made me do it"? It can't be that they wanted it (wanted the desire to want something God didn't want them to want, if you get my drift), because you're saying their desire for something outside of God's provision was the bad thing that God didn't give them the ability to have. And it can't be that they accepted the temptation, for they couldn't accept this "desire for something God didn't want for them" unless they had a desire for it already.

It is a qualification of "no thing/nothing." For you, a needed clarifier, for me not necessary. For this, I think it good just that we recognize our respective suppositions. That alone, helps us think through what we respectively believe and are responsible to God for. For me, that's is perhaps the most important part of a conversation like this: It gives us the tools to analyze our presuppositions and bring them before the throne of Christ, in order that we might honor Him and surrender what is needed before Him.

And what if he uses a forum like this to tell us our presuppositions are wrong and He wants us to change them?? (though signals are likely to get mixed up, it's somewhat the same going to different churches).

This is a really important doctrine so 2 links for your reading: Is God Omniscient? The Omniscience of God

I agree this is an important doctrine. And if it is so important, biblically derived oppositions to currently held beliefs should not be dismissed too quickly. I get the feeling that's what is happening in many cases in the open view debate.

One interesting note from my quick perusal of those links: the second one says: "God is the only One Who possesses limitless knowledge." I agree with this in its intention, but it points out one of the ways the two sides seem to talk past each other. If God possesses limitless knowledge, then He must know everything, even things that aren't. Because one limitation on knowledge is that God knows everything that is, but He doesn't know anything that isn't. He doesn't know the name of my pet pony, for instance, since I don't have one. Open theists use this same idea to "limit" God's knowledge to what is possible to know. Classical theists must do the same. The difference is how they define "possible to know".

Classical theists add that God can't accumulate knowledge, because if He does, that would make Him less yesterday than He is today. I would say the same thing is true of glory. If He receives glory from man, then some of that glory was not yet in existence yesterday morning, before we glorified Him at church during our worship service. I guess you could say that because God is outside of time, then that glory is not deficient at any point in time, but that locks God into a condition where He is dependent on our existence--if He decided (before time began, I suppose) that He didn't want to make the world and humans, then His eternal glory would be deficient what humans contribute to it, whatever little that might be. And because it isn't possible that God could be any less than what He is, that glory is required. Thus, God HAD to make man.

I don't think that's a feasible scenario, but that's the one classical theists seem to be advocating.

I don't have a problem with someone repeating scripture, but rather asserting what is beyond their expression, even if it appears logical or perhaps even more evident to them.

Don't we have the potential to do this for every type of scripture, not just the parables? But if we decide not to take the teaching from the scriptures that teach us about God, whether parable or not, aren't we refusing to "know" Him?

On the other hand, if we can't glean anything from the parable about the king of the kingdom of heaven, since he's an integral part of that kingdom, can we glean anything about even the kingdom from the parable? Of what use, then, is the parable? If all we can do is "repeat scripture", and we can't even discern a meaning of it to share with others or even to learn something ourselves, the scripture loses its value. All scripture needs to be interpreted by those that hear it, with aid of pastors and teachers, perhaps, but their words, too, in giving instruction, also will need to be interpreted by their hearers.

Going back to your parental illustration, our children when they were younger, had some difficulty understanding us. When we first sang a lullaby to them that said "go to sleep", did they actually do it at our command? No, they likely didn't understand what we were saying and a cooing without words would have likely been just as effective. (Later on, when we said the same thing, they likely looked for ways to ignore or postpone the expectation.) I expect my understanding of scripture to grow as I read it more and more, but each time I read it, I interpret it, and hopefully find decent ways to apply that interpretation. If we aren't ever allowed to look at scripture to determine what scripture means, including parables, scripture becomes dead to us.

His blessings and thanks for a meaningful conversation -Lon

May He bless our conversation(s) and make them even more meaningful.
Derf

 

[rako]

Hi Rako,
Corporal punishment is an important topic, but I don't think Calvinism is alone in recommending corporal punishment and doing so from a biblical point of view. At the same time, it can be over-applied, both in harshness and in frequency. Even society at large struggles with how harsh a punishment should be, but that doesn't mean we give up on it altogether--we should be looking for the right amount when necessary, at the right times, and sometimes showing mercy--not by picking favorites, but by giving our children second (and third and more, depending on the offense) chances to mold them toward what they should be--just as God did to the Jews, and as He does to us, His children.

Hi Derf,

The issue for me is not simply whether people of certain religions use this unpleasant practice.

Rather, Calvinism has a distinction in having a particularly penal-oriented theology, and a subsequent increased practice of whipping children, as the book Spare the Child showed.

Perhaps you can find different ways to rationalize this and even make it sound good. But my spirit rejects this as a theology and practice and my rejection is a major reason why I turned to the "true teachings and Church" and orthodoxy of traditional Christianity.

Penal theology and Calvinism present themselves as a "Reform" of the Church, but in major ways it is truly a deformation of the Church and the apostles' theology.

The Church teaches compassion, forgiveness, and arguably punishment, whereas penal theology of the "Reformed" deformed Calvinism emphasizes the latter - punishment. This is why my soul that loves Jesus' teachings of love, compassion and forgiveness are driven back to the basic theology handed down by the apostles and not the penal theology invented by Calvin 1500 years or so after the apostles.

There are a lot of Calvinist followers in America, but there are a lot of traditional, orthodox Christians here too, fortunately.

 

[rako]

Thank you. Please note that I am not a member of the liberal PC(USA), a group that has essentially abandoned its confessional basis. My denominational affiliation is with the PCA, one of the conservative NAPARC group of churches.

AMR

My guess is that PCUSA is less likely to put into practice the ant-compassion (or fake compassion & abuse) that Calvinist punishment emphasis can lead to.

I did not think that much about Calvinism when I got confirmed in the PCUSA, except that I knew some vague things about him, like predestination, without thinking that intensely about it. I just figured that his beliefs were standard for the European reformation like Luther's were. I suppose in a way Calvinism is part of mainstream Protestantism, but it's not "the standard" either.

We are looking at a situation in America where Catholic schools across the country do not use beatings, but it is not rare for it to happen in self-identified "Christian schools" that are in fact Calvinistic.

I went to Catholic school and I liked it much better than the Calvinistic school I went to before that, which felt like a mental straightjacket. (At least AFAIK the Calvinist one did not use physical beatings).