ECT What is Predestination?

[Dialogos]

Isn't it strange? I was just thinking of that very scripture verse when I originally said that openness conforms with everyday experience whilst Calvinists have to explain away those experiences. I was really inspired by the Holy Spirit to say that.
So I must be right OK?

:nono:

Not ok.

The core difference is that Calvinists start with what the scriptures say about God and then explain experience in light of what we know from the scriptures. This is a Theocentric way of answering those questions.

Openness, as you have described it, starts with "everyday experiences" and interprets the bible in light of those experiences. This is an anthropocentric way of answering those questions.

I think that most people are capable of seeing this distinction despite your attempts to continue to blur it. After all, it is the very distinction that the bible itself makes in Prov 3:5, Prov 28:16, for example and it is the basic idea that runs all the way through 1 Cor chapter 2. (verse 5 especially).

I am arguing that the Holy Spirit faithfully speaks through the truth of God's word to believers whereas He has made no such promises in safeguarding some form of dogma derived from our experiences.

You are making a very basic mistake here.

No, you are making a very common relativistic argument. Your argument is just another minor permutation of the common "that's just your interpretation" argument.

The answer to that challenge is pretty simple really.

Of course my interpretations of the word are my interpretation. And your interpretations are your interpretations.

We are all stuck with that reality.

That doesn't erase the distinction between the reliability of God's revealed word and the unreliability of human experience. Furthermore, your attempt to obfuscate that distinction and appeal to human experience ends up destroying your own argument as not all cultural viewpoints see experience as validating the open view. In fact there are strong elements of determinism in many philosophical perspectives as well as many world religions. If your argument is that the OV is likely true because it accords with your experience then how do you address the same argument from determinists who argue that determinism is true because it accords with their experience?

Openness is not the de facto conclusion of all human experiences as many interpret their experiences in the exact opposite way that you do.

Your argument fails because it simply isn't a forgone conclusion that human experience entails an open view.

 

[chrysostom]

The core difference is that Calvinists start with what the scriptures say about God and then explain experience in light of what we know from the scriptures. This is a Theocentric way of answering those questions.

Openness, as you have described it, starts with "everyday experiences" and interprets the bible in light of those experiences. This is an anthropocentric way of answering those questions.

that is a good explanation
but
I think we know ourselves better than we know God
so
those who start with what they think they know about God
are
always going to come up with some strange beliefs

 

[Desert Reign]

:nono:

Not ok.

The core difference is that Calvinists start with what the scriptures say about God and then explain experience in light of what we know from the scriptures. This is a Theocentric way of answering those questions.

Well, I got that argument from you so if it's not ok for me it's not ok for you either. And your 'explaining experiences in the light of what we know from scripture' is exactly what I said before - it is having to explain those experiences away.

And anyway your method is no more theocentric than a fly in the air. It is not even bibliocentric, which would be a slightly less conceited way of describing it. It is centered on your interpretation of scripture. So your claim amounts to nothing more than that you believe you are closer to God than the next person is. Do us all a favour, please!

Openness, as you have described it, starts with "everyday experiences" and interprets the bible in light of those experiences.

That's a lie. I never said that. I never described openness that way. I made a simple statement that openness theology conforms to everyday experience.

I am arguing that the Holy Spirit faithfully speaks through the truth of God's word to believers whereas He has made no such promises in safeguarding some form of dogma derived from our experiences.

Again, I never said, nor would I say that my theology was derived from my everyday experiences. So you are the one scraping the barrel here by inventing things that I didn't say. You clearly have no concept of honesty. You have done everything you possibly can do to avoid admitting that my simple statement is in fact true. And I would bet that if you were to do a survey of non-christians who have no interest in whether Calvin was right or wrong and ask them whether their own experiences look more like they are determining their own actions or their own actions are being determined for them from outside themselves, the very large majority would answer the former.

No, you are making a very common relativistic argument. Your argument is just another minor permutation of the common "that's just your interpretation" argument.

Actually, I got the argument from you so it must be ok. If it's ok for you, then it's ok for me. You claimed that your interpretation was guided by the Holy Spirit. You seem to be taking a very hypocritical line here.

In fact, I also said, in the same post

openness conforms to the plain reading of scripture

See? I used exactly the same words to describe the relationship of openness theology to everyday experience as I did to its relationship to scripture. And then you launched into a long diatribe about how my use of experience was a flawed argument but you never once used these arguments against my claim that openness conforms to scripture. What we have here is a phenomenon called selective deafness.

Your argument fails because it simply isn't a forgone conclusion that human experience entails an open view.

Once again, if you can tell where I said that human experience entails an open view, then I would probably agree with you. But the fact is that I never said such a thing, nor would I, so why don't you stop reading into what I said and just deal with the plain statement? Or do I have to offer odds on how many times I have to repeat a simple sentence before you finally understand it?

 

[chrysostom]

Openness, as you have described it, starts with "everyday experiences" and interprets the bible in light of those experiences. This is an anthropocentric way of answering those questions.

That's a lie. I never said that. I never described openness that way. I made a simple statement that openness theology conforms to everyday experience.

it's okay
don't argue about who said what
it's a good statement of the problem
the best I have heard
so
use it
what do we know more about?
God or man
I say man
and
that is where we should start

 

[Desert Reign]

it's okay
don't argue about who said what
it's a good statement of the problem
the best I have heard
so
use it
what do we know more about?
God or man
I say man
and
that is where we should start

I appreciate your conciliatory stance.
However, the main driver of the openness I believe in is pure logic. Not scripture, not experience.
The results of my logical enterprise conform to a plain readng of scripture, just as they conform to everyday experience.
What we might or might not know about ourselves can be seen as subjective and whilst I would agree with you that we probably do know a lot more about ourselves than we know about God, such knowledge is questionable. However, if you have a clear logical argument, then this is irrefutable, so in my view it is there that one should start.

 

[Puppet]

:nono:

Not ok.

The core difference is that Calvinists start with what the scriptures say about God and then explain experience in light of what we know from the scriptures. This is a Theocentric way of answering those questions.

Openness, as you have described it, starts with "everyday experiences" and interprets the bible in light of those experiences. This is an anthropocentric way of answering those questions.

I think that most people are capable of seeing this distinction despite your attempts to continue to blur it. After all, it is the very distinction that the bible itself makes in Prov 3:5, Prov 28:16, for example and it is the basic idea that runs all the way through 1 Cor chapter 2. (verse 5 especially).

I am arguing that the Holy Spirit faithfully speaks through the truth of God's word to believers whereas He has made no such promises in safeguarding some form of dogma derived from our experiences.





No, you are making a very common relativistic argument. Your argument is just another minor permutation of the common "that's just your interpretation" argument.

The answer to that challenge is pretty simple really.

Of course my interpretations of the word are my interpretation. And your interpretations are your interpretations.

We are all stuck with that reality.

That doesn't erase the distinction between the reliability of God's revealed word and the unreliability of human experience. Furthermore, your attempt to obfuscate that distinction and appeal to human experience ends up destroying your own argument as not all cultural viewpoints see experience as validating the open view. In fact there are strong elements of determinism in many philosophical perspectives as well as many world religions. If your argument is that the OV is likely true because it accords with your experience then how do you address the same argument from determinists who argue that determinism is true because it accords with their experience?

Openness is not the de facto conclusion of all human experiences as many interpret their experiences in the exact opposite way that you do.

Your argument fails because it simply isn't a forgone conclusion that human experience entails an open view.

openness is very old ancient news cause its in yoga, Hinduism and Catholicism and others. Today's psychologist explains all that much better than your denomination. I don't think theres any harm in it but I'd be careful with the wild claims Pentecostals make. It's better to say you had all those experiences before you were born so you can't boast about it and move on and worship like normal tamed sane christians do

 

[nikolai_42]

Because they use hyperbolic language!
If you don't see that, then I can't help you. One has to understand basic grammar if one is to read the Bible with any kind of productive comprehension. It's not a matter of your concession, more than it is a matter of recognition.

See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.
Deuteronomy 32:39

Hyperbole is exaggerating a situation to make a point. So is it an exaggeration that there is no God with Jehovah? Is it an exaggeration that none can deliver out of His hand? If not, you would have God :

1. Declaring something about Himself that isn't exactly true.
2. Putting that exaggeration in between two statements that clearly (if one holds to basic Christian beliefs) are literal depictions of the truth.

There are times when comparisons are made to emphasize a point (like "all nations are as a drop in the bucket") but those comparisons are clearly made as comparisons. The reader isn't left to say "that just simply couldn't be true". And, again, we are talking about God revealing Himself. If He were to reveal Himself in any exaggerated way, then that would have to be considered a lie - because we wouldn't have a reference point to make a sure judgment that what He was saying was exaggeration to make a point. God does not reveal Himself flippantly like that.

If you believe in a God who declares things about Himself that simply are not actually and literally true, then you don't believe the God of the bible. And if you believe that Deuteronomy 32:39 is hyperbole, then the plain fact is that you don't believe what is prophetically declared about who God is and what He does (at least in that verse). You are inserting your incredulity into the reading.

 

[Totton Linnet]

The finite mind of man cannot understand the infinite nature of God.

 

[Dialogos]

Well, I got that argument from you so if it's not ok for me it's not ok for you either.

It’s not the same argument and I'm surprised that you don't see that.

Your argument is that my interpretation of scripture is flawed. My argument is that your interpretation of what all humans interpret from experience is flawed.

Both experience and scripture require interpretation in order for them to have meaning in the mind but that doesn't make them the same nor does it make them equal in authority.

We both constantly engage in the work of interpretation, but your interpretations of your experiences are based on a subject that is inherently flawed, my interpretations of God's word are based on a subject that is inherently inerrant.

If you can't see the difference then we truly have a problem.

And your 'explaining experiences in the light of what we know from scripture' is exactly what I said before - it is having to explain those experiences away.

No, no.

:nono:

It’s just inviting God's voice back into the discussion of the nature of predestination.

If you want to ask God to be quiet so that you can answer the question based on your interpretation of your own experiences, without the voice of scripture interrupting your little exercise, then you are free to do so, knock yourself out.

That approach is a fool's errand and its not a discussion I consider worth having, but its a free country and there is no law against playing a fool.

And anyway your method is no more theocentric than a fly in the air. It is not even bibliocentric, which would be a slightly less conceited way of describing it. It is centered on your interpretation of scripture.

This is subtly ad hominem. Appealing to what the bible says is clearly a more theocentric (or bibliocentric if you like) approach than appealing to experience and anyone can see that.

It’s no more conceited for a Christian to say that the bible is more reliable than our own fallible experiences than it is for a mechanic to say that the designer of the car has a more authoritative opinion on how the car works than a taxi driver.

The superiority of God revealed word to human experience is a basic tenant of Christianity.

So your claim amounts to nothing more than that you believe you are closer to God than the next person is. Do us all a favour, please!

You are missing the point.

It has absolutely nothing to do with me. It has to do with the primacy of God’s word. Whether I am closer to God or further from God than another is an irrelevancy.

I never said that. I never described openness that way. I made a simple statement that openness theology conforms to everyday experience.

Which entails what?

Does your assertion have any theological significance whatsoever?

Were you just making what you thought was an interesting observation or did you mean to suggest that OV was in some way substantiated by the fact that it (presumably) conforms to everyday experience?

First, I dispute that your observation matters even if it is true precisely because there is a far superior source of theological knowledge. Second, I dispute that your assertion is true in the first place.

Again, I never said, nor would I say that my theology was derived from my everyday experiences. So you are the one scraping the barrel here by inventing things that I didn't say. You clearly have no concept of honesty. You have done everything you possibly can do to avoid admitting that my simple statement is in fact true.

This is the second time you have tried to deflect the conversation by calling me dishonest. If you feel that I am not accurately representing your argument then, please, feel free to clarify. I’ve no interested in pushing down straw men. If your observation wasn't meant to mean anything then please stop wasting everyone's time.



The reason I avoid admitting that your simple statement is true is because it isn’t true at all.

It might be true in your eyes but it isn’t true in mine and I have given you examples of cultural groups and subgroups which also would not affirm your OV assumptions here. Why are we all obligated to conform to your experience?

A slightly less conceited way to articulate your argument would have been to admit that the OV conforms to your experience.

My response is, so what?

No-one nominated you to speak on behalf of all humanity based on your own interpretations of your own experiences.

And I would bet that if you were to do a survey of non-christians who have no interest in whether Calvin was right or wrong and ask them whether their own experiences look more like they are determining their own actions or their own actions are being determined for them from outside themselves, the very large majority would answer the former.

First, since you haven’t actually done this survey we aren’t in any way obligated to take what you “bet” a survey of non-Christians might think. What you "bet" someone might think is useless to anyone who cares about having a logical discussion based on fact.

Second, we aren’t obligated to give any weight to the theological conclusion of non-Christians reasoning from their own experience anyway. If you had chosen to interact with my reference to 1 Cor 2 you would know why.

Third, I don’t do theology via survey in the first place. I think this is perhaps the worst way to determine what is and is not true about what God has or has not done.

Actually, I got the argument from you so it must be ok. If it's ok for you, then it's ok for me. You claimed that your interpretation was guided by the Holy Spirit. You seem to be taking a very hypocritical line here.

No, you didn’t get that argument from me.

I claimed that the Holy Spirit promised to speak to God’s people through God’s word and that while none of us can claim infallibility in our interpretations of the Word of God, the word itself is infallible. I also claimed that no such promise was made regarding human experience. I fail to see how making that observation is “taking a hypocritical line.”

In fact, I also said, in the same post

See? I used exactly the same words to describe the relationship of openness theology to everyday experience as I did to its relationship to scripture. And then you launched into a long diatribe about how my use of experience was a flawed argument but you never once used these arguments against my claim that openness conforms to scripture.

Did you even read the second half of my post?

This is totally wrong. Just look at the way passages get danced around on this thread?

Romans 9 isn’t about salvation despite the following:
“Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory--even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? (Rom 9:21-24 ESV)”

Romans 8 isn’t about predestination we are told, its about already saved individuals. Despite the fact that Paul is clear…
“For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. (Rom 8:29-30 ESV)”

Foreknowing (foreordaining) precedes predestination. Predestination precedes calling, calling precedes justifying, and justifying precedes glorifying.

But Openness Theology must rip calling out from the middle and put it before predestination as (according to openness theology) we aren’t predestined until we answer God’s call to salvation.

Therefor openness Theology sees the following as the Ordo Solutis:
Foreknowing (or a misunderstanding of foreknowing and perhaps a downright denial of foreknowing) – calling – justifying – predestining – glorifying.

But perhaps the most stark reality is that Open Theism cannot consistently claim that God passes his own test that was given in Isaiah 40-48. Specifically, God chastises the false gods precisely because they don’t know the future?

“Set forth your case, says the LORD; bring your proofs, says the King of Jacob. Let them bring them, and tell us what is to happen. Tell us the former things, what they are, that we may consider them, that we may know their outcome; or declare to us the things to come.Tell us what is to come hereafter, that we may know that you are gods; do good, or do harm, that we may be dismayed and terrified. Behold, you are nothing, and your work is less than nothing; an abomination is he who chooses you. (Isa 41:21-24 ESV)”

I totally denied that openness conforms to scripture and gave ample scriptural evidence to support that denial.

Instead of addressing these points you have played the “that just your interpretation” game as if that is some clever way of avoiding a substantive conversation about the meaning of these texts.

What we have here is a phenomenon called selective deafness.

“Said the pot to the kettle…”

Once again, if you can tell where I said that human experience entails an open view, then I would probably agree with you.

So then your assertion that openness conforms to our everyday experience was just an observation that was offered in support of?....what?....nothing in particular?

If you didn’t offer that assertion as a way of substantiating the open view, over and above the settled view, then why bother wasting our time?

But the fact is that I never said such a thing, nor would I, so why don't you stop reading into what I said and just deal with the plain statement?

I have dealt with that statement quite adequately, let me reiterate.

You think that openness conforms to everyday experience.

I responded in two ways.

First, you are wrong.

Openness only conforms to your interpretation of your own everyday experience.

Not everyone shares your experiences nor your interpretation.

Since you only have your own experiences to evaluate, you are wholly unqualified to speak on behalf of the entire human race when it comes to this matter and therefore your opinion shouldn’t be treated as a truism.

Second, even if you were right, it wouldn’t matter since good theology isn’t built on the shifting sand of human experience in the first place. Good theology is based on God’s revealed word, at least it is for Christians.

 

[chrysostom]

predestination means
it doesn't matter what you do
and
that is obviously wrong

 

[Puppet]

predestination means
it doesn't matter what you do
and
that is obviously wrong

It doesn't matter what you're going to do cause you're going to do it anyway. "Doesn't matter dont apply" cause it always matters to God. The more one uses "doesn't matter" the dumber one looks as if one doesn't have a clue what matters to God.

 

[oatmeal]

He foreknew all His created children.

He predestined all His created Children.

All have the opportunity to access forgiveness and Christs work.

Not All walk in that gift or repent, believe, receive, confess.

to assume He did not foreknow all his created children diminishes His omniscience.

to assume He did not Give all His Created children the opportunity to repent and believe diminishes The Fathers love.

That sums it up as well.

 

[oatmeal]

why not use a common understanding of the word

predestination

it really improves your ability to communicate

Are we interested in how people define predestination or how God defines and uses words?

Were the English Bibles translated from other English Bibles? or from ancient manuscripts written in Hebrew Greek and Aramaic?

Wouldn't you rather know what the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic words mean?

Is the Greek word translated "predestination" defined as the modern English word is?

 

[oatmeal]

js



Thats a contradiction to the Principle of Election, God does not consider the acts of men, they were elected and predestinated before they were born Rom 9:11

11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth)

Now if they had not been born, How did God foresee them believing ? Can anyone believe before they exist ?

The purpose of God is that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. I Timothy 2:4

However, God knows and foreknows that not all men choose to receive salvation, let alone come to the knowledge of the truth.

But He has made it available to all, regardless of their works, but rather according to His calling.

 

[beloved57]

The purpose of God is that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. I Timothy 2:4

However, God knows and foreknows that not all men choose to receive salvation, let alone come to the knowledge of the truth.

But He has made it available to all, regardless of their works, but rather according to His calling.

Invalid comments!

 

[Puppet]

The purpose of God is that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. I Timothy 2:4

However, God knows and foreknows that not all men choose to receive salvation, let alone come to the knowledge of the truth.

But He has made it available to all, regardless of their works, but rather according to His calling.

God arranged and put the bible in front of the unbeliever on purpose so the reprobate can reject it. He didn't put it there in hope the nonelect to accept cause all of mankind rejected Him. The unbelievers were hopeless from the very beginning and they scramble to make up up stories to make themselves good enough by saving themselves while they were never drawn and given to Jesus in the first place. Its jesus-coated atheism. They sound good on the surface but rotten in the core. Wolves in sheep clothing

 

[oatmeal]

God arranged and put the bible in front of the unbeliever on purpose so the reprobate can reject it. He didn't put it there in hope the nonelect to accept cause all of mankind rejected Him. The unbelievers were hopeless from the very beginning and they scramble to make up up stories to make themselves good enough by saving themselves while they were never drawn and given to Jesus in the first place. Its jesus-coated atheism

God, having foreknowledge of all things, (from our perspective, it is foreknowledge, from His perspective, (since He inhabits all eternity, Isaiah 57:15) it is simply knowledge. For God, the past and present and future are all known to him now) knows who would believe and thus chose them.

Why do certain coaches choose some players over others? Does the coach predestinate their future success? or does that coach see something in that person that makes it worth his time to choose and coach that particular player? The coach maybe right or wrong, but God never makes mistakes about who He chooses.

He foresaw who would believe and chose them, not out of prejudice, but simply out of foreknowledge, and wisdom.

 

[oatmeal]

Invalid comments!

For you, any scripture outside of the handful you refer to is not valid

Your theology is pitiful

 

[beloved57]

For you, any scripture outside of the handful you refer to is not valid

Your theology is pitiful

You the one making invalid comments not supported by scripture!

 

[Puppet]

God, having foreknowledge of all things, (from our perspective, it is foreknowledge, from His perspective, (since He inhabits all eternity, Isaiah 57:15) it is simply knowledge. For God, the past and present and future are all known to him now) knows who would believe and thus chose them.

Why do certain coaches choose some players over others? Does the coach predestinate their future success? or does that coach see something in that person that makes it worth his time to choose and coach that particular player? The coach maybe right or wrong, but God never makes mistakes about who He chooses.

He foresaw who would believe and chose them, not out of prejudice, but simply out of foreknowledge, and wisdom.

What God knows will come true. What is already known isn't based on man's actions due to not being able to perform what he can't do.