A matter of trust

[orthotomeo]

As I understand it, there are three basic possibilities regarding God's dealings with man (forgive me for putting these in my own terms, but I think they're accurate as far as they go but am open to correction). This post concentrates on #1:

1) THE CALVINISTIC VIEW: Free will, for humans and angels, does not exist. God has predetermined and orchestrates every event that has ever happened and ever will happen, no matter how minor. This includes the decisions of those created beings who appear to have free will, but really don't. His basic plans and purposes go forth exactly as He planned them; neither angel nor man can thwart His will.

2) MIDDLE OF THE ROAD (there's a name for this but I don't know what it is): Human and angelic free will exists. But God only *foreknows* every choice free will agents will ever make; He does not *predetermine* them. In other words, foreknowing all events and allowing them to happen within the bounds of His sovereign plans does not mean God MAKES them happen or WANTS them to happen. His basic plans and purposes go forth exactly He planned them, no matter what man or angel decides to do (even if He has to take into account what He knows His creatures will do).

3) THE OPEN THEISM VIEW: Human and angelic free will exists. God neither predetermines nor orchestrates every event in history because He cannot foresee - or chooses not to foresee - choices that do not yet exist. Yet He is so powerful, whatever He determines to bring to pass will happen, no matter what man or angel decides to do.

If the Calvinistic view is true:

a. Premise: Nothing can happen at any time, EVER, without God's direct design and sovereign control. EVERYTHING THAT EVER HAPPENS - including sin - is ultimately God's idea.

b. If (a) is true, then free will really is an illusion. So the Bible's many appeals to each man's power of choice ("repent or perish," "choose ye this day," "ye would not," etc) are, of necessity, less than sincere.

c. If (b) is true, then the Bible's dire warnings of condemnation for disbelief are likewise less than sincere; disbelief - which the Bible presents as the result of a free will choice - is in reality nothing more or less than the direct result of God's sovereign preprogramming.

If the fundamental premise of Calvinism is true, then the Bible contains things that are less than sincere. We have one of at least three uncomfortable conclusions to choose from:

1. There is no God. The Bible contains (let's be honest) lies because it is the work of men. Conclusion: The Bible cannot be trusted.

2. There IS a God and He does not lie. The Bible, containing lies, cannot be His Word. We do not have the Word of God. Conclusion: The Bible still cannot be trusted.

3. There is a God, but He DOES lie and the Bible IS His Word. The Bible's statement that God won't lie is, therefore, a lie. Conclusion: The Bible STILL cannot be trusted.

IN ANY EVENT, if Calvinism's basic presupposition about God is true, I do not see how the Bible can be trusted.

Thoughts?

o.

 

[Lotar]

The middle of the road you are talking about is called Arminianism, which is actually the far edge of what is acceptable, and some would even argue with that. The Lutheran is closer to the middle of the road, but much closer to Calvinism. Open Theism is heresy.

 

[WesleyJohn]

.

 

[orthotomeo]

I would like clarification of your position on Open Theism. Is it not possible that God is so powerful that He can self-limit His knowledge? We already know of God self-limiting Himself once (through the person and work of Jesus the Christ). Is it impossible to think that God might choose to self-limit His own knowledge because He wanted us to truly have free will?

I suppose it's possible - I don't know. I do suspect God's sovereign omnipotence is balanced against all other traits...He doesn't get out of whack like we do. For instance, I don't see His omnipotence overriding (thus negating) His perfect righteousness, which Calvinism unavoidably implies.

So to me, while it's interesting to discuss it doesn't really matter if He simply *limits* His foreknowledge of what we'll do, or if He really can't foresee free-will choices that don't really exist yet (because they haven't been made). Sorry if this sounds like a cop-out but that's where I'm at. I would direct that question to Bob Hill - an Open Theist for 25 years - at www.biblicalanswers.com.

Peace and grace to you, too,

o.

(who also thinks we throw the terms 'heresy' and 'heretical' around on these boards far too often...one man's heresy is another man's TBN Praise-a-Thon...oops, now I've done it)