Generic Oranges

Augustine_Was_Calvinist · Mar 31, 2006

Van said:
But since my view meshes with all scripture, contextually considered, it is the advocates of RT who are up on the ladder, sampling God's fruit.

Van, did God know specifically who would be saved before the creation of the world?

Yes or no?

Van · Mar 31, 2006

AWC, since we are chosen to be God's people during our physical lifetime, 1 Peter 2:9-10 God knows who He has chosen. God also knows who He plans to choose in the future if His plan is specific to the future of individuals. But since scripture teaches He makes His choice during our lifetime, scripture indicates He did not choose individuals before creation. Therefore Ephesians 1:4 indicates God chose the specific individual Christ before creation to be our Redeemer, and when God chooses us during our lifetime and places us in Christ, then we share in God's election before creation, hence, we were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world.

The idea that Ephesians 1:4 is referring to foreseen individuals is a mistaken view, because then the individuals would be God's chosen people, but scripture says God's chosen people lived as unchosen. QED
The RT effort to avoid this truth, to say God chose foreseen individual who He would later choose, is double talk. We must swallow that a foreseen group chosen to be chosen is not the elect of Romans 8:33, and they are part of the non-chosen people of God in 1 Peter 2:9-10.
Folks, the RT view does not fit with scripture.

Augustine_Was_Calvinist · Mar 31, 2006

Van said:
AWC, since we are chosen to be God's people during our physical lifetime, 1 Peter 2:9-10 God knows who He has chosen. God also knows who He plans to choose in the future if His plan is specific to the future of individuals. But since scripture teaches He makes His choice during our lifetime, scripture indicates He did not choose individuals before creation.

Nice attempt to dodge Van.

That does not answer the question;

"Van, did God know specifically who would be saved before the creation of the world?"

Instead of answering the question, you made up an imaginary question and answered it.

The question is straightforward and simple Van, and is not concerned with how God chooses.

The question is does God know specifically all those who will be saved from before creation?

Again Van, the question is not about methodology as you tried to twist it, it's about God knowing those who will be saved before time began.

It requires a simple yes or no answer.

So Van, did God know specifically who would be saved before time creation and time?

Yes or no?

Now, you said;

"God also knows who He plans to choose in the future if His plan is specific to the future of individuals."

Just so we are understanding you correctly Van, you seem to be saying that God's knowledge of the future is contingent on it's application to certain individuals, but is not certain, is that correct?

Van · Mar 31, 2006

Generic Oranges

Today I made plans and prepared to go to the store to obtain oranges tomorrow. Today I chose the orange crate that I will place the oranges in. So when I chose the crate, in effect I chose the oranges that I would place in the crate because no plan of mine can be thwarted. But my election of the oranges is generic, my plan is to choose the oranges after I evaluate them - hold them and look into their heart, are they soft or hard, green or past it. But when I chose the orange crate to hold oranges, I chose generically the oranges I would choose individually when I visit the store.

Behold the meaning of Ephesians 1:4. Christ was chosen as the Redeemer before the foundation of the world, before creation, to be the Lamb of God. Since no plan of God can be thwarted, in effect all the redeemed were chosen generically when Christ was chosen as redeemer. God has blessed us, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and blameless before Him. Oh to be a perfect orange in the orange crate of God.

Why can't Ephesians 1:4 be referring to God selecting foreseen individuals. Because 1 Peter 2:9-10 says God selects us as individuals during our life. Futher Ephesians 2:8-9 says we are saved by grace through faith, so we must exist in order to put our faith in Christ. And third, Romans 5:2 says we gain access to the grace of salvation with our faith in Christ, so God's individual choice is made during our physical lives.

Yes but couldn't God choose us to be chosen? No, because when God chooses us, we become God's elect, and once we are God's elect, no charge can be brough against us. Since 1 Peter 2:9-10 says we live before we receive mercy, a charge could be brought against us and therefore we are not God's elect. It is a lock.

cygnusx1 · Mar 31, 2006

Van said:
Generic Oranges

Today I made plans and prepared to go to the store to obtain oranges tomorrow. Today I chose the orange crate .

I want my money back ........... more repeats than the BBC

cygnusx1 · Mar 31, 2006

IronFire said:
Actually 'Chosen But Free' has a pretty devastating rebuttle of 'The Potter's Freedom'

And Geisler isn't an Arminian...

1. how can it be a rebuttle if it was written before 'The Potters Freedom'

2. By Reformed Confessional standards Geisler is a rank Arminian!

Van · Mar 31, 2006

Generic Oranges

Today I made plans and prepared to go to the store to obtain oranges tomorrow. Today I chose the orange crate that I will place the oranges in. So when I chose the crate, in effect I chose the oranges that I would place in the crate because no plan of mine can be thwarted. But my election of the oranges is generic, my plan is to choose the oranges after I evaluate them - hold them and look into their heart, are they soft or hard, green or past it. But when I chose the orange crate to hold oranges, I chose generically the oranges I would choose individually when I visit the store.

Behold the meaning of Ephesians 1:4. Christ was chosen as the Redeemer before the foundation of the world, before creation, to be the Lamb of God. Since no plan of God can be thwarted, in effect all the redeemed were chosen generically when Christ was chosen as redeemer. God has blessed us, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and blameless before Him. Oh to be a perfect orange in the orange crate of God.

Why can't Ephesians 1:4 be referring to God selecting foreseen individuals. Because 1 Peter 2:9-10 says God selects us as individuals during our life. Futher Ephesians 2:8-9 says we are saved by grace through faith, so we must exist in order to put our faith in Christ. And third, Romans 5:2 says we gain access to the grace of salvation with our faith in Christ, so God's individual choice is made during our physical lives.

Yes but couldn't God choose us to be chosen? No, because when God chooses us, we become God's elect, and once we are God's elect, no charge can be brough against us. Since 1 Peter 2:9-10 says we live before we receive mercy, a charge could be brought against us and therefore we are not God's elect. It is a lock.

cygnusx1 · Mar 31, 2006

what is this , if I repeat my post over and over again and again and ignore interaction I can win by boring people to death , by mental cruelty ???

Drip Drip Drip ........... just like water torture ...

How about something relevant like explaining how all men are said to by some to be redeemed , and only the Elect are saved >

IronFire · Mar 31, 2006

cygnusx1 said:
1. how can it be a rebuttle if it was written before 'The Potters Freedom'

2. By Reformed Confessional standards Geisler is a rank Arminian!

1. Updated edition

2. Ok sure whatever - he's not an Arminian by his standard or by many others standards

nobdysfool · Mar 31, 2006

Van said:
Generic Oranges

Today I made plans and prepared to go to the store to obtain oranges tomorrow. Today I chose the orange crate that I will place the oranges in. So when I chose the crate, in effect I chose the oranges that I would place in the crate because no plan of mine can be thwarted. But my election of the oranges is generic, my plan is to choose the oranges after I evaluate them - hold them and look into their heart, are they soft or hard, green or past it. But when I chose the orange crate to hold oranges, I chose generically the oranges I would choose individually when I visit the store.

Behold the meaning of Ephesians 1:4. Christ was chosen as the Redeemer before the foundation of the world, before creation, to be the Lamb of God. Since no plan of God can be thwarted, in effect all the redeemed were chosen generically when Christ was chosen as redeemer. God has blessed us, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and blameless before Him. Oh to be a perfect orange in the orange crate of God.

Why can't Ephesians 1:4 be referring to God selecting foreseen individuals. Because 1 Peter 2:9-10 says God selects us as individuals during our life. Futher Ephesians 2:8-9 says we are saved by grace through faith, so we must exist in order to put our faith in Christ. And third, Romans 5:2 says we gain access to the grace of salvation with our faith in Christ, so God's individual choice is made during our physical lives.

Yes but couldn't God choose us to be chosen? No, because when God chooses us, we become God's elect, and once we are God's elect, no charge can be brough against us. Since 1 Peter 2:9-10 says we live before we receive mercy, a charge could be brought against us and therefore we are not God's elect. It is a lock.

Weighed in the balances, and found wanting. Folks, Van is incorrect in claiming that this is what scripture teaches. He has injected foreign meaning into verses, added his own interpretation of those verses, and has avoided and dodged answering clear and specific question from brethren who can see also that this doctrine is built on, and undergirded by an ancient heresy, that of Molinism in its modern form, Open Theism. The falsehoods he has tried to promote have been exposed, and shown to be wrong, unscriptural, and that the prime motivation is not truth, but to rile up and "defeat" the Calvinists.

Funny how the truths of Calvinism always seem to bring out the worst behavior in its opponents.

Of course, the charge of Molinism/Open Theism is never really addressed, because most people who hold to wrong views of scripture don't want to be pinned down and have to admit what they really believe.

Hence the equivocation, bluff and bluster, and general pomposity of one who doesn't want his thoughts and doctrines questioned, he wants the acceptance and approbation which comes with being perceived by even a few as the one who supposedly "wins" the debate, no matter how dishonestly he does so.

Van · Apr 1, 2006

Folks did you see any biblical exposition, or just the usual name calling and dismissive assertions. Such is the defense of RT. They say I am wrong, and dishonest but provide no scriptural evidence, because all scripture supports my position.

I present scripture with references and explain what I think it means, and am charged with injecting my opinion into scripture, when I accept scripture and do not redefine words. 1 Peter 2:9-10 says we are chosen by God during our lifetime. It is very clear, read it yourselves. Therefore being chosen in Him (Ephesians 1:4) means something other than individual election.

Next, my view is labeled as based on an ancient heresy, which of course is false. The name calling continues with absurd claims that my views have been exposed as falsehoods, when I have refuted every scriptural interpretation asserted to demonstrate my views are wrong. This is the old post gibberish, then refer back to it as if it was not nonsense routine. But red flags should drop, I am the one refering to specific scriptures and showing how they demonstrate that the RT view is mistaken.

I have shown that individual election is conditional, James 2:5, and that individual election occurs during our lifetime, 1 Peter 2:9-10, and that individual election could not occur before creation, Romans 8:33, 1 Peter 2:9-10. Nothing has been offered to refute this compelling case, only charges of cherry-picking, as if these verses can be dismissed by asserting they do not reflect the inspired word. Its a lock. Ian90 while not agreeing with me in many areas arrived at the same truth concerning the meaning of Ephesians 1:4, when we are placed in Christ we share in God's election of Christ before creation, hence we were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world. If we had been chosen individually before creation, then Rev 17:8 would not indicate names were not entered (and by inference entered) from or since the foundation of the world. It would say before, just as Ephesians 1:4, and 1 Peter 1:20 indicate for when God established Christ as the Lamb to redeem the world.

nobdysfool · Apr 1, 2006

Van said:
Folks did you see any biblical exposition, or just the usual name calling and dismissive assertions. Such is the defense of RT. They say I am wrong, and dishonest but provide no scriptural evidence, because all scripture supports my position.

We have provided plenty of scriptural support, and engaged the Anti-RF regarding the scriptures claimed as "proof" of their position. Apparently if they posted the scripture first, our referral to it is not considered as offering scriptural support for our view. We have asked questions to draw out and highlight the logical conclusions and contradictions of the Anti-RF posters, which they fail to answer, ignore, or simply repeat what they've said before.

Van said:
I present scripture with references and explain what I think it means, and am charged with injecting my opinion into scripture, when I accept scripture and do not redefine words.

Folks, that statement is simply not true. Statements are presented which are not labeled as "in my view", or "this is what I think it means". He makes sweeping statements, and declares and demands that his view is the ONLY true view, that no other view can possibly be correct, and ridicules anyone who dares to oppose him.

Van said:
1 Peter 2:9-10 says we are chosen by God during our lifetime. It is very clear, read it yourselves. Therefore being chosen in Him (Ephesians 1:4) means something other than individual election.

He forgot to state "in my opinion". Did you all notice that? He claims he does one thing, and then turns right around and does the opposite.

Van said:
Next, my view is labeled as based on an

Van said:
ancient heresy, which of course is false.

Ah, but Van, if you are allowed to claim YOUR views as facts, you must allow others with opposing views to do the same. Your inconsistency once again shows through. Shall we provide the evidence of the congruity of your view with Molinism/Open Theism? Do you really want to open that can of worms?

Van said:
The name calling continues with absurd claims that my views have been exposed as falsehoods, when I have refuted every scriptural interpretation asserted to demonstrate my views are wrong.

"In your opinion", you have refuted things, but refutation is not establsihed by what you think, but by what others think. You can claim you have refuted til the cows come home and the chickens roost, but your declaration does not make it so. And to point out that your view is NOT correct does not constitute name-calling.

Van said:
This is the old post gibberish, then refer back to it as if it was not nonsense routine. But red flags should drop, I am the one refering to specific scriptures and showing how they demonstrate that the RT view is mistaken.

We are referring to scripture as well, but I guess Van believes in some sort of "rule of first mention", that translates into if Van has cited a scripture first, then the RT advocates citing of it does not count as a citing of scripture. In other words, apparently the Anti-RT's think that they "own" certain scriptures. Van doesn't like it when we catch him in inconsistencies. Our posts remain consistent throughout. His don't and that can be proven.

Van said:
I have shown that individual election is conditional, James 2:5, and that individual election occurs during our lifetime, 1 Peter 2:9-10, and that individual election could not occur before creation, Romans 8:33, 1 Peter 2:9-10.

In your opinion, Van. Remember???

Van said:
Nothing has been offered to refute this compelling case, only charges of cherry-picking, as if these verses can be dismissed by asserting they do not reflect the inspired word.

We have offered plenty of evidence, as well as well-reasoned arguments that your view is not correct. Your response is to dismiss it as "nothing has been presented", which is a flat out falsehood.

Van said:
Its a lock.

This often-used phrase of Van's is superfluous, arrogant, and an attempt to shut off debate when he wants to avoid further cross-examination of his opinions-stated-as-facts.

Van said:
Ian90 while not agreeing with me in many areas arrived at the same truth concerning the meaning of Ephesians 1:4, when we are placed in Christ we share in God's election of Christ before creation, hence we were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world. If we had been chosen individually before creation, then Rev 17:8 would not indicate names were not entered (and by inference entered) from or since the foundation of the world. It would say before, just as Ephesians 1:4, and 1 Peter 1:20 indicate for when God established Christ as the Lamb to redeem the world.

All is "In you opinion", Van. IN YOUR OPINION. ONLY

Get to know that phrase, and use it.

Learn it, know it, and live it, Van.

Augustine_Was_Calvinist · Apr 1, 2006

nobdysfool said:
Of course, the charge of Molinism/Open Theism is never really addressed, because most people who hold to wrong views of scripture don't want to be pinned down and have to admit what they really believe.

Hence the equivocation, bluff and bluster, and general pomposity of one who doesn't want his thoughts and doctrines questioned, he wants the acceptance and approbation which comes with being perceived by even a few as the one who supposedly "wins" the debate, no matter how dishonestly he does so.

Geee, that sounds like several of the other "One True Church" categories we know of, huh?

nobdysfool · Apr 1, 2006

Augustine_Was_Calvinist said:
Geee, that sounds like several of the other "One True Church" categories we know of, huh?

Oh there's a lot of them out there....every two-bit self-important preacher wanting to make a buck goes down that road at one time or another....

ian90 · Apr 1, 2006

N'sF said:
Of course, the charge of Molinism/Open Theism is never really addressed, because most people who hold to wrong views of scripture don't want to be pinned down and have to admit what they really believe.

When someone asks me if I am Calvinist or Arminian I feel like I am being asked "are you French or Dutch?"

I believe determinism is false (makes God's kingdom based on force, so Calvinism is false), the future is not simply predetermined by God (satan and mankind's choices influence the future - Molinism) but God knows what eventually will happen (unlike OVT).

So reformed Arminian Molinist? I'm still working these things through, I've not yet reached a full understanding so don't expect me to be comfortable with a label yet.

N's F to Van said:
Weighed in the balances, and found wanting. Folks, Van is incorrect in claiming that this is what scripture teaches. He has injected foreign meaning into verses, added his own interpretation of those verses, and has avoided and dodged answering clear and specific question from brethren who can see also that this doctrine is built on, and undergirded by an ancient heresy, that of Molinism in its modern form, Open Theism.

I have to step in here - this is not accurate, if a scale was drawn from right to left it would go:

Calvinism - Molinism - Arminianism - OVT

Molinism is based on the fact that God has exhaustive forknowledge of actual events and counterfactuals. It logically teaches soft-determinsm - the future is certain from God's point of view, but the cause for the unfolding of history is not God's secret will, but a combination of God's will and human choices. It is an attempt to reconcile the idea that God's knew how the world would turn out before creation, yet avoid determinism.

William Lane Craig is the man in the know on this topic - see the articles in his virtual office. http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/omniscience.html

Calvinism says "God only foreknows what he has decreed" so this means that events which don't happen, God can't know about ie. God cannot know any counterfactuals. Obviously this view of foreknowledge is wrong:

And Saul summoned all the people to war, to go down to Keilah, to besiege David and his men. David knew that Saul was plotting harm against him. And he said to Abiathar the priest, "Bring the ephod here." Then said David, "O LORD, the God of Israel, your servant has surely heard that Saul seeks to come to Keilah, to destroy the city on my account. Will the men of Keilah surrender me into his hand? Will Saul come down, as your servant has heard? O LORD, the God of Israel, please tell your servant." And the LORD said, "He will come down." Then David said, "Will the men of Keilah surrender me and my men into the hand of Saul?" And the LORD said, "They will surrender you." Then David and his men, who were about six hundred, arose and departed from Keilah, and they went wherever they could go. When Saul was told that David had escaped from Keilah, he gave up the expedition. And David remained in the strongholds in the wilderness, in the hill country of the Wilderness of Ziph. And Saul sought him every day, but God did not give him into his hand.
1Samuel 23:8-14

There are other examples of God knowing what he didn't determine (the events didn't happen), so Calvinists have a problem with their "stock" view of foreknowledge. I think the equivicism between foreknowledge and forechoosing is a reaction against election being by foreknowledge, but that is for another time.

Open Theism is based on the fact that the future is "open" - God only knows what is knowable, (ie he can't know what doesn't exist like a square circle) and since the future does not exist yet God doesn't know it. Some would say God is capable of knowing the future, but chooses not to in an effort to preserve an open future (God can't know what he hasn't determined again).

The strongest scriptural statement to the end of showing the availability of multiple possibilities (free will, open future, multiple possibilites etc.) is 1 Corinthians 10:13:

No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.

A determist is faced with the irreconcilable premise that if a Christian sins, then there was no possibility of them not sinning because the event was preordained by God in eternity past.

But if Christians do sin, then this verse means that it was also truly possible for the Christian to not sin. If it was not possible for the Christian to avoid sin, then it is not true that there was a way out thus God was not faithful. The outcome could simply not have been predetermined.

I don't know exactly what the bottom line is when it comes to foreknowledge, God's control of events and the freedom of his creation, but I am sure Calvinism is not it!

cygnusx1 · Apr 1, 2006

ian90 said:
When someone asks me if I am Calvinist or Arminian I feel like I am being asked "are you French or Dutch?"

I believe determinism is false (makes God's kingdom based on force, so Calvinism is false), the future is not simply predetermined by God (satan and mankind's choices influence the future - Molinism) but God knows what eventually will happen (unlike OVT).

So reformed Arminian Molinist? I'm still working these things through, I've not yet reached a full understanding so don't expect me to be comfortable with a label yet.

I have to step in here - this is not accurate, if a scale was drawn from right to left it would go:

Calvinism - Molinism - Arminianism - OVT

Molinism is based on the fact that God has exhaustive forknowledge of actual events and counterfactuals. It logically teaches soft-determinsm - the future is certain from God's point of view, but the cause for the unfolding of history is not God's secret will, but a combination of God's will and human choices. It is an attempt to reconcile the idea that God's knew how the world would turn out before creation, yet avoid determinism.

William Lane Craig is the man in the know on this topic - see the articles in his virtual office. http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/omniscience.html

Calvinism says "God only foreknows what he has decreed" so this means that events which don't happen, God can't know about ie. God cannot know any counterfactuals. Obviously this view of foreknowledge is wrong:

And Saul summoned all the people to war, to go down to Keilah, to besiege David and his men. David knew that Saul was plotting harm against him. And he said to Abiathar the priest, "Bring the ephod here." Then said David, "O LORD, the God of Israel, your servant has surely heard that Saul seeks to come to Keilah, to destroy the city on my account. Will the men of Keilah surrender me into his hand? Will Saul come down, as your servant has heard? O LORD, the God of Israel, please tell your servant." And the LORD said, "He will come down." Then David said, "Will the men of Keilah surrender me and my men into the hand of Saul?" And the LORD said, "They will surrender you." Then David and his men, who were about six hundred, arose and departed from Keilah, and they went wherever they could go. When Saul was told that David had escaped from Keilah, he gave up the expedition. And David remained in the strongholds in the wilderness, in the hill country of the Wilderness of Ziph. And Saul sought him every day, but God did not give him into his hand.
1Samuel 23:8-14

There are other examples of God knowing what he didn't determine (the events didn't happen), so Calvinists have a problem with their "stock" view of foreknowledge. I think the equivicism between foreknowledge and forechoosing is a reaction against election being by foreknowledge, but that is for another time.

Open Theism is based on the fact that the future is "open" - God only knows what is knowable, (ie he can't know what doesn't exist like a square circle) and since the future does not exist yet God doesn't know it. Some would say God is capable of knowing the future, but chooses not to in an effort to preserve an open future (God can't know what he hasn't determined again).

The strongest scriptural statement to the end of showing the availability of multiple possibilities (free will, open future, multiple possibilites etc.) is 1 Corinthians 10:13:

No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it.

A determist is faced with the irreconcilable premise that if a Christian sins, then there was no possibility of them not sinning because the event was preordained by God in eternity past.

But if Christians do sin, then this verse means that it was also truly possible for the Christian to not sin. If it was not possible for the Christian to avoid sin, then it is not true that there was a “way out” thus God was not faithful. The outcome could simply not have been predetermined.

I don't know exactly what the bottom line is when it comes to foreknowledge, God's control of events and the freedom of his creation, but I am sure Calvinism is not it!

Calvinists hold to Free Agency , do I need to start quoting the Westminster Confession ?

CHAPTER X.

Of Effectual Calling.

I. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ: enlightening their minds, spiritually and savingly, to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good; and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.

so why do you say Calvinism is false because God's Kingdom is based on force ?????

I am a Calvinist , did I come to the Lord against my will ?

don't be absurd!

Van · Apr 1, 2006

Thanks Ian90, I was wondering if anyone else knew that equating Mo with O was bogus, demonstrating the lack of credibility in the arguments used against me.

Calvinism says "God only foreknows what he has decreed" so this means that events which don't happen, God can't know about ie. God cannot know any counterfactuals. Obviously this view of foreknowledge is wrong:

Yes it does not reflect what the bible teaches, but some on this board assert God degrees every detail of every thing, or exhaustive determinism. Never mind Lamentations 32:35, they say it means something other than what it says. Ditto for all the verses that prove RT is a mistaken view.

Ian90, I see you use the term foreknowledge as if it meant knowledge of the future. If you look at everyplace the word appears (foreknowledge and foreknew or foreknown) you will see all the bible speaks about is God using knowledge (implimenting plans) formulated or acquired in the past in the present. The term only and always refers to something known before the present. Thats it.

Open Theism is based on the fact that the future is "open" - God only knows what is knowable, (ie he can't know what doesn't exist like a square circle) and since the future does not exist yet God doesn't know it. Some would say God is capable of knowing the future, but chooses not to in an effort to preserve an open future (God can't know what he hasn't determined again).

This too is wrong and unbiblical. God knows the future which He has predestined. What He says will happen will happen because He will make it happen. If God chose to do this, exercise determistic control of everything, then the future would be closed, and God would exhaustively know the future. But we have Lamentations 32:35 telling us God does not exercise exhaustive control sometimes, and Acts 2:23 saying He does sometimes. So the Biblical answer is not Exhaustive Determinism, and is not Open Theism, but a hybrid. This is what the Bible actually teaches.

Augustine_Was_Calvinist · Apr 2, 2006

ian90 said:
I believe determinism is false (makes God's kingdom based on force, so Calvinism is false), the future is not simply predetermined by God (satan and mankind's choices influence the future - Molinism) but God knows what eventually will happen (unlike OVT).

Maybe you should try Scripture rather than human philosophy.

God sovereignly creates and controls all things and events for His own purpose and pleasure
A. All things
1. Colossians 1:16-17 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.
2. Revelation 4:11 "You are worthy, O Lord, To receive glory and honor and power; For You created all things, And by Your will they exist and were created."
B. Afflictions

1. Hosea 6:1 Come, and let us return to the LORD; For He has torn, but He will heal us; He has stricken, but He will bind us up.
2. Exodus 4:11 So the LORD said to him, "Who has made man's mouth? Or who makes the mute, the deaf, the seeing, or the blind? Have not I, the LORD?
3. Psalms 90:2-3 Before the mountains were brought forth, Or ever You had formed the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God. 3 You turn man to destruction, And say, "Return, O children of men."
4. Job 5:17-18 "Behold, happy is the man whom God corrects; Therefore do not despise the chastening of the Almighty. 18 For He bruises, but He binds up; He wounds, but His hands make whole.
C. Death

1. Deuteronomy 32:39 'Now see that I, even I, am He, And there is no God besides Me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; Nor is there any who can deliver from My hand.
2. 1 Samuel 2:6-10 "The LORD kills and makes alive; He brings down to the grave and brings up. 7 The LORD makes poor and makes rich; He brings low and lifts up. 8 He raises the poor from the dust And lifts the beggar from the ash heap, To set them among princes And make them inherit the throne of glory. "For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, And He has set the world upon them. 9 He will guard the feet of His saints, But the wicked shall be silent in darkness. "For by strength no man shall prevail. 10 The adversaries of the LORD shall be broken in pieces; From heaven He will thunder against them. The LORD will judge the ends of the earth. "He will give strength to His king, And exalt the horn of His anointed."
3. Acts 17:24-26 "God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25 "Nor is He worshiped with men's hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. 26 "And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,
4. Job 14:5 Since his days are determined, The number of his months is with You; You have appointed his limits, so that he cannot pass.
D. Evil and destruction

1. Isaiah 45:5-9 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: 6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. 7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. 8 Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; I the LORD have created it. 9 Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands?

2. Amos 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?

3. Jeremiah 18:11 Now therefore go to, speak to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith the LORD; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you: return ye now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.
4. Micah 2:1-3 Woe to them that devise iniquity, and work evil upon their beds! when the morning is light, they practice it, because it is in the power of their hand. 2 And they covet fields, and take them by violence; and houses, and take them away: so they oppress a man and his house, even a man and his heritage. 3 Therefore thus saith the LORD; Behold, against this family do I devise an evil, from which ye shall not remove your necks; neither shall ye go haughtily: for this time is evil.
5. Ecclesiastes 7:13-14 Consider the work of God: for who can make that straight, which he hath made crooked? 14 In the day of prosperity be joyful, but in the day of adversity consider: God also hath set the one over against the other, to the end that man should find nothing after him.
6. Psalms 78:49 He cast upon them the fierceness of his anger, wrath, and indignation, and trouble, by sending evil angels among them.
7. Amos 8:11-12 "Behold, the days are coming," says the Lord GOD, "That I will send a famine on the land, Not a famine of bread, Nor a thirst for water, But of hearing the words of the LORD. 12 They shall wander from sea to sea, And from north to east; They shall run to and fro, seeking the word of the LORD, But shall not find it.
8. Zephaniah 1:12 "And it shall come to pass at that time That I will search Jerusalem with lamps, And punish the men Who are settled in complacency, Who say in their heart, 'The LORD will not do good, Nor will He do evil.'

9. Lamentations 3:37-38 Who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass, when the Lord commandeth it not? 38 Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?

7. Job 1:12-22; 2:7-10
a. Job 34:10-12
8. Proverbs 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.
V. God sovereignly ordains the actions and ultimate destiny of all people
A. Nations
1. Habakkuk 1:5-6,12 "Look among the nations and watch; Be utterly astounded! For I will work a work in your days Which you would not believe, though it were told you. 6 For indeed I am raising up the Chaldeans, A bitter and hasty nation Which marches through the breadth of the earth, To possess dwelling places that are not theirs. 12 Are You not from everlasting, O LORD my God, my Holy One? We shall not die. O LORD, You have appointed them for judgment; O Rock, You have marked them for correction.
2. Joshua 11:19-20 There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel, except the Hivites, the inhabitants of Gibeon. All the others they took in battle. 20 For it was of the LORD to harden their hearts, that they should come against Israel in battle, that He might utterly destroy them, and that they might receive no mercy, but that He might destroy them, as the LORD had commanded Moses.
3. God's distaste for nations taking credit for victory
a. Isaiah 37:21-29
B. Men and their actions

1. Proverbs 16:1 The preparations of the heart belong to man, But the answer of the tongue is from the LORD.
2. Proverbs 16:4 The LORD has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom.
3. Proverbs 16:9 A man's heart plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps.
4. Proverbs 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap, But its every decision is from the LORD.
5. Proverbs 19:21 There are many plans in a man's heart, Nevertheless the Lord's counsel; that will stand.
6. Proverbs 20:24 A man's steps are of the LORD; How then can a man understand his own way?
7. Job 12:6 The tents of robbers prosper, And those who provoke God are secure; In what God provides by His hand.
8. Isaiah 22:11 You also made a reservoir between the two walls For the water of the old pool. But you did not look to its Maker, Nor did you have respect for Him who fashioned it long ago.
9. Psalms 139:16-17 Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them. 17 How precious also are Your thoughts to me, O God! How great is the sum of them!

http://www.eschatology.com/sovereignty.html

Calvinism says "God only foreknows what he has decreed" so this means that events which don't happen, God can't know about ie. God cannot know any counterfactuals. Obviously this view of foreknowledge is wrong:

I don't know where you got that absurd idea from. Calvinism says no such thing.

There are other examples of God knowing what he didn't determine (the events didn't happen),

And what examples are those? Be specific please.

Calvinists ave a problem with their "stock" view of foreknowledge.

False statment because your misrepresentation of the Calvinist view is a false caricature.

the equivicism between foreknowledge and forechoosing is a reaction against election being by foreknowledge, but that is for another time.

Calvinists believe what the Scipture teaches, which is that God Elects based on His "foreknowledge", which is not just knowing the future, but what "foreknowledge" actually is, which is an Eternal Love for the Elect before creation, which is expression of the Eternal Love between the Father and the Son.

cygnusx1 · Apr 2, 2006

Bound Only Once: The Failure of Open Theism

by Byron Snapp
PCA News Bound Only Once: The Failure of Open Theism, ed. by Douglas Wilson. Canon Press, 2001. Using the themes of "beauty," "truth" and "goodness," the editor has collected twelve original and useful critiques to the dangerous teachings of Open Theism.
This false doctrine teaches that God does not know the future. The contributors rightly point out that this is not a discussion between Armenians and Calvinists. Open Theists believe that God focuses on man's choices and then responds to those choices. Such a view denies biblical teaching of God, the atonement, history, biblical prophecy and the Bible itself.
Space prohibits an explanation of the thrust of each article. Several examples should suffice to convey the importance of this volume as a whole.
John Frame, in "Open Theism and Divine Foreknowledge," shows that the biblical testimony of divine foreknowledge is quite different from Open Theism's explanation. Open theists misinterpret and misuse some of the anthropomorphic language that God uses to convey his character to man. Frame refutes their interpretation of such passages as Deuteronomy 13:3 and Jeremiah 32:35. He then provides the reader with scriptural testimony showing that God has exhaustive knowledge of the future. Indeed he planned all things before the world was created.
John MacArthur's article, "Open Theism's Attack on the Atonement," opens up the false belief that Christ's death manifested the terrible consequences of sin rather than atoning for sin. The authors point out that Open Theism harkens back to the heretical teachings of Socinianism. Socianians taught that God's good attributes overwhelmed his seemingly harsh attributes. Thus, God's willingness to forgive sin makes payment for sin unnecessary. MacArthur shows the fallacy of such thinking by the clear testimony of Christ's substitutionary atonement on behalf of sinners.
Douglas Wilson's article, "Foundations of Exhaustive Knowledge," discusses the fact that God not only knows the future, but that he has exhaustive knowledge about all things. He notes that adherents of Open Theism have philosophical objections to God's knowledge, but they cannot have sound exegetical objections because the clear teaching of Scripture does not allow such objections.
Open Theism throughout this volume is critiqued from a philosophical and historical perspective, as well as from a biblical perspective. Thomas Ascol contributes a very insightful article entitled "Pastoral Implications of Open Theism." He shows the great danger of this teaching and how it impacts one's understanding of God's character, doctrine of prayer, and faith in Christ.
This volume is very balanced in its approach. There are many quotations from the writings of Open Theism's proponents that are helpful to those who are unfamiliar with this teaching and who might think that the authors were erecting straw men for the sake of argument.
The contributors treat the proponents of Open Theism respectfully but without compromise. Each consistently shows that Scripture gives no allowance for the validity of this teaching.
We need to be aware of false teachings that circulate within Christian circles. This volume will equip believers to answer this errant teaching. Whether or not we know anyone caught up in this doctrine, the chapters on Christ's atonement and God's foreknowledge are excellent reminders to Christians of the trinity's majesty and God's grace to sinners.

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:yz8l6JAkqvMJ:home.christianity.com/ministries/pcanews/76607.html.

cygnusx1 · Apr 2, 2006

Van said:
This too is wrong and unbiblical. God knows the future which He has predestined. What He says will happen will happen because He will make it happen. If God chose to do this, exercise determistic control of everything, then the future would be closed, and God would exhaustively know the future. But we have Lamentations 32:35 telling us God does not exercise exhaustive control sometimes, and Acts 2:23 saying He does sometimes. So the Biblical answer is not Exhaustive Determinism, and is not Open Theism, but a hybrid. This is what the Bible actually teaches.

3. When God says that something never entered my mind (Jer. 7:31, 19:5, 32:35) he is not confessing ignorance, but describing his standards for human behavior (still another judicial point). Note the context of Jer. 7:31:
They have built the high places of Topheth in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to burn their sons and daughters in the fire-- something I did not command, nor did it enter my mind.
The contexts of 19:5 and 32:35 are similar. Mind here is heart in Hebrew, often in Scripture the locus of intentions (compare 2 Chron. 7:11, Neh. 7:5). God is saying here that the horrible human sacrifice of Topheth is utterly contrary to his holy standards. God was not at all ignorant of these practices or of the danger that Israel would be tempted to sin in this way. He explicitly forbade human sacrifice in Lev. 18:21 and Deut. 18:10. So in the intellectual sense, these practices did enter his mind.

http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/2001OpenTheism.htm

Generic Oranges

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Jacob the twister.....

Jacob the twister.....

Contributor

Jacob the twister.....

Active Member

The original! Accept no substitutes!

Contributor

The original! Accept no substitutes!

Well-Known Member

The original! Accept no substitutes!

\m/_(..)_\m/

Jacob the twister.....

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Jacob the twister.....

Jacob the twister.....

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency