Predestination

[NicodemusPrime]

Fight the mould, become concious jelly!

Well, I would wouldn't go that far. I fit quite nicely into the Baptist faith. There is no reason to rebel against the denominations, but just make sure what people are teaching you syncs up with the gospel.

 

[BT]

Read Pinnock, Sanders, Boyd and some others before making a declaration of heresy, please.

I've read them... it's heresy.

If you call open theism a heresy for this reason, you also have to call Calvinism a heresy.

Suit yourself.

Here's the problem, according to the open theists: Our ideas about the attributes of God - omnipotence, omniscience, impassability, etc., come largely from Greek philosophy, which describes a "perfect," and therefore impersonal god. The Bible makes some statements about God that resemble these philosophies of classical theism. However, the Bible, above everything else, reveals a God who is personal.

Oh? Is that a fact? The attributes of God are hardly brought from Greek philosophy as far as our understandings (or even traditions) go. The attributes of God are found clearly in Scripture. And BTW God is perfect, just FYI for you and any of the open theists out there. The Bible "above everything else" reveals a God who is personal? Umm.. no it does not. God is a personal God but that is not even close to the "above everything else" revelation of Him that we are given in the Bible. I advise you to refrain from blanket statements about the Creator, Judge, Father, Lord, etc. of all things.

The Calvinists try to acknowledge that God is personal, while holding on to all the impersonal attributes of classical theism. It just doesn't work. A week or two ago, a Calvinist asked, in one of the theology forums, trying to support his position, "Why would God set himself up for disappointment by loving everybody when not everyone would be saved?" (IMHO, this question makes a better argument for universalism than for Calvinism! ) As I see it, risk is an indispensable part of love. All our literature, including biblical literature, supports this idea. The God of the Bible takes risks for the sake of love. The god of classical theism is unable to love.

Now Liz. I don't know if these are your words or the parroting of open theists. Meaning, I don't know if you believe this or are just explaining what they say. However God takes no risks, because God has nothing to lose. Risk involves chance, chance involves loss, and God can't lose. And no, all our literature, including the Bible does not support this claim. Luckily for us God is above your mind. God is,can, and does love perfectly. Again because He's perfect.

Open theism is an attempt to resolve this problem by modifying and moderating some of the definitions of the attributes classical theists ascribe to God - particularly omniscience, and doing away with the attribute of impassability entirely. They do not go as far as the process theologians, who also modify and moderate (to an even greater degree) the attributes of both omnipotence and omniscience.

Open theism is a heresy that attempts to reinvent God not redefine (though you could argue that the two are the same)

I, personally, don't hold the open theism view, but rather an incarnational, revelatory and biblical theology. In some ways it is similar, but it doesn't begin with the assumptions of theism at all, but rather with the personal nature of God as revealed to us through scripture and through Jesus Christ. However, for those who hold the incarnational view, open theism provides a helpful reflection and critique of classical theism. Open theists really are correct when they point to the fact that scriptures saying God repented outnumber those that say God never changes God's mind.

You are free to have your own beliefs. Though the Open theists really are not correct.

The classical answer to this assertion is that the scriptures that say God repented are anthropomorphisms. I contend they are not. Anthropomorphisms describe God as having hands, feet, eyes, and other body parts. If all the scriptures that describe God as having personality are also anthropomorphisms, the classical theists are right. God is impersonal. But reading the scriptures, we see, if nothing else, that God is personal. therefore, we cannot say that all scriptures referring to God as if God had a personality are anthropomorphisms. We need to deal with scriptures that seem to say inconsistent things about God more carefully than simply to dismiss those that refer to God repenting or otherwise acting in personal ways as anthropomorphisms.

More detail than you wanted?

I don't know who you've been talking to that would say that God repenting is an anthropomorphism. I would say that person probably doesn't know what the word means. And I absolutely agree that we must deal with the scriptures that seem to say inconsistent things about God more carefully than simply dismiss them or call them what they are not. Every word in the Bible is true, every teaching is true. Even if our simple brains can't comprehend. No that is not more detail than I would have liked.. I would have preferred you back up some of your more outlandish assumptions with Scripture.. but it's not my thread.


For the rest of you... Once again we see the reason to not believe everything you read on Christian Forums. I don't mean that about Liz, I'm talking about open theism. There is a heresy seen here that can be presented in even an arguably good light. Remember that Satan himself appears as an angel of light. Test all things! And don't turn this message board into your church, or your primary source of theological instruction. Talk to your pastors!!!

And now.. I must change a dirty diaper

 

[Crazy Liz]

Job, had the free will to curse God (if he didn't then what is the point of 3/4 of Job?)
[...]
Also my second post on this thread was something I had written a day before I posted it. I asked for some constructive criticism as it was still in its infant stages.

I didn't contribute any constructive critique of what you wrote, but I would suggest, if you think Job's 3 friends were trying to persuade Job to curse God, you develop that argument and be explicit about how you reached that conclusion. I have not studied Job in the same depth you apparently have, but it has always been my understanding that Job's wife was the only one to suggest this. If the idea of cursing God is a motif that runs throughout most of the book, you should explain how you found this to be so.

 

[Crazy Liz]

I really didn't mean that to be literal. It think you might need to turn up the sensitivity on your sarcasm detector.

:o Probably. Funny, I just posted something about Paul's use of sarcasm in one of his letters, yet I didn't pick it up in your post.

Which is why I'm not a Calvinist nor did I ever claim to be.

Sarcasm again?

I'm not a Calvinist, either. I disagree with them strongly, but I don't call them heretics.

 

[JM]

Thayer Definition:

1) to predetermine, decide beforehand

2) in the NT of God decreeing from eternity

3) to foreordain, appoint beforehand

Foreordaind from eternity, according to the Will of God according to His good pleasure, to be "ordained" children of adoption though Christ. To be "ordained" Holy and with out blame before Him "God".

Now, who does the foreordaining, God or man? If you say it's man's choice then man saves himself and Grace is no longer Grace.

Ever read about the Jews, they were chosen.

 

[Crazy Liz]

'well im an armenian and God can't save you unless you want Him to'

Another tip for a budding young writer:

That is not what Armenians believe. Some Armenians are Calvinists, but most belong to the oldest national church in the world - the Armenian Apostolic Church, which is classified as Oriental Orthodox.

Please don't confuse Armenian with Arminian.

Arminian refers to the theological views (particularly of soteriology) of Jacob Arminius, a Reformed theologian in the generation after Calvin.

Armenian is an ethnic group. Most Armenians have last names that end in -ian or -yan, such as American novelist William Saroyan and cymbal-making family Zildjian.

 

[Crazy Liz]

The Bible "above everything else" reveals a God who is personal? Umm.. no it does not. God is a personal God but that is not even close to the "above everything else" revelation of Him that we are given in the Bible. I advise you to refrain from blanket statements about the Creator, Judge, Father, Lord, etc. of all things.[/size]

The fact that the Bible reveals God as all these things (and many others) is the very reason for my statement.

These are all personal titles or attributes. They each necessarily imply personality. A Creator is a person who creates something. An impersonal machine may manufacture or synthesize something, but it cannot be said to create. An abstract idea may be said to give rise to certain conclusions, but it does not create them. Creativity is a personal attribute.

A judge is a person who performs the functions of judgment. Again, machines and abstract standards may be used to measure or discriminate, but judging is a function only a person can perform.

Father is a person in a particular kind of relationship with another person. The same thing can be said of Lord, although the relationship is a different one.

Right now, I can think of only one or two names or titles for God that are abstract or impersonal. For example, once or twice God is described as a fire. But I think you would agree with me that at least the vast majority of names and descriptions of God have in common the characteristic of personality.

Yet the impassable god of classical theism is abstract and impersonal. It is the inability of classical theism to deal well with the personal aspect of God revealed in scripture that is its greatest flaw. This flaw gave rise to theologians hypothesizing open theism as a remedy.

As for searching the scriptures, I agree. I actually was quite surprised when reading Pinnock and others that their arguments did come from scripture. Having searched the scriptures, they found that the scriptures did not support classical theism, and therefore proposed an alternate hypothesis.

 

[BT]

The fact that the Bible reveals God as all these things (and many others) is the very reason for my statement.

These are all personal titles or attributes. They each necessarily imply personality. A Creator is a person who creates something. An impersonal machine may manufacture or synthesize something, but it cannot be said to create. An abstract idea may be said to give rise to certain conclusions, but it does not create them. Creativity is a personal attribute.

A judge is a person who performs the functions of judgment. Again, machines and abstract standards may be used to measure or discriminate, but judging is a function only a person can perform.

Father is a person in a particular kind of relationship with another person. The same thing can be said of Lord, although the relationship is a different one.

I agree with a personal God and with names and attributes in His own revelation of Himself which show personality. I would just like to correct one thing from your other post. You noted that most "classical theists" would ascribe the love or repenting of God to anthropomorphisms, but that is not correct (nor would it be correct for anyone to do so). Since as you noted an anthropomorphism is a figure of speech which ascribes physical characteristics to God. We know that these are figures of speech because "God is Spirit", we also use this interpretive figure for verses that relate to God's "wings" etc. But in fact it is not the anthropomorphism that is used, it is actually a figure of speech called an "anthropopathy", which ascribes human feelings and passions to God. They would say that the anthropopathy is used to relate "feelings" because God does not necessarily have such feelings, but He has spoken of them to enable us to comprehend Him. So when we read of the Lord forgetting or thinking or laughing or begetting or seeing or smelling.. we are dealing with anthropopathy (not anthropomorphism).

Right now, I can think of only one or two names or titles for God that are abstract or impersonal. For example, once or twice God is described as a fire. But I think you would agree with me that at least the vast majority of names and descriptions of God have in common the characteristic of personality.

Yes I would agree.

Yet the impassable god of classical theism is abstract and impersonal. It is the inability of classical theism to deal well with the personal aspect of God revealed in scripture that is its greatest flaw. This flaw gave rise to theologians hypothesizing open theism as a remedy.

Well that's certainly the charge and the theory. Whether or not it is the truth... is largely a matter of opinion. While the classical theist may see the use of anthropomorphism and anthropopathy, he/she may not contend that God is actually impersonal. He or she may just say that the figures are used of a personal God who's ways are beyond us. I know many "classical theists" who believe in an entirely personal God....

As for searching the scriptures, I agree. I actually was quite surprised when reading Pinnock and others that their arguments did come from scripture. Having searched the scriptures, they found that the scriptures did not support classical theism, and therefore proposed an alternate hypothesis.

I wasn't too surprised. After all the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons base their arguments from Scripture as well. It seems that the original hypothesis was wrong. I would argue that they saw "God in a box" to begin with and so then wanted to expand the box or put Him into a box that fit more snugly with their own personal beliefs (soteriology, eschatology). But that's just my opinion.

 

[JM]

Directed at no one:
We need to face the fact that God has had a chosen people in the past, He does have plan that doesn't require our say so. Simply take yourself out of the center of God's plan of salvation and you'll find yourself a dirty rotton calvinist! (Kidding about the rotton calvinist thing, it's what I'm called most often.)

 

[Crispie]

Pre-Destination is a reality, and God uses it as a major tool. How do you think God is in control of everything and has foreknowledge of everything?


Heres a great explanation.

Actually, anyone can be saved if they truely seek God and the truth. How can God choose who is saved and who isnt, if we are in control of that by our freewill? Good question. God created the universe, knowing the consequence of every grain of sand he put on this earth, he knew that how he created the universe, and how he interacted with it would ultimately decide who goes to heaven and who doesnt. Now, with this knowledge, God did what he did, and created what he did, knowing what we would do with our freewill as a result of his doings. This is how he chose out his people, because though we have freewill, God is in ultimate control, knowing the consequence of every action he does, and how that will effect this world. It just so happens that by your free will you may choose or not choose God, but it is because of God that these things have happened to you that result in the choice you make. I hope you understand this, and maybe you will have a better understanding of how everyone has a chance to be saved. Gods actions ultimately decide what a person will do with their free will.

 

[BT]

Directed at no one:
We need to face the fact that God has had a chosen people in the past, He does have plan that doesn't require our say so. Simply take yourself out of the center of God's plan of salvation and you'll find yourself a dirty rotton calvinist! (Kidding about the rotton calvinist thing, it's what I'm called most often.)

Added to that we could say that God still has a chosen people. He isn't finished with Israel.

 

[kyzar]

Directed at no one:
We need to face the fact that God has had a chosen people in the past, He does have plan that doesn't require our say so. Simply take yourself out of the center of God's plan of salvation and you'll find yourself a dirty rotton calvinist! (Kidding about the rotton calvinist thing, it's what I'm called most often.)

This is where 'calvanist' theology has some problems for me. I am the center of God's plan of salvation. Sound selfish, not at all, being a chrisitian is a personal relationship with Jesus, where He treats us as the centre of His life, He is totally devoted to our well being, our salvation and our lives, that's why He died on the cross. It is the same for every chrisitian, He died for ME, and you and you and you and you and you and you and you and you etc...
God has chosen, adn still chooses people, this is in black and white in your bible. But God offers salvation to all, this is also in plain black an white in your bible!!!

Sorry Crazy Liz! I made a booboo with the armenian/arminian thing, please accept my apologies... I was only being incredibly general when talking about calvanist/arminian beliefs, so don't look too deep into it...

About Job. I don't have time to rewrite and talk about teh entirity of the study, but really really briefly... (Again being really general, dont take this too much to heart) Job started with God giving control of Job to Satan (bar his life) and Satan set about getting Job to curse God by destroying everything he had. Yes I agree his wife was the only one who directly rpetty much said "Job curse God and be done with it!" but his three friends weren't exactley 'helpful', they were telling Job he'd done something wrong, he'd been 'naughty' etc. in fact much of their advice was good, just not relevant to Job at the time... so they weren't helping Job as a friend should... During my study I felt an overriding sense of Satan trying to get Job to curse, this was reiterated a number of tiems through the chapters...

Oh dear im late for work...
see ya guys! God Bless!!!!

 

[Crazy Liz]

Sorry Crazy Liz! I made a booboo with the armenian/arminian thing, please accept my apologies... I was only being incredibly general when talking about calvanist/arminian beliefs, so don't look too deep into it...

LOL! don't take it too seriously.

About Job. I don't have time to rewrite and talk about teh entirity of the study, but really really briefly... (Again being really general, dont take this too much to heart) Job started with God giving control of Job to Satan (bar his life) and Satan set about getting Job to curse God by destroying everything he had. Yes I agree his wife was the only one who directly rpetty much said "Job curse God and be done with it!" but his three friends weren't exactley 'helpful', they were telling Job he'd done something wrong, he'd been 'naughty' etc. in fact much of their advice was good, just not relevant to Job at the time... so they weren't helping Job as a friend should... During my study I felt an overriding sense of Satan trying to get Job to curse, this was reiterated a number of tiems through the chapters...

Oh dear im late for work...
see ya guys! God Bless!!!!

OK. Now I think I get what you're trying to say. You might think about adding a sentence or two about this when you edit it.

 

[theseed]

Um, lets start at the beggining: Eve, she had free will to take the fruit (God did not make her take it, she did so of her own 'free will'); Job, had the free will to curse God (if he didn't then what is the point of 3/4 of Job?); Jesus, he had free will to not go on the cross

That's not free will. That is a choice We all have choices to make, but that does not mean our will is free. We are bound by our nature. Even God is because he can not lie.

 

[BT]

That's not free will. That is a choice We all have choices to make, but that does not mean our will is free. We are bound by our nature. Even God is because he can not lie.

That's a very interesting statement (to me). Would you mind defining

Will

choice

nature

?

 

[theseed]

That's a very interesting statement (to me). Would you mind defining

Will

choice

nature

?

Will are the things you want, what your driven to seek.

Choice is having more than one option

Nature is what we are predisposed to do. Our will is bound by our predisposition.

 

[JM]

This is where 'calvanist' theology has some problems for me. I am the center of God's plan of salvation. Sound selfish, not at all, being a chrisitian is a personal relationship with Jesus, where He treats us as the centre of His life, He is totally devoted to our well being, our salvation and our lives, that's why He died on the cross.

And nothing more needs to be said, at least we have the crux of the issue. The so-called calvinist believes what God does is for His glory and the arminian believes he is God's glory.

 

[BT]

And nothing more needs to be said, at least we have the crux of the issue. The so-called calvinist believes what God does is for His glory and the arminian believes he is God's glory.

Not exactly right. The calvinist believes that what God does is for His own glory, the arminian believes that God is glorified through what he does. Salvation then is always for God's glory, or always glorifies God. That is consistent in both camps. The difference is only in whether or not man has a part, and what that part is. That, I would think, is closer to the truth.

 

[kyzar]

good point bt... the only problem with these discussion boards is that you can't put across your exact meaning in words most of the time I find it hard to write feelings and personally developed views in a little box!
I think that man has a part to play in our own salvation, therefore I would not class myself as a calvinist in this topic. Anyways, back to you guys! God Bless!!!