Calvinism, Arminianism, and Open theism

[Lighthouse]

Can any OTer explain to me how God knew Cyrus by name and that he would rebuild His city before Cyrus was even born(actually 200 years earlier)?

He didn't.

I don't know, can you be the creator of TOL and be created by TOL at the same time?

He [God] cannot be the Creator, and then be created by Himself. Well, even without being a creator one cannot be created by themselves.

However, Knight did create TOL, and he is now a direct participator in TOL. He's one of us, while still being the creator of TOL.:think:

Heresy No. 5.

:squint:

Retard that is number 7,209.

:crackup:

Time is part of Creation.

Now back that up with Scripture.

 

[Choleric]

He didn't.

So He guessed then? Please explain.

 

[godrulz]

Calvinism: Logical yet not biblical
Arminianism: Illogical and not biblical
Open Theism: Logical and biblical

Talk amongst yourselves.

I do not find Calvinism logical. It may be somewhat internally self-consistent (TULIP), but it is deductive and wrong in its assumptions.

Aspects of Arminianism are biblical, while other issues are not coherent nor biblical.

OT is the most coherent, biblical option.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Roger E. Olson IVP 'Arminian Theology' refutes the myth of thinking faith +works is what Arminius taught.

Have you read it? Do you own it? Or have you "searched inside"? :squint:

 

[godrulz]

Is the future settled in advance? For God yes. For us yes, and no

Is the future open and not yet settled? For God no. For us yes, and no.

Illogical

http://www.opentheism.info/

 

[godrulz]

William Lane Craig is left out then. Not that I agree with him, but he's a well known Christian apologist.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36231

(posts 1-8)

 

[godrulz]

Calvinism: Logical yet not and biblical
Arminianism: Illogical and not occasionally biblical
Open Theism: Illogical and biblical *heretical

*see also Holman's Apologetics Study Bible for details (godrulz can even "search inside" for details since he never reads the full content of any book.)
​

And you complain about my cheap shots?!

 

[godrulz]

Have you read it? Do you own it? Or have you "searched inside"? :squint:

I own it and am reading it. He is clarifying myths that you guys perpetuate about Arminianism (confuse it with Pelagianism, etc.). He is not OT friendly. We should at least understand a view and accurately represent it if we are going to reject it.

He demonstrates the compatibility of early Arminianism with your Reformed positions on key points (contrary to shoddy scholarship that makes the waters muddy).

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

but it is deductive and wrong in its assumptions.

I --> have said <-- differently, yet your robo poster must filter my response. :squint:

I suppose this deductive fear of yours is why you struggle with so many of the propositional truths in Scripture. You cannot see these objective certain truths because you think inductive methods can find them. That is why you have cobbled together a smorgasbord belief system that possesses no logical coherence.

gr, induction is always a formal fallacy. If you don't understand what I mean by this true statement, my point has been made.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

And you complain about my cheap shots?!

"Give me a massive break", someone once said.

 

[godrulz]

I --> have said <-- differently, yet your robo poster must filter my response. :squint:

I suppose this deductive fear of yours is why you struggle with so many of the propositional truths in Scripture. You cannot see these objective certain truths because you think inductive methods can find them. That is why you have cobbled together a smorgasbord belief system that possesses no logical coherence.

gr, induction is always a formal fallacy. If you don't understand what I mean by this true statement, my point has been made.

What I mean by deductive is that Calvinism assumes certain things like sovereignty means meticulous control, decretal views, no libertarian free will, limited atonement, etc. and imports this into the text.

Jesus preached inductively, not deductively. He did not have an assumption and find points to support it. He built a case with principles leading up to a conclusion (vs assuming a conclusion and trying to prop it up).

It is the difference between systematic (proof texts) vs biblical theology (context). Deduction and induction are important and systematic/biblical each have their place.

We are probably using the terms differently or more or less precisely (words have a semantic range of meaning).

For a critique of Calvinism's negative deductive assumptions (they are not negative if they are true; my premise is that many are not true leading to wrong conclusions to support a preconceived idea not explicit in the text):

http://www.amazon.ca/Beyond-Calvinism-Arminianism-Inductive-Salvation/dp/0962485047

Yes, I have read it cover to cover, not just search inside. I disagree with his OSAS and anti-Open Theism views, but I think he has valid points about some aspects of Calvinism and Arminianism.

 

[godrulz]

"Give me a massive break", someone once said.

Only a doofus would say something like that

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

What I mean by deductive is that Calvinism assumes certain things like sovereignty means meticulous control, decretal views, no libertarian free will, limited atonement, etc. and imports this into the text.

Wiffenpoofle! Where do you come up with this stuff? We assume one thing: the bible is the word of God and the canon is closed. I hope that is not too draconian for you.

Jesus preached inductively, not deductively. He did not have an assumption and find points to support it. He built a case with principles leading up to a conclusion (vs assuming a conclusion and trying to prop it up).

You just cannot get away with this sort of blanket assertion. It is simply not true and by making it you mislead the less informed believer. You exhibit a dangerous disregard for precision in thought and word and should be more careful to not lead others astray. I don't think you understand the distinctions between inductive and deductive.

Matthew 12:24-30
A. Argument from analogy (vv. 25-26)
B. The law of logical or rational inference (v. 26)
C. Reductio ad absurdum (vv. 25-26)
D. Argument from analogy (v. 27)
E. The law of logical or rational inference (vv. 28, 29)
F. Argument from analogy (v. 29)
G. The law of contradiction (v. 30)
H. The law of excluded middle (v. 30)

It is the difference between systematic (proof texts) vs biblical theology (context).

Likewise, I don't think you know the difference between systematic and biblical theology.

We are probably using the terms differently or more or less precisely (words have a semantic range of meaning).

Yes, they have a range of meaning, but your use is beyond the bounds of any acceptable range of meaning for the words in question. You should know better and should become more precise with your words, if at least for the new believer, the seeker, or others that have yet to mature in the faith.

Recall your own words when giving advice to another about a doctrinal matter:

Be more precise lest you cause more people to reject a difficult concept.

Yes, I have read it cover to cover, not just search inside. I disagree with his OSAS and anti-Open Theism views, but I think he has valid points about some aspects of Calvinism and Arminianism.

But of course you do...as long as he meets your presuppositions. If not, he is just, well, wrong. Gheez.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

So He guessed then? Please explain.

I'd like to hear more about this Cyrus prophecy...can you give a scripture ref?
I've read it, but having trouble remembering where.

 

[tetelestai]

A wolf in Sheeps clothing!

A wolf in Sheeps clothing!

Illogical

http://www.opentheism.info/

A wolf in sheeps clothing!

From Wikipedia:

According to the fable, a hungry wolf came upon a sheep's fleece lying on the ground in a field. The wolf realized that if it wore the fleece, it would look like a sheep from a distance. That would enable the wolf to sneak up on a flock of sheep and steal a lamb for its supper, before the shepherd noticed his presence.

The wolf put on the fleece, and went off in search of a flock of sheep. It spied a flock of sheep just as the sun was setting, and approached the flock. Just as it was about to pounce on a lamb, a shepherd came by, looking for a sheep to slaughter for supper. Thinking the disguised wolf was a sheep, the shepherd quickly grabbed and killed the wolf.

An alternate version is, another wolf is sneaking around looking for a sheep for dinner, and pounces on the wolf in sheep's clothing, killing it and eating it for supper instead of a real sheep.

The intended lesson was, "Frauds and liars are always discovered, eventually, and pay for their actions accordingly."

What does this have to do with open theism?

An open theist is nothing more than a philosopher in theologians clothing.

Basically open theism is this:
1. God gave human beings a true free will.
2. If God knows the future, human beings cannot truly be free.
3. Therefore, God cannot know the future.

The really tricky part about OT is this: The open theist takes 2000 years of Christian teaching (Orthodoxy as AMR likes to call it) about God’s foreknowledge, sovereignty, omniscience, and other attributes, and then the open theist says that such teachings (Orthodoxy) are flawed because they are based on philosophy instead of scripture. The open theist then “invents” a theology called "open view theism", which is really a philosophy disguised as a theology, but blames philosophy as the reason for its need to exist.

Thus the philosopher in theologians clothing.

So what will happen to the open theist? I refer you to the lesson in the above fable.

 

[godrulz]

Even Classical, traditional theologians who reject OT are realizing the philosophical tainting of some of their views. While rejecting OT, they are rethinking things like aseity, simplicity, immutability (even AMR does not have an extreme strong immutability view; weak immutability is that God changes in some ways, but not in other ways, because He is personal and faithful, not just a cosmic blob).

 

[Choleric]

I'd like to hear more about this Cyrus prophecy...can you give a scripture ref?
I've read it, but having trouble remembering where.

Absolutely STP:

Isa 44:28 That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.
Isa 45:1 Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;


Of course, this was written 200 years before the man was born. The exact detail of how Cyrus conquered Babylon was also foretold.

The prophecy also foretells the rebuilding of the city and temple, at a time when the city and temple were still around.

I would love to have an Open Theist give me the Open view on this prophecy, assuming there is one. So far no one has explained this one to me.

 

[Lighthouse]

So He guessed then? Please explain.

Provide the entirety of the Scripture you believe speaks to this prophesy. And I mean in context. Not just single verses.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

I would love to have an Open Theist give me the Open view on this prophecy, assuming there is one. So far no one has explained this one to me.

So, Cyrus of the Medo-Persian empire was named by God while the Babylonians
were still in charge? Interesting. I'd like to hear an OVT explanation as well.

 

[Choleric]

Provide the entirety of the Scripture you believe speaks to this prophesy. And I mean in context. Not just single verses.

Come on lighthouse, just tell me where you're going. Don't play with me. Do you seriously want me to copy and paste the entire passage(s)? If you have an explanation, just give it to me:cheers:

I am seriously not asking this to be argumentative. I am trying to learn. I can see some points of OT, but this one is bothering me. I am an honest seeker here, no agenda.

your brother in Christ-

the fighting chicken