Calvinism, Arminianism, and Open theism

[GuySmiley]

Settled viewers often claim opent theists are limiting God's power. But it is the settled view which thinks God can't overcome free will beings in order to make His plans come to pass. I think God is big enough to make a prophesy about a guy named Cyrus before he is even born, and still make that plan come to pass despite free will beings. Yeah, God is that good, believe it.

 

[Choleric]

All I see is God talking to a guy who existed at the time. I see nothing to indicate that He was referring to someone not yet born.

How is that? Care to explain that a bit? Are you saying Isaiah was written when Cyrus was born? I am not following you here...check the dates for the writing of Isaiah and the life of Cyrus.

 

[Lighthouse]

How is that? Care to explain that a bit? Are you saying Isaiah was written when Cyrus was born? I am not following you here...check the dates for the writing of Isaiah and the life of Cyrus.

Where can I find those?

By the way, I'm saying that it is not the same Cyrus you think it is.

 

[Choleric]

Where can I find those?

By the way, I'm saying that it is not the same Cyrus you think it is.

That's funny because the Cyrus I am talking about sure thought God was talking to him. And if God was talking to a different Cyrus, what other Cyrus rebuild the city? What other Cyrus was God referring to?

This is the problem with OT, you make unsupported arguments to do away with the portions of Scripture that don't fit. It is the same as the Calvinists, just the other side of the spectrum.

 

[Lighthouse]

That's funny because the Cyrus I am talking about sure thought God was talking to him. And if God was talking to a different Cyrus, what other Cyrus rebuild the city? What other Cyrus was God referring to?

This is the problem with OT, you make unsupported arguments to do away with the portions of Scripture that don't fit. It is the same as the Calvinists, just the other side of the spectrum.

If it is the same Cyrus then I am wrong. So what? I can admit that. But you have yet to provide me with sufficient evidence that I am wrong. If you're going to tell me something about the Bible that I do not know, which you apparently have, then you are going to need to provide the specific scripture passages that you are referring to. At least the book, chapter and verse/s, so I can look them up.

 

[godrulz]

:thumb: I am out of rep points for now, so this will have to suffice.

Talk amongst yourselves. :think:

Admittedly, OT is relatively young as a formalized theology compared to Calvinism or Arminianism which have wrestled with their details and problems for centuries. This does not mean OT is wrong since some of the issues were secondary compared to Christological/soteriological debates in church history (and heretical attacks).

Here's a good thought:

"All truth passes through 3 stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self-evident."

- Arthur Schopenhauer, 19th century German philosopher

"Experience supplies painful proof that traditions once called into being are first called useful, then become necessary. At last they are too often made idols, and all must bow down to them or be punished."

-J.C. Ryle, 19th cent. English writer and minister

(from 'Pagan Christianity' Viola/Barna)


(If the dialogue continues, I believe OT will move the the latter)

 

[JesseMorrell]

I think that Moral Goverment Open Theism is Biblical.

Calvinism is logical but it is not Biblical.

Arminianism is illogical and not Biblical.

But Finneyism/Open Theism is logical and Biblical.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I think that Moral Goverment Open Theism is Biblical.

Calvinism is logical but it is not Biblical.

Arminianism is illogical and not Biblical.

But Finneyism/Open Theism is logical and Biblical.

Your new here, so when you have the time, I suggest you start here and read the fifty or so posts that follow to discern the "logic" of openism when contrasted against biblical teachings. Thank you!

 

[themuzicman]

(Keep in mind that Mr. Religion is more interested in upholding Reformed theology than actually embracing Scripture.)

Muz

 

[godrulz]

(Keep in mind that Mr. Religion is more interested in upholding Reformed theology than actually embracing Scripture.)

Muz

Not everything about Reformed theology is unbiblical.

 

[themuzicman]

Not everything about Reformed theology is unbiblical.

Agreed. However, that is his aim.

Muz

 

[Psalmist]

:think:

With Calvinism, Arminianism, and Open Theism

This may sound nuts, maybe irrational . . .

Has anybody suggested or admitted to pick and choose from Calvinism and Arminianism with an OT view, or standing between Calvinism and Arminianisn with an OT view, for instance with salvation, but then I'm not sure that this line of thinkings is even reasonable, or even makes sense.

This sounds like one my "Do you think . . . " sort of thoughts, issues or questions.

Wait, hold that thought . . .

I think I need to read the doctrinal positions and articles about all three again, and do an exact parallel study of the three.​

​

​

​

​

That's​

- 30 -​

:scripto:. . Psalmist

 

[godrulz]

Are you suggesting a hybrid, mediate view combining elements of each? There is certainly overlap with the views with some things in common and others things diametrically opposed/mutually exclusive. Calvinism's determinism is not compatible with libertarian free will theisms. Either God has exhaustive definite foreknowledge, or He does not. Either the future is settled, open, or partially settled/open.

I believe OT is a more coherent, biblical form of Arminianism (they are both free will theisms). Like Arminianism, it differs significantly from Calvinism. OT does not differ on many other doctrines and is more similar to Arminianism soteriologically than Calvinism is. Unlike Arminianism and Calvinism, it does not agree with EDF (Calv. and Arm. believe in it, but for different reasons...simple foreknowledge vs decree/determinism).

I tried to rationalize how I could combine my old Arminianism and Open Theism. In the end, I needed a paradigm shift and embraced OT and rejected incompatible elements of Arminianism.

There is a spectrum of beliefs. There are also a variety of views within each major view (not all OTs agree on all details).


Process Thought.....Open Theism.....Arminianism.....Molinism.....Calvinism....Hyper-Calvinism, etc.

 

[mmstroud]

Wow, wish I'd gotten here when this thread was hot...

When I see these discussions regarding God's sovereignty vs. man's "free will" there is usually a notable absence of the idea of God's purpose. God's purpose is to display His glory. People tend to bristle at that concept, I suppose because we think, in our flesh, so highly of ourselves. The system called Calvinism knocks us right out of the tower we have built to try to reach God.

I admit forthright - I don't know to what extent God has ordained the future. It doesn't bother me in the least to imagine that He has ordained my every breath, movement, thought. However, I cannot live my life without acknowledging that I am responsible for every choice I make. How, or do these two concepts fit together? Perhaps they don't. Perhaps we don’t need them to. I cannot, however, imagine a world over which God is not sovereign, in every sense of the word.

Calvinism, Arminianism, Open Theism… When viewed through the lens of God’s purpose in creation and election to display His glory, only Calvinism focuses on elevating God to His rightful position.

I would love to see some more discussion about this issue. Anyone willing?

 

[godrulz]

Why would you assume that meticulous control is more glorious than providential control? Do we praise or blame control-freak parents? The other problem is that you will end up attributing heinous evil to God, contrary to His character and self-revelation. A wrong view of sovereignty/free will will lead to an inability to reconcile the concepts. We should not just accept incoherence as mystery or antimony. Open Theism upholds sovereignty and free will, properly understood. In all views, God displays His glory, but the reality is that some things are contrary to God's will. A warfare vs blueprint model is more biblical. This is not a Star Wars dualism, but it is a genuine conflict through the ages. An omnicausal vs omnicompetent view impugns the character of God and negates love, freedom, relationship.

 

[Choleric]

Wow, wish I'd gotten here when this thread was hot...

The system called Calvinism knocks us right out of the tower we have built to try to reach God.

I cannot, however, imagine a world over which God is not sovereign, in every sense of the word.

only Calvinism focuses on elevating God to His rightful position.

I would love to see some more discussion about this issue. Anyone willing?

When you are more interested in a system, or playing to your imagination about God and what you assume is His rightful position, you cease paying attention to the words of Scripture and start playing Mr. Theologian.

Instead of trying to make up a view of God and His sovereignty to satisfy our imaginations and opinions, we need only read His Word.

If we do so, Calvinism is quickly done away with. It is philosophy mixed with theology that ends up destroying the Biblical view of God, His attributes and man's responsibility. In order to be a Calvinist, you must do away with most of the new testament and God ends up being quite a cruel character, instead of the God of Love the Scriptures portray Him as, who desires that none should perish.

 

[mmstroud]

When you are more interested in a system, or playing to your imagination about God and what you assume is His rightful position, you cease paying attention to the words of Scripture and start playing Mr. Theologian.

Instead of trying to make up a view of God and His sovereignty to satisfy our imaginations and opinions, we need only read His Word.

If we do so, Calvinism is quickly done away with. It is philosophy mixed with theology that ends up destroying the Biblical view of God, His attributes and man's responsibility. In order to be a Calvinist, you must do away with most of the new testament and God ends up being quite a cruel character, instead of the God of Love the Scriptures portray Him as, who desires that none should perish.

We all have a "system" of belief. It is not the "system of Calvinism" I trust in, but how its tenets line up with Scripture. You were right to call me on my reference to "imagination", because it doesn't matter what I can imagine. What matters is what Scripture says about God's sovereignty. God is sovereign. I certainly arrive at my assumptions about God's rightful position from Scripture.

What, specifically, about Calvinism, destroys the Biblical view of God, His attributes and man's responsibility?

 

[themuzicman]

What, specifically, about Calvinism, destroys the Biblical view of God, His attributes and man's responsibility?

1) It destroys justification. In order to require justification, the one requiring justification must have acted outside the bounds of just action of their own volition and without duress. Calvinism clearly places the primary cause of all sin at God's feet, and attempts to bring some secondary causation to humans, but are unable to seriously address how man requires justification from actions that God caused him to do.

2) It destroys God's just nature. If God is truly just, then He will hold accountable all those who are the primary cause of sin. However, in Calvinism, God holds Himself exempt from this accountability, thus putting God in contradiction with Himself.

That ought to be enough.

Muz