Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Calvinism vs Open Theism Calvinism vs Open Theism

05-13-2016 , 10:50 AM
fraley, @OP:

1. Omniscience - careful not to ascribe the anthropomorphised intention/meaning of "knowledge"; you are also operating within the context of TIME, which may not make sense from the Divine perspective

2. Evil - enables Good; and both of them are relative to human-kind only, anyway, because God is the fundamental singularity, the only thing not subject to dichotomy (good/evil, big/small, etc)
Calvinism vs Open Theism Quote
05-13-2016 , 11:21 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination

Calvinism[edit]
Main article: Predestination in Calvinism
The Belgic Confession of 1561 affirmed that God "delivers and preserves" from perdition "all whom he, in his eternal and unchangeable council, of mere goodness hath elected in Christ Jesus our Lord, without respect to their works" (Article XVI). Calvinists believe that God picked those who he will save and bring with him to Heaven before the world was created. They also believe that those people God does not save will go to Hell. John Calvin thought people who were saved could never lose their salvation and the "elect" (those God saved) would know they were saved because of their actions.
In this common, loose sense of the term, to affirm or to deny predestination has particular reference to the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election. In the Calvinist interpretation of the Bible, this doctrine normally has only pastoral value related to the assurance of salvation and the absolution of salvation by grace alone. However, the philosophical implications of the doctrine of election and predestination are sometimes discussed beyond these systematic bounds. Under the topic of the doctrine of God (theology proper), the predestinating decision of God cannot be contingent upon anything outside of himself, because all other things are dependent upon him for existence and meaning. Under the topic of the doctrines of salvation (soteriology), the predestinating decision of God is made from God's knowledge of his own will (Romans 9:15), and is therefore not contingent upon human decisions (rather, free human decisions are outworkings of the decision of God, which sets the total reality within which those decisions are made in exhaustive detail: that is, nothing left to chance). Calvinists do not pretend to understand how this works; but they are insistent that the Scriptures teach both the sovereign control of God and the responsibility and freedom of human decisions.
Calvinist groups use the term Hyper-Calvinism to describe Calvinistic systems that assert without qualification that God's intention to destroy some is equal to his intention to save others. Some forms of Hyper-Calvinism have racial implications, against which other Calvinists vigorously object (see Afrikaner Calvinism). The Dutch settlers of South Africa claimed that the Blacks were members of the non-elect, because they were the sons of Ham, whom Noah had cursed to be slaves, according to Genesis 9:18-19. The Dutch Calvinist theologian Franciscus Gomarus also argued that Jews, because of their refusal to worship Jesus Christ, were members of the non-elect.
Expressed sympathetically, the Calvinist doctrine is that God has mercy or withholds it, with particular consciousness of who are to be the recipients of mercy in Christ. Therefore, the particular persons are chosen, out of the total number of human beings, who will be rescued from enslavement to sin and the fear of death, and from punishment due to sin, to dwell forever in his presence. Those who are being saved are assured through the gifts of faith, the sacraments, and communion with God through prayer and increase of good works, that their reconciliation with him through Christ is settled by the sovereign determination of God's will. God also has particular consciousness of those who are passed over by his selection, who are without excuse for their rebellion against him, and will be judged for their sins.
Calvinists typically divide on the issue of predestination into infralapsarians (sometimes called 'sublapsarians') and supralapsarians. Infralapsarians interpret the biblical election of God to highlight his love (1 John 4:8; Ephesians 1:4b-5a) and chose his elect considering the situation after the Fall, while supralapsarians interpret biblical election to highlight God's sovereignty (Romans 9:16) and that the Fall was ordained by God's decree of election. In infralapsarianism, election is God's response to the Fall, while in supralapsarianism the Fall is part of God's plan for election. In spite of the division, many Calvinist theologians would consider the debate surrounding the infra- and supralapsarian positions one in which scant Scriptural evidence can be mustered in either direction, and that, at any rate, has little effect on the overall doctrine.
Some Calvinists decline from describing the eternal decree of God in terms of a sequence of events or thoughts, and many caution against the simplifications involved in describing any action of God in speculative terms. Most make distinctions between the positive manner in which God chooses some to be recipients of grace, and the manner in which grace is consciously withheld so that some are destined for everlasting punishments.
Debate concerning predestination according to the common usage, concerns the destiny of the damned, whether God is just if that destiny is settled prior to the existence of any actual volition of the individual, and whether the individual is in any meaningful sense responsible for his destiny if it is settled by the eternal action of God.
Calvinism vs Open Theism Quote
05-13-2016 , 11:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamnotawerewolf
fraley, @OP:

1. Omniscience - careful not to ascribe the anthropomorphised intention/meaning of "knowledge";
I don't understand,what other meaning is there? Can you elaborate on what you mean?

Quote:
Originally Posted by iamnotawerewolf
you are also operating within the context of TIME, which may not make sense from the Divine perspective
Ok, but how else must I address this? I can only comment on what I know or what would make sense based on what we know. If time is just a temporal illusion of some kind and doesn't actually exist it becomes something there is no sense in talking about anyway. So why bother?

Quote:
Originally Posted by iamnotawerewolf
2. Evil - enables Good; and both of them are relative to human-kind only, anyway, because God is the fundamental singularity, the only thing not subject to dichotomy (good/evil, big/small, etc)
If I understand what you are saying, you are saying we couldn't perceive good actions unless we could perceive evil ones? I think I agree, but I would prefer to rephrase it the other way and say "good enables evil" because I do think our true nature generally leads to loving each other and being "good".
Calvinism vs Open Theism Quote
05-13-2016 , 11:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight
I get what you're saying but consider he doesn't create us. Then there is nothing. Or, even worse he creates without free will and we are essentially robots. I think both of those realities are more evil than the one we currently have.
I wouldn't say they would be more evil with those. And im not saying God shouldn't of created the universe with evil possibility's. I dont have all the facts. Could be necessary. Only that i think he would take some responsibility for all that happens in it. Good and bad.
Calvinism vs Open Theism Quote
05-13-2016 , 09:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight
I don't understand,what other meaning is there? Can you elaborate on what you mean?
"Knowledge" must be of an Other. God is without an Other.

Quote:
Ok, but how else must I address this? I can only comment on what I know or what would make sense based on what we know. If time is just a temporal illusion of some kind and doesn't actually exist it becomes something there is no sense in talking about anyway. So why bother?
Time exists for us. It is not an illusion for us. It is about the most "real" thing there is.

But what is Time? It is our way of describing/measuring/contemplating Change. God cannot change, because there would be nothing to change into. There could only ever be God.

So for God, proper, Time does not exist.

Quote:
If I understand what you are saying, you are saying we couldn't perceive good actions unless we could perceive evil ones? I think I agree, but I would prefer to rephrase it the other way and say "good enables evil" because I do think our true nature generally leads to loving each other and being "good".
It's not even a question of perception. It's a matter of logical necessity.

If you have a Good, then you have to have a not-Good (ergo, an Evil); or vice versa. Not in a before-and-after sense, though. The existence of the one automatically and simultaneously creates the other.
Calvinism vs Open Theism Quote
05-14-2016 , 02:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight
In my opinion, the idea that God can know the future and that all aspects of the future are predetermined means we would really be nothing more than mindless zombies following Gods outcomes. That we are not actually free to choose what we do or how we act.

With that being the case, I think there have to be some aspects of the future that defy Gods nature for him to know. I think God can still be omniscient, and not know what cannot be known but know everything that CAN be known.

I think calvinism presents huge problem with the idea of love, and evil. If God has already written everything that will happen it would make him responsible for Evil.
The sovereignty of that which men call God is a truth easily misunderstood. Calvinists' hijacking of the mysticism surrounding God's authority/power in an attempt to explain that which cannot fully be known is based in Gnostic thought. Unfortunately, this confuses God's majesty for something it is not whereby both God's and man's true natures are necessarily violated.

We all possess an ability to exercise moral choice. The faculty governing this moral compass known as free will exists because we are created in the image and likeness of God. God is no robot, and man isn't one either.

With that said:

Quote:
If humans however, have free will and God leaves choices up to us without complete knowledge of the outcome than an inevitable consequence of Free will would be Evil. So I think open theism answers the question "why doesn't God stop all Evil" it would remove all free will.
God's foreknowledge is far greater than what we can imagine, but it also corresponds with the nature of reality. What's past is past, and the future has not yet occurred.

However, this is not to say God has no knowledge of what outcomes will be. God knows the hearts and minds of all men. A sound understanding of omniscience suggests God discerns through an immense web of all known possibilities, calculating all things thereby determining when/where/how to intervene to accomplish His purposes. It helps to think of the future as a tree of possibilities, a realm of potentialities. Not a fixed linear line of events that are foreknown. Thus part of the future is determined and a vast amount of the future is open.

Free will isn't evil, it's good. How else would we learn the vital lessons we're here for? Can the unfavorable consequences of our choices really be ascribed to our ability to choose? Of course not. Those seeking to place blame upon the grantor of the ability shall never grow into a full realization of responsibility. Additionally, the removal of evil would in no way amount to the removal of free will, only the removal of evil.

For what it's worth, I'm of the opinion that evil creates its own fruitless and self-destructive ends without need for God's mediation. I believe God is content in allowing its place upon the stage of life... for a season.

Regards.

Last edited by neverb0rn; 05-14-2016 at 02:13 PM.
Calvinism vs Open Theism Quote
05-15-2016 , 07:22 PM
Never-

Does evil pre-exist God? Is it beyond Him? If not, did God create evil? Is God, at least in part, evil Himself?

And if God calculates as you say, then isn't the will of man functionally negated by His plan? For example, if I know how you make your decisions, and I can control the options facing you, what is the content of your supposed autonomy?
Calvinism vs Open Theism Quote
05-16-2016 , 01:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamnotawerewolf
Never-

Does evil pre-exist God? Is it beyond Him? If not, did God create evil? Is God, at least in part, evil Himself?

And if God calculates as you say, then isn't the will of man functionally negated by His plan? For example, if I know how you make your decisions, and I can control the options facing you, what is the content of your supposed autonomy?
Happy to share my thoughts.

We face some limitations expressing the incommunicable since, as I see it, the being in control of all this is so completely other. It follows that the anthropomorphism of God has certain disadvantages we struggle with in dialogue. However, it helps that this personification is most divinely echoed in the microcosm that is man.

Nothing preexists the self-existent.

The emergence of consciousness creates duality in the pursuit of discovering itself, making life observed an interplay of forces that must manifest in the exploration of all that can be. This process is becoming and unbecoming, an unveiling whereby both what one is and isn't is collectively revealed. You may be familiar with the notion that evil has been a necessary aspect of our experience without which it would be impossible to know good. In this sense, evil is not beyond God but an essential outworking within a framework where boundlessness can be candidly showcased for the benefit of creation. Thus imputing character traits as inherent to the origin of these forces is misleading.

I'm as free as I wish to be as a man of one mind with God. The future is only fixed insofar as the creator has a vested interest in the preservation of the profitable.

Regards.
Calvinism vs Open Theism Quote
05-16-2016 , 02:49 PM
that sounds pretty legit, brother

collectivization of Nous in an interesting tack, imo.

platform for planar orders of magnitude.
Calvinism vs Open Theism Quote
05-16-2016 , 08:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamnotawerewolf
that sounds pretty legit, brother

collectivization of Nous in an interesting tack, imo.

platform for planar orders of magnitude.
Indeed, I'm just happy to be here.
Calvinism vs Open Theism Quote
05-26-2016 , 08:53 AM
Edit: if you saw my post, disregard. It was a brain fart.

Last edited by heehaww; 05-26-2016 at 09:11 AM.
Calvinism vs Open Theism Quote

      
m