A reforming Calvinist's corporate elction questions

[Singalphile]

Interesting point about the distribution of Christians in the world, jriccitelli. Molinism sounds interesting, too.

My views probably tend towards Arminianism/Open Theism. I think it's amazing that God created (from scratch!) life capable of free will decision-making apart from His own. That's how I see it, anyway. I don't think our best computer programs/AI can do that (though they can perhaps seem like it).

But I can choose not to know things that I could know (e.g., choosing not to skip to the last chapter of a book, choosing not to know things when playing with a child, or just shutting my eyes), and so it seems to me that God can do that too if He wants (Genesis 18:20-21 seems to allow for this explanation, not to mention Jesus).

But it's all theoretical and not of much practical use, I guess.

Papaj, some of your thoughts interest me. To help me understand you better, I would appreciate a brief, "bullet-point" summary, if you wouldn't mind.

[PapaJ]

Papa J previously said:
Accept for the Remonstrant’s all Orthodox Christians confessed that God initiated the work of salvation; a hundred and some years later this view was made popular again by the Methodist. The first denomination to affirm Arminianism, which was a new twist on the old Pelagian Heresy, we call semi-Pelagianism,

An accusation was made that Papa J misrepresented Arminianism:

"You claim that Arminians believe that man initiates their own salvation. That is false. It was not believed by Arminius, nor Wesley, nor any classical Arminian. This is a common myth held by many Calvinists (either willingly or ignorantly). I don't believe you are a Calvinist (I am pretty sure I remember you resisting that label), but it is still possible to be influenced by things that they say. I would recommend you read, if you haven't already, Roger Olson's book 'Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities' so that your information about Arminianism comes from the actual writings of Arminians rather than Calvinists."

When I say "initiated the work of salvation" this is what I believe the scriptures teach; nobody can be saved unless God the Holy Spirit does His work convicting people of their sin, revealing to them their need for a Savior. In contrast when anyone ask's Jesus into their heart because they want to go to Heaven after this life or they get scared when they hear about Hell and want Jesus for fire insurance, then they are attempting to initiate there own salvation. It is obvious when evangelist have to use cheap salesmen tactic's to get a sinner to come forward or to pray a prayer, it is not the work of the Holy Spirit and its why no change is ever seen in the professing converts life. I believe a true believer has been predestined to conform to the image of our Lord Jesus, they are a new creation, all things become new. Yes I believe the gift of God is salvation, which involves God's Grace to experience the 'new birth' from above and we have nothing to do with it happening to us, but the only evidence of it happening is the indwelling of His Spirit, evidenced by a change of direction in their life that can be seen by others and is what the Bible calls faith.

My question is which Arminianism did I misrepresent?
At this time I’m content to stand behind the point I was making in my previous post that there was a difference between the original Arminian views and the modified Arminianism a hundred and some years later that I referred to as Wesleyan Arminianism. Now I could be wrong, I’ll let you do the homework, answer these questions below going to Muller, Platt and Dekker. In one column give the Remonstrant answer, in another column give the Wesleyan answer and then in the third column give the Olsen answer.

These questions must be asked:
1. Is Arminian Theology the opposite of Calvinist theology?
2, Is Arminianism Orthodox?
3. Is the theory of Free Will at the heart of Arminianism?
4. Does Arminian Theology deny the sovereignty of God?
5. Is Arminianism a human centered theology?
6. Is Arminianism a theology of grace?
7. What do Arminian’s believe about predestination?
8. Does Arminianism deny justification by grace alone through faith alone?
9. Do some Arminians believe in the governmental theory of atonement?
10. Is it possible that Roger Olsen’s view of Arminian theology a Calvinistic hybrid?

Arminians are right to point out that they believe in Grace and Predestination, but it begs the fundamental question of how Arminians differ from Calvinist on these topics. I basically agree more with the Calvinist on Grace and more with Arminians on Predestination. Perhaps I should go from my first question to my last question to say that Roger Olson’s ‘Open Theism’ is not the Arminianism of the Remonstrant’s. He has mixed the most Biblical aspects of Calvinism and Arminianism together to give Arminianism a new face, just as we have Historic, Classical and Progressive Dispensationalism. The only problem is you have to have more integrity than the Dispensationalist who act like their form of Dispensationalism has been around since the days of the early church and call it ‘Historic.’ I will admit that Arminianism is a Reformation theology, which could be called Historic, but the modern form of Arminianism is a combination of many things and the Wesleyan form is not the same as the Remonstrant’s. Remember this, the Remonstrant’s were opposed to all 5 points of the doctrines of Grace and would therefore be considered by Calvinist to be the opposite.

I have issues with 3 of the 5 points of 'the doctrines of grace' and some Calvinist tell me I’m a hybrid Arminianist, therefore I refrain to tell them my families historic roots is Holiness Wesleyan Nazarene so I’ve only understood their variation of Arminianism, which I reject. Their variation of Arminianism is closer to that of the Socinian’s then it is to Olsen’s view of Arminian theology.

Those critical of Olson’s work say that he misrepresents Richard Muller’s analysis of Arminius. Many find it strange that Olson is guilty of criticizing others for doing the same thing he attacks others for doing. Muller’s work actually demonstrates how Arminius’ theology was really a modified version of Reformed theology. Also Olson’s work contradicts Muller’s characterization of Arminius as being a modified Thomist. The scholarly consensus on theology, Reformed and Arminianis in the 17-Century is that it all involved various forms of modified Thomism. Also Muller is described as a ‘Reformed Scholar, but Olson dismisses Muller’s perspective as if he was nobody. Actually Muller’s views are confirmed by such scholars as John Platt, Eef Dekker and Willem Van Asselt, none of them would describe themselves as Reformed. Neither did Olson make reference to the writings of Dutch scholar Eef Dekker (a supporter of Arminius) who clearly explained the theology of Arminius; for this reason the views of Roger Olson would have to be considered a hybrid when being compared to the 17th Century Arminians and Remonstrant’s I made reference to.

[mattrose]

PapaJ,

I'm not in the business of doing homework assigned by people on message boards. Nor am I interested in getting into an endless debate about the nuances of major players in the history of arminianism. I'm more of a big picture guy... and the big picture is this: Your quote made it sound like Arminius and the Methodists are collectively semi-pelegian and believe that human beings initiate salvation. This is factually incorrect on both counts.

Furthermore, you set up an unnecessary contrast between 1) those who respond to the initiating work of the Spirit and 2) those who make a decision regading Christianity based either on heaven or hell. Of course, I'll grant you that sometimes, perhaps many times, there is a contrast there. But certainly this is not always the case. The Holy Spirit can initiate a work that culminates in a person responding to a sermon on these subjects. Your contrast is faulty.

But like I said, I'm not all that interested in arguing finer points of what dead guys said what. I consider myself an Arminian and I don't believe that I, or anyone, initiated salvation.

[PapaJ]

Thank you mattrose, I agree that we need to look at the Big Picture and forget about dead guys like Calvin and others being worshiped and followed. I think most of the differences in our observations have to do with the faulty presuppositions we bring to the Scriptures. I will cover some of that in this reply to singalphile

Reply to Singalphile who said:

“My views probably tend towards Arminianism/Open Theism. I think it's amazing that God created (from scratch!) life capable of free will decision-making apart from His own. That's how I see it, anyway. I don't think our best computer programs/AI can do that (though they can perhaps seem like it).

But I can choose not to know things that I could know (e.g., choosing not to skip to the last chapter of a book, choosing not to know things when playing with a child, or just shutting my eyes), and so it seems to me that God can do that too if He wants (Genesis 18:20-21 seems to allow for this explanation, not to mention Jesus).

But it's all theoretical and not of much practical use, I guess.

Papa J some of your thoughts interest me. To help me understand you better, I would appreciate a brief, "bullet-point" summary, if you wouldn't mind.”

Papa J’s reply: ‘bullet-points’ wow that will be difficult!
When people tell me they lean toward something as bad as Open Theism I conclude they must not read through the scriptures on a regular schedule. When I read I see God knowing the future.
-The first prophecy in Genesis 3:15; saying the seed of women would crush the head of the serpent after his heal was bruised.
-God revealing to Cain that he would become the slave to sin if he gave into the anger within.
-God gave names to all the men from Adam to Noah and the meaning of their names told of God’s judgment upon all mankind at Methuselah’s death.
-God predicted the direction and relationship of the descendants of Shem, Ham and Japheth
-God promised to bless the descendants of Abraham who would number as the sands of the sea and the stars in the heavens.
-God predicted the future of Joseph with his brothers bowing before him.
-God revealed to Jacob the future of the descendants of each of his sons, still being fulfilled
-God revealed to Moses the out coming of His people Israel when they worshipped other gods.
-God spoke through the Prophets to reveal the future for Israel and Jesus Christ their Redeemer.
-God revealed through Jesus the future destruction of those Jews living in Jerusalem in AD 70.
-Jesus revealed to His disciples the future for His followers and others following false Christ.
-Jesus revealed to His followers the destruction of death, the devil and all those who followed the ‘Man of Sin.’
-Jesus revealed the future for all those who followed Him with a New Heaven and Earth and if God did not know the future, then the largest portion of the Bible could not have been written.
I hope that was not too many ‘bullet-points.’

The 'doctrine of Free Will' (teachings based upon the theories of theologians, not Scripture) are not found in the Bible. The only place the phrase ‘free will’ is found in the Bible has to do with “free will offerings.” The Bible does teach human responsibility; that man is responsible for every decision he makes, every action he takes, and every idle word he utters.

The fact is our choices are limited; you can only do what God has allowed. Some men have been given more choices than other men, but no man can do whatever he wants to do. As I stated earlier, you can’t go to McDonalds and order a Pizza or Chinese food. At this moment right now only very few men could write a good check for a billion dollars; all men have their limits and that is what separates them from God. If God can choose what to know, then He is not All Knowing, which would make Him the Mormon God, an exalted man who is only years ahead of men living today.

Like I said earlier, God can do whatever He chooses to do, only men are limited in choices; the problem is when men conclude what God can and can not do. Genesis 18:20, 21; is not a revelation of God’s limitations, it is a linguistic style of communication, much like taking a very complicated subject and communicating it at a level any child could understand. God uses various styles of communications to get his point across, as in Psalms 91:4 when David said, “He shall cover you with His feathers, and under His wings shall you trust: His truth shall be your shield and buckler.” The point being made is that God protects His children just as a mother hen would protect her chicks. The passage is not a revelation that God has wings and feathers and when it looks like His truth is “your shield and buckler” it’s not defining truth, but saying we are to use His truth as a shield to protect us.

Now if those ‘bullet points’ did not cover what you wanted to know about my thoughts then you will have to specify what more you needed to know, since my earlier comments have covered a large range of topics. Hey I did a great job of keeping this one short.

[psimmond]

PapaJ said...

The 'doctrine of Free Will' (teachings based upon the theories of theologians, not Scripture) are not found in the Bible. The only place the phrase ‘free will’ is found in the Bible has to do with “free will offerings.” The Bible does teach human responsibility; that man is responsible for every decision he makes, every action he takes, and every idle word he utters.

The fact is our choices are limited; you can only do what God has allowed. Some men have been given more choices than other men, but no man can do whatever he wants to do. As I stated earlier, you can’t go to McDonalds and order a Pizza or Chinese food. At this moment right now only very few men could write a good check for a billion dollars; all men have their limits and that is what separates them from God. If God can choose what to know, then He is not All Knowing, which would make Him the Mormon God, an exalted man who is only years ahead of men living today.

Like I said earlier, God can do whatever He chooses to do, only men are limited in choices; the problem is when men conclude what God can and can not do. Genesis 18:20, 21; is not a revelation of God’s limitations, it is a linguistic style of communication, much like taking a very complicated subject and communicating it at a level any child could understand. God uses various styles of communications to get his point across, as in Psalms 91:4 when David said, “He shall cover you with His feathers, and under His wings shall you trust: His truth shall be your shield and buckler.” The point being made is that God protects His children just as a mother hen would protect her chicks. The passage is not a revelation that God has wings and feathers and when it looks like His truth is “your shield and buckler” it’s not defining truth, but saying we are to use His truth as a shield to protect us.

Now if those ‘bullet points’ did not cover what you wanted to know about my thoughts then you will have to specify what more you needed to know, since my earlier comments have covered a large range of topics. Hey I did a great job of keeping this one short.

Whether or not the phrase "free will" is found in the Bible is irrelevant. The question to ask is whether or not the concept of free will is found in the Bible. You are able to easily say that it's not there because the way you define free will is not the way most people define free will. Free will does not mean having no limits on what we can choose; of course I can't choose to be God. And although you stated otherwise, even God has limits on what he can choose. God cannot choose to create a rock so large that he cannot lift it. God cannot choose to create a 4-sided triangle.

Like you, I don't think Open Theism offers a satisfactory explanation when it comes to biblical prophesy. However, I don't think you should say people who lean toward Open Theism must not know the Bible well. If you ever read Greg Boyd's work or Clark Pinnock's, you'd know that these men know the Bible very well.

[mattrose]

Papa J,

Most of the bullet-points you provided as proofs that God knows the future can be fairly easily explained by open theists. First, any open theist I've read (Pinnock, Boyd, Sanders) knows that God can control what God is going to do in the future, and therefore that future is 'set in stone' so to speak. This observation alone renders most of your points obsolete. Second, some of the bullet points you gave simply demonstrate a cause-and-effect relationship that God has built into the fabric of the world. They are not so much 'prophecies' as 'consequences.' Third, some of the points you raised could be predicted by a being who had ALL the 'present' facts. Certainly God is such a being. Thus, the problem isn't that Open Theists don't read their Bibles like you do, it is that they interpret it differently. Whereas you may find their interpretation of prophecy ridiculous, they may equally find your interpretation of passages where it seems God doesn't know the future as quite convenient.

Psimmond has already responded well to your statements about free will. You agree that the Bible does teach human responsibility. Free will, rather than being a word we must find in a concordance, is a necessary ingredient to true responsibility. It's built right into the word. Responsibility includes the 'ability' to 'respond.' That is pretty much all the 'free will' doctrine insists upon... and even then it is only under the rubric of God's initiating grace. Free will doesn't include any sort of belief in unlimited choice, as you suggest. We must act within the boundaries of what God allows (what other 'choice' do we have!?). Your willingness to use terms like responsibility and choice shows that you don't actually disagree with what the rest of us mean by free will.

Nor do I believe that God can choose what to know. God knows all things. The Open Theism debate, if we may go back to that for a second, is not a debate about whether God knows all things. It is a debate about whether the future is a thing.

Thanks for responding!
matthew

[Singalphile]

PapaJ,

Thanks for keeping it shorter for this interested but relatively ignorant observer! I was most confused about your views about free-will. You wrote about the error and fallacy of it, but you also wrote about people (e.g., Israel) being free to make bad decisions. You did help clear up your views, but I will have to keep reading to understand more. Some of all of this might even make sense to me some day!

Open theism seems to me to make sense of some otherwise nonsensical things, but really I think we're pretty much like confused dogs when it comes to this stuff. I doubt that we can understand.

[jriccitelli]

I like your post Matt, the future couldn't be the future if it has already happened, and thus the future cannot be a thing.

And another thing, uhh, what about the 'freewill' offerings, what about Adam being given the freewill to name all the animals, what about 'choose this day whom you will serve', give me a break Calvin. Ohh, I cant choose to fly, ohh I don’t have the freewill to float in the air, c'mon Calvin.
Remember Calvin a person who is so dead that they cannot do anything good - cannot either do anything bad, so a 'dead' person can neither sin, or do good.
I guess I should stop before I go on a rant.
(I am not addressing any sarcasm at you PapaJ, God bless you, but at Calvin)

[PapaJ]

P. Simmond said on Sat Oct. 6th 12

"Whether or not the phrase ‘free will’ is found in the Bible is irrelevant. The question to ask is whether or not the concept of free will is found in the Bible. You are able to easily say that it’s not there because the way you define free will is not the way most people define free will. Free will does not mean having no limits on what we can choose; of course I can’t choose to be God. And although you stated otherwise, even God has limits on what He can choose. God cannot choose to create a rock so large that He cannot life it. God cannot choose to create a 4-sided triangle.

Like you, I don't think Open Theism offers a satisfactory explanation when it comes to biblical prophecy. However, I don't think you should say people who lean toward Open Theism must not know the Bible well. If you ever read Greg Boyd's work or Clark Pinnock's, you'd know that these men know the Bible very well."

If you read my earlier 8-paragraphs dealing with the subject of ‘Free Will’ (not saying you did or didn’t) you would you understand my conclusions are not based upon “whether or not the phrase ‘free will’ is found in the Bible” irrelevant or not is not my point, its why I try to clarify the difference between human responsibility and the theological theory referenced, using the phrase ‘Free Will.’ You see when you confuse the two concepts you pervert the truth; its like as with the subject of abortion, when you attempt to confuse the identity of a baby by calling it a fetus. Of course I’m defining ‘free will’ different from most people who attempt to make their position more accepting by confusing it with something that can’t be argued against.

Now the 2nd of my bullet points I provided to Singalphile had nothing to do with the subject of Bible Prophecy, but clearly deals with the heart of the subject of free will. God revealing to Cain that he would become the slave to sin if he gave into the anger within. God knew what would happen if Cain continued with what He saw in Cain’s future, and so we see that Cain ignored God’s warning to become a fugitive (a slave to sin) all his life. This is the plight of all mankind unless God does the miracle of regeneration that produces repentance.

Now I did not say ‘free will’ means there are or are not limits in what man can chose; I said that God limits our choices according to His will for us. He limited the choices for Israel and Judah when He sold them into slavery and He decreed they would return to Him, saying He would send forth hunters and fishers to restore them at a future time. And I surely did not say anything about man choosing to be God; I did say that it was a Mormon theological concept to say that God was like man with limited choices.

Now surely you must admit that an argument from hypothetical reasoning proves nothing, of course God can make a rock as big as the universe and like the universe He has decreed that it would move. And the thought of making a 4-sided triangle is contrary to reasoning. He can take a triangle and change its dimensions, but to add a fourth side would only change it to a rectangle. To place His Spirit in us makes us a new creation in Christ, then when we shed this old body designed for this lifetime it is replaced with a new body of flesh and bone, having replaced our dying spirit with His Spirit so we could live eternally with Him. The fact still stands that God is the one who saves us, transforms us then redeems us from this life into His glorious life.

I appreciate your honest perspective to Open Theism; personally I think Biblical prophecy reveals the ability God has to give direction to His creation. Many people who hold to ‘Open Theism’ think God has planned a Millennial Kingdom, a future Rapture, a Great White Throne judgment; to which He guides all the descendants of people living today. On the other end there are people who interpret these concepts to having a spiritualized fulfillment and most of them reject Open Theism, believing God has predestined everything. So the way I see it if Open Theism is inconsistent with Prophecy then you are cutting a large portion of Scripture out of the Bible. Actually this is the problem with many of the popular theories they work with certain Scriptures, but not all.

I’m sorry I made it sound that way, but my reference to people not knowing their Bible very well was to those like Singalphile who said, “I will have to keep reading to understand more” and then say, “Open Theism seems to me, to make sense”, the problem is there are too many people out there who feel they have to choose between the extremes of Calvinism or Open Theism, instead of a more Biblical perspective. So I’m talking about a balance between Augustinian and Progressive Arminianism, remember Augustine did not come up with his own theology; he gleaned much from the most respected Church Father, Athanasius. Augustine became a believer just a few years after Athanasius’ death, and lived a few hundred miles to the west on the same Continent. Augustine’s mentor was very well read on the teachings of Athanasius, as was Augustine. So please don’t blame Augustine for John Calvin’s Institutes or even Calvinism, there was another guy involved that nobody speaks of named Hinerich Henry Bollinger. Now if Calvin wrote his Institutes while in his fifties after years of studying the Scriptures, like Steve Gregg, then I would say he was speaking from experience. [As Steve and I have given testimony to we left the fellowship of Dispensational Baptist, passing through the errors of Smith and MacArthur-ism to get where we are today. The difference is Steve has ended up more Synergistic and I have ended up more Monergistic and I’m hoping we will both challenge each other to think through these differences, the funny thing is we are both the same age.] The fact is Calvin started writing his Institutes while he was in his twenties and honestly the Institutes must have been the conclusions of the old man, Bollinger and John Calvin was like the Apostle Peter’s John Mark.

As for your reference to Greg Boyd or Clark Pinnock, I would place them as equals to Johnny Mac and RC Sproul, at the top of their respected theological systems of thought; the top Dispy and Reformer, a true and a wana-be Calvinist. Well, I think all four of them are the products of their educational institutions and our world of theology would be better off with more men like Steve Gregg and Hank Hanigraff, men who have been willing to be cross taught; examining everything by the Word of Truth. And honestly Boyd and Pinnock are no better than MacArthur and Sproul, all pushing manmade theological systems, not the Bible.

[PapaJ]

by mattrose on Sat Oct 06, 2012 8:22 am

Papa J,
Most of the bullet-points you provided as proofs that God knows the future can be fairly easily explained by open theists. First, any open theist I've read (Pinnock, Boyd, Sanders) knows that God can control what God is going to do in the future, and therefore that future is 'set in stone' so to speak. This observation alone renders most of your points obsolete. Second, some of the bullet points you gave simply demonstrate a cause-and-effect relationship that God has built into the fabric of the world. They are not so much 'prophecies' as 'consequences.' Third, some of the points you raised could be predicted by a being who had ALL the 'present' facts. Certainly God is such a being. Thus, the problem isn't that Open Theists don't read their Bibles like you do, it is that they interpret it differently. Whereas you may find their interpretation of prophecy ridiculous, they may equally find your interpretation of passages where it seems God doesn't know the future as quite convenient.

Papa J’s reply:
Well I would really love to hear your refutation since my points are “fairly easily explained by open theists” or copy a quote from “Pinnock’s, Boyd or Sanders” dealing with any of those bullet-points instead of reading your polite brush off by saying “most of” my points were obsolete and “some of” my points could be predicted by a being (not God) who had all the facts and of course this is my point that the God of Open Theism could actually be one of the Mormon (glorified men) gods. The point I’m making clear in this paragraph is that your reply is like being bush-wacked instead of “iron sharpening iron;” it is only fair since I took the time to list these (from the top of my head) for you to deal with some or most of them so others can judge (like SinglePhile) for themselves, unless you just won’t do the homework. It’s why I posted in an earlier post, “please don’t reply unless you read the entire post,” I’m not here to dish out sass, but to sharpen iron with brothers, I just wish Steve had more free time.

I’m sorry I did not mean to reply that ‘Open Theists don’t read their Bibles’ its people like SinglePhile who are being influenced by ‘Open Theism’ who have not spent 40-years reading and studying the Scriptures. And actually their interpretation of the Scriptures is logical, as is Calvinism if their presupposition was correct. I don’t fault their conclusion, for if I was still dispensational and hardcore against Calvinism, I would have to agree with them, but as Steve and I both reject the Reformation and Dispensational presuppositions, I find the presuppositional theory both groups read the Scriptures through to be ridiculous. I just want to make it clear to people like SinglePhile that it is not possible to interpret Scriptures several different ways, (at least I hope Matt doesn’t think that way) the reason people come to different conclusions has to do with the preconceived ideas they approach the Scriptures with.

Example: Since you brought up prophecy, you possibly believe the ‘Age of Israel was over with the coming of the New Covenant, then you might conclude AD 70 was the only Tribulation Jesus was speaking of in Matthew 24, but the New Covenant came 40-years before AD 70 and according to Bible history the age for the nation of Israel was over with their captivities and (except for Jesus) Israel never ever had a king to rule in the land of Israel. Now if you believed the ‘Age of Israel’ was over some 500 to 800 years before Jesus arrived. And you believed Jeremiah 31:31-34 was correct in predicting the New Covenant, foretelling God’s restoration for the descendants of Israel and Judah, then the Jews (descendants of the house of Judah) being saved at Pentecost and those from nations speaking some 15 different languages; Jews and proselytes were some of the nations where the descendants of the house of Israel were scattered, then Jews and Gentiles (nations) being saved within the New Covenant fulfill Jeremiah 31:31-34. Then you just might conclude that Matthew 24 would be describing the period of time between Jesus departure and return for His followers, instead of spiritualizing Israel the way Calvinist and Steve Gregg do.

Matt Rose continued with:

P. Simmond has already responded well to your statements about free will. You agree that the Bible does teach human responsibility. Free will, rather than being a word we must find in a concordance, is a necessary ingredient to true responsibility. It's built right into the word. Responsibility includes the 'ability' to 'respond.' That is pretty much all the 'free will' doctrine insists upon... and even then it is only under the rubric of God's initiating grace. Free will doesn't include any sort of belief in unlimited choice, as you suggest. We must act within the boundaries of what God allows (what other 'choice' do we have?). Your willingness to use terms like responsibility and choice shows that you don't actually disagree with what the rest of us mean by free will.

Papa J’s reply:
If you read my reply to P. Simmond you would know I was trying to show the distinction between what people think the theory of ‘Free Will’ is and how it is confused with our freedom to make choices. And no it is not “pretty much all the 'free will' doctrine insists upon,” would you please explain to me what you think “the ‘free will’ doctrine is? The point I was making is that we have the freedom to choose between good and evil, right and wrong, blue and green, but the theological doctrine of ‘Free Will’ is about God choosing you and the reaction to the Calvinistic perversion (God choosing the elect to be saved before the earth was created) is that you are the one who chooses to be saved or chooses God.

My conclusion from Scripture is that God’s choosing is evidenced by the Holy Spirit convicting us of sin and if we resist, it would be open rebellion against our Creator, not our freedom to believe or not believe. Now the way ignorant preachers, teachers and Bible students (mindless parrots) present ‘Free Will’ is that it is your choice to believe or not believe, to ask Jesus into your heart because you don’t want to go to hell. The problem with the theological doctrine of ‘Free Will’ is the false gospel that goes with it; that you can be saved because God loves and wants you to come to heaven when you die, this is in contrast to what John 1:13 teaches when John tells us it is not “the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” which is dealing with, the new birth, to be born from above, to be born of God! The true Gospel is that we are sinners separated from God because of our sin and the Good News is that Jesus died for our sins; then we become convinced through the Holy Spirit that we need a savior and that Savior is Jesus. Then somewhere in the midst of all of this we believe Jesus died for our sins and we confess to others that we believe.

Also I did not say anything about, “Free will doesn't include any sort of belief in unlimited choice, as you suggest.” I suggested no such thing! I was arguing for the opposite that our decisions have been limited not unlimited. I was stating what you said, “We must act within the boundaries of what God allows (what other 'choice' do we have?).” Exactly, I could not have said it better in one sentence.

Matt Rose continued with:

Nor do I believe that God can choose what to know. God knows all things. The Open Theism debate, if we may go back to that for a second, is not a debate about whether God knows all things. It is a debate about whether the future is a thing.

Papa J’s reply:
Well I’m not going to play Clinton’s “is” game, the truth is that Clinton was sexually involved with a woman and he tried to play a word game to manipulate the truth, so if God knows all things, He knows the future, whither or not it is “ 'set in stone' ” prophecy. This is the problem when a false presupposition runs into a stone wall that can’t be moved, very intelligent men have to play word games instead of admitting the Avenue they are on is a ‘Dead End’ and they have to turn around.