LPC

Unless you take away God’s foreknowledge completely you have a God who molds the clay knowing whether it is heading to unspeakable glory or unspeakable wrath. Wouldn’t it be better for him to just stop molding right then and there on some of us? Yet he doesn’t. Whether he determines, or he allows, it is all the same if he knows. You have to find an allowance for that in the Bible and work it into a theology, regardless of the system you choose.

I don’t have time to reply to such a substantive post at the moment. I just have one question: Why should I think that the concept of foreknowledge is the same thing as predestination is the same thing as determinism? As you say, ‘call it what you like’; I assume you mean they’re all different names for the same thing. But that sort of claim needs an argument.

You might be interested in an article at the following website called “A Christian Approach to the Philosophy of Time”: http://www.uky.edu/~dbradsh.

It might be easier to understand if you also read the article, “The Concept of the Divine Energies.”

“Your God is my devil.”

If god is the author of sin, and has out of his sovereignty elected to send millions to hell without the possibility of redemption, then I must say, such a god sounds like the devil.

For consistent Calvinists it comes down to all doesn’t mean all. The world is not the world. Love isn’t love.

The god of Calvinism becomes, like Satan, a liar and a murderer. He says that he desires that all be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth, but he eternally elects the vast majority to hell anyway.

The answer to theodicy is the cross. God allows suffering, but more than that He suffers. He dies. He destroys death. And suffering will end for all who trust in Him.

God uses all things for the good of those who love him, and for this reason the brother of our Lord encourages us to rejoice in our sufferings.

God is God enough to save people through suffering, to use it to draw them to Himself. In a world where God is God, even suffering (which is evil) can be used for divine mercy.

It’s also interesting the way he uses Scripture in James, “God doesn’t tempt anyone…PERIOD”. I guess don’t bother harmonizing passages in the OT where God is testing Israel by setting snares in front of them, or testing people’s hearts. Amos 3:6 “Does disaster come to a city, unless the Lord has done it?” He doesn’t even sink his teeth into a text, he just gums on a few one-liners.

I keep thinking, “unbiblical”? Is that what he called Piper when he’s just as, if not more one-dimensional on this issue? I’m let down actually. This has been the most one-dimensional take on the whole issue, I’d rather have Piper’s theology called devilish than just slobbered on by this guy.

First, I was not totally clear in what I stated, and may never be. Nevertheless, I will make another attempt at it. When I stated “…I am only a determinist from God’s perspective.”, I did not attempt to put myself in the place of God. Rather, because I do not understand Deity other than from how Deity has revealed Himself within a material universe, from an psycho-anthropomorphic perspective, with human language, I can concede that it is possible for God to exist within, outside of, before and after time, simultaneously. If that be true, then obviously eternity is as clear to Deity as the present and past. Though Jesus limited Himself while on earth, The Father never did. Therefore, whether you call it(?) foreknowledge, predestination or determinism makes little difference to me.

Second, I do believe in some sense that humankind has free choice within space and time, but not necessarily within eternity.

Third, Christ (Who is God) does declare Himself to be the end of the law (Rom 10:4).

Finally, we can only know God to the extent that He has revealed Himself to us. This I can believe, though I cannot fully comprehend it.

The enigma surrounding predestination and free will is much the same as the incarnation. It is the coexistence of deity and humanity, the ability to choose and the chosen;

We are largely limited by what we can conceptualize and analyze. There may be concepts which are articulated clearly, but, since a person may not at that time be capable of understanding them, they appear as contradictory, random, and foolish. Though I enjoy complex, contrapuntal music, once it gets beyond my cognitive abilities, it , though very mathematical and complex, is the same to me as chance music (That is why 12 tone music is so inaccessible to most people). Much of our understanding of Theological concepts or the lack thereof, falls in this category.

Clear? Probably not.

I have studied theology and consequently like many on this blog, I have strong feelings about what ideas are “biblical” and what aren’t. I often encounter theological viewpoints about which I think, “That is not just wrong, that is diabolical.” And I have come to realize that some other people, (even probably some nice people who are good to their children) feel the same way about my views.

It is sometimes a short step from, “I find those views to be both unbiblical and diabolical” to “People who hold those views are outside of the kingdom of God, because they hold those views.” I think that BWIII does not take that step, nor do I think that Roger Olsen did. I think that Rick Phillips may have.

I struggle for theological humility and one of the ways I do this is by working to never let myself take that step. If I ever do I depend on those around me to call me back. I am reminded that Jesus teaches, “I have sheep you don’t even know about.” How could I be so bold as to cast another out of the fold because they have studied one of the greatest mysteries of human experience and come to different conclusion.

Thanks be to God

Peace of Christ,

John