The Evangelical Universalist Forum

A submission against Calvinism

Theology
#1

So as I keep thinking and reading about Universalism in contrast to the two other major positions, I get these lightbulbs coming on that turn out to be ideas that have been around a long time and well written and discussed by others. Reassuring actually.

I wanted to submit a challenge to Calvinism for the response of the forum because you all are so far ahead of me in the knowledge of whats been written by so many great authors and thinkers in these areas. Can you point me to someone who has explored or explained the following:

There are two passages where Jesus marvelled. One was Matt 8:10 where Jesus marvelled or was amazed at the unbeleif of certain people. The other was Mark 6:6 where Jesus marvelled at the faith of the Centurion.

Doesn’t this create significant problems for the Calvinist if faith and unbelief have been predetermined? It would seem that if predestination is true, the last thing Jesus should ever be is surprised by human response to God.

#2

Im not a calvanist per se, though I agree with some of their points, especially that faith is given not taken by willpower. What I will say is this, and Im sure youll wanna burn me at the stake, Christ is not God. He was the Son of God. He is the image of God, but not God Himself. Therefor He does not know whom God has chosen and whom has not to be given faith in this eon without a display of their faith. But Christ does know that only God is the one who draws John 6:44.

The point being is this though. Christ was acting and being moved in the moment. Just because we know the rain is sent by God doesnt mean we dont react and turn on our windshield wipers. Likewise just because Christ knows only God gives faith, doesnt mean He isnt marveled,in the moment (reacting), by the unbelief.

#3

Thanks for your reply. Without getting sidetracked on the nuances of Christs divinity, to the point at hand, was not Christ fully aware of the irresistability of Gods sovereign choice if that in fact was the plan he was operating in? It would seem to me the extent or severity of anyones faith or unbelief would be to Jesus as inconsequential as the splendor of the temple the disciples tried to impress Him with. Greatness of faith and unbelief should only matter if there is actually something at stake or if the fate of something hangs in the balance. If the faith and unbeleif are predetermined and Jesus was fully aware of this predeterminiation by the Father, then his being surprised seems out of congruity with those realities.

Furthermore, Jesus went into that town to heal and found his efforts (His will) confounded by their unbelief (thier will).

1 Like
#4

I wonder if Open Theists refer to such passages in support of their viewpoint. It is a perspective i am considering as to its Scriptural merits.

#5

I looked into open theism when you suggested I look at other points of view. To me I still find their reasoning of prophecy as impractical. They pretty much make it an educated guess by God collecting all the data He has available. Which really cant apply to very specific prophecies like Judas betraying Christ. To me it limits God to knowing only what has happened because it doesnt want to admit the sovereignty and/or the foreknowledge of God. Or in other words it has to limit God to ignore both of those possibilities because they dont want to deal with the tougher questions posed against free will as to “if God knows,how can it be any way other than whats foreknown” and the like.

To me its scriptual merits end where prophecy, especially very particular prophecy, begin.

#6

Love Omnipotent isn’t guessing when He declares all will be saved. He’ll make it so.

Again, He made it so. He is Sovereign.

#7

that wasnt what I was referencing when refuting open theism.

This isnt what open theism states. Nor free will. Both state not only COULDNT God know what was going to happen in the future (open theism) because it was future when the time the prophecy was made.But also that HE isnt the one who made it happen either because Judas had a free will to do what he wanted.

Or in other words God cant have made a prophecy about judas betrayal because it hadnt happened yet and open theism states God does not know what has not yet happened. Hell he couldnt even have known about how much He would sell Christ for, which is foretold in the prophecy. HELL he couldnt even know that judas would even be born. Or that betrayal would be the means of Christ being turned over.

Theres WAY too many verses of Gods foreknowledge in the bible to take open theism seriously. Much less predicting so precisely that Christ would be sold for 30 pieces of silver based on some sort of “educated guess” based on “previous data analysis”. Or any prophecy for that matter.

and also “he made it so,he is sovereign” flies in the face of free wills argument. Did judas have a choice or not? Could he have chosen otherwise or “did God make it so”. You cant have it both ways.

It seems like free willers incite “sovereignty” to explain certain things but then ignore it as being true in all other cases. And it seems open theist want to limit Gods knowledge to only the present or past to back up the notion of free will. But they cannot hold up against many verses of scripture.

God is sovereignly moving His creation to enact His intentions. having mercy upon whom He has mercy and likewise hardening who He is hardening. Like pharaoh raising people up for HIS causes. And God knows His intentions before they are done so He can accurately prophesi about things to come BECAUSE He is the subjector who brings them about according to His plan.

Open theism and free will is basically saying “eh Gods just kinda winging it, He didnt have a well written plan before creation. He didnt know how itd turn out. He just kinda created it and then just became a deist diety.”

#8

There are different views in Open Theism. God could know universalism in advance because He’ll make it happen. Like any other prophetic statement.

God is Sovereign. He can over ride freewill. Scripture says Judas had Satan enter him. God could have commanded & forced Satan to do so. And the betrayal that ensued.

In Open Theism what God can’t do is foreknow freewill decisions before they occur. So He doesn’t know who will, in this life, receive or reject Christ. He doesn’t have a pre selected set of individuals He has chosen to become Christians in this eon. Just whosoever will.

#9

Im not talking about universalism. So where is judas’ free will in this?

Then the choice wasn’t made by Judas. Will he be judged for it? And if this is so why is it can’t be the case that all things are working from the counsel of Gods will?

This i agree with as per job and God sending decieving spirits in revelations. But then one must agree that God is using evil to enact His purposes. In which case what other reason is there to uphold lfw if one is admitting, correctly so, that God uses evil for His purposes? Can He not do so in all cases of evil, that being working out a greater intention of good? As per job, Judas, and jospeh?

Romans 8:29 and Ephesians 1:4 goes against that whole theory… “and no one can come to the Son UNLESS the father who has sent Him DRAWS them?”.

Again it just doesn’t hold merit when tested in scripture.

#10

Why would he be judged for something for which he is not responsible? Yet in your theology God causes all the wicked things humans & demons do & then judges & chastises them for what He caused them to do.

#11

Consequently, then, to whom He will, He is merciful, yet whom He will, He is hardening." [19]You will be protesting to me, then, "Why, then, is He still blaming? for who has withstood His intention? [20] O man! who are you, to be sure, who are answering again to God? That which is molded will not protest to the molder, "Why do you make me thus? [21] Or has not the potter the right over the clay, out of the same kneading to make one vessel, indeed, for honor, yet one for dishonor?

REALLY look at these verses. Its stating two things

  1. God is in control
  2. He has the right to judge those whom He has made vessels of dishonor

And you are protesting the same as the person saying "then why is he still judging, for who has withstood His intentions. They understood the first part of the statement,That God is/has making them vessels of dishonor.

To which Ill agree with Paul here:
O man! who are you, to be sure, who are answering again to God?

seems you think you should be counsel to God.
“Hey God, dont you think since you made them that way you shouldnt judge them or maybe let them make their own choices ?”

At least Gods merciful in punishment in His judgement and the second death. I dont hold to some notion that when theyre dead theyre actually alive in anguish in some spiritual reformatory school (aka purgatory).

#12

And yet Scripture says Pharoah hardened his own heart.

Yet man is not a pot and men do protest to God with words such as that. And if God is making them protest to Himself, then it is really God protesting about Himself through His puppet show. Why would God want to diss Himself like that.

#13

relative view. Come on. You know, having studied and once believing it, knew the answer.

Pharoah hardened his heart-relative view
God hardened pharoahs heart- absolute view

Obviously Im not saying man is literally a pot. Thats a strawman. Its a metaphor. Showing the relationship of God being the molder of men. This is hardly a rebuttal. Men can protest it however much they want. Doesnt change it. One can protest that a duck is a goose but it doesnt make the duck a goose just because they protest it in some kind of manner. (i read it '“men do not protest to God with words such as that” at first. Sorry)

Again relative and absolute.

You keep adding to the post but the answers remain the same.

relative/absolute. Vessels of honor being made and vessels of dishonor. For contrast and His purposes.

#14

Open theism seems to be a response to the difficulty in comprehending and reconciling Gods ability to know everything to come and yet hold us accountable for what we do, and stand by while evil persists.

I would simply say I can accept absolute foreknowledge as a matter of faith but it still bends my brain and creates logical traps. However I would also say Gods absolute forknowledge is not a necessity when absolute power and absolute love exist in its place.
If His creation goes awry, the Creator has the absolute power to repair it and that repair will be consistent with His supreme love.

Thats not to say the absence of absolute foreknowledge means no foreknowledge or even highly limited foreknowledge. It can be a vast and incomprehensible forknowledge from our perspective, yet not totally absolute. This doesn’t have to mean God is diminished does it?

Or, what if in order to make His love authentic, He chooses not to know certain things to come but rather respond as choices present themselves?

1 Like
#15

And for another view:

Lists of verses supporting libertarian free will (LFW):

“5 ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF FREE WILL”:

“What is the biblical basis for free will?”:

“freewill as taught in scripture”:

#16

Very helpful! Thanks.