The Epistomological Impact of an Omnitemporal Eternity on Theological Paradigms.

biblicalthology.com ^ | 2000 | J.W. Carter

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Oh, I understand. I don't really agree. He has foreordained the existence that we find ourselves in. Whether or not he is responsible for all that happens or whether he merely allows what happens is the mystery. Is God pleased at the suffering of starving children? Does God actually starve the children so that his purposes will be fulfilled? Or is this something He would prefer did not happen?

As I said, I'll proceed onto the questions of Theodicy after you acknowledge the obvious implications of Omnitemporal Foreknowledge as it concerns all possible Creations.

I asked a question, and I'm entitled to an honest answer. I'm not interested in proceeding if you are unwilling to acknowledge Jesus' specific words and specific teaching on the subject of Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom; because if you are unwilling to admit the Truth of Jesus' teaching on this subject, you won't be proceeding from a genuinely Biblical foundation.

So, before I proceed to Theodicy, answer the question:

---

Matthew 11: 20 - 27 -- Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. "Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you." At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure. "All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."

So, before all Creation...

• God foreknew Tyre, Sidon and Sodom's free choice NOT TO REPENT in the case of His non-performance of such Miracles; AND
• God foreknew Tyre, Sidon and Sodom's free choice TO REPENT in the case of His performance of such Miracles; AND
• God CHOSE NOT TO PERFORM these Miracles in Tyre, Sidon and Sodom, a choice which had as its perfectly foreknown result the NON-Repentance unto Damnation of Tyre, Sidon and Sodom -- just exactly as He foreknew would be the certain and determinate result of Creating this particular scenario.

---

TRUE or FALSE??

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Just think OP went you leave your abode BODY and enter the spirit world you have a choice where to reside Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom- It will just be a Hover FLOAT over:)

Nope, still incoherent. Care to try yet again?

[restornu]

Are there Freepers who are ex-Calvinists?

YES!!

ex-Calvinists now LDS:)

[drstevej]

What are their screen names?

[restornu]

What are their screen names?

X CALVINIST NOW LDS RESTORNU:)

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Don't you that this is an obsession with OP Tyre and Sidon and Sodom I have hardly read a thread that he hasn't mention it

Of course I keep bringing it up.

If you guys had an answer for it, that would be one thing -- but you never do. It's a perfectly airtight logical syllogism, drawn straight from the express words of Jesus Himself.

It frustrates you, because you can clearly see what Jesus is saying -- and you don't like it one bit.

Which is why I keep bringing it to the table.
Every single time.

;-)

[drstevej]

Explain how you came to become a Calvinist and why you left Calvinism. You certainly show no traces of previous Calvinistic thinking.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

X CALVINIST NOW LDS RESTORNU:).

Nah... you were never Calvinist, you just attended a... what was it, Presbyterian USA church? As if PCUSA were Calvinist in any sense of the word... that's just silly.

In order to renounce Calvinism, you would've had to have a rationale for explaining away the absolute-predestinarian implications of Matthew 11:20-27.

But, you don't have any such rationale. (Of course)

[P-Marlowe]

Was the crucufuxion purposed or merely allowed?

It was purposed.

Was the crucifixion evil?

It was certainly meant to be by those who performed it, however, I believe that it was not evil, it was the epitomy of Good.

Were those who crucified Him responsible for their evil action?

No. That is the one sin that no one will ever be charged with. Jesus said "Father forgive them for they know not what they do." Hence that sin was not charged to anyone, hence only God is responsible.

Was the crucifixion an evil action on God's part?

Other than Jesus, who himself purposed to be crucified for "good", who was "harmed" by it? No one! Thus it cannot be said that the crucifixion was in any way an "evil" act. That's why its called "Good Friday." (although there is a strong body of evidence for it happening on Thursday)

I'm talking about the painful and horrific deaths of children around the world who die in bombings, fires, floods, who starve to death, who linger with cancer. Does God actually "purpose" those calamities, or does God merely allow those to occur inasmuch as his "purpose" is "ultimately" achieved?

_{Whose cruel idea was it for the word "lisp" to have an "s" in it? -- Steven Wright}

[P-Marlowe]

I would have to agree that it is highly improbable that someone who understood the doctrines of Calvinism and believed them would ever convert to Mormonism.

_{How come abbreviated is such a long word? -- Steven Wright}

[drstevej]

Pardon the absence of the obligatory quote in my last post to you.


A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory.
-- Steven Wright

[ppaul]

Here's a great link for ya:

Mars Hill

[P-Marlowe]

For purposes of further discussion I will admit your premise.
True.
Now explain your answers to "questions of Theodicy."

THE THEOLOGY OF TOYS:

Capitalism - He who dies with the most toys, wins.
Hari Krishna - He who plays with the most toys, wins.
Judaism - He who buys toys at the lowest price, wins.
Catholicism - He who denies himself the most toys, wins.
Anglican - They were our toys first.
Greek Orthodox - No, they were OURS first.
Branch Davidians - He who dies playing with the biggest toys, wins.
Mormonism - Every boy may have as many toys as he wants.
7th Day Adventist - He who plays with his toys on Saturday, loses.
Church of Christ - He whose toys make music, loses.
Amish - Toys with batteries are surely a sin.
Baptist - Once played always played.
Church of Christ, Scientist - We are the toys.
Jehovah's Witnesses - He who "places" the most toys door-to-door, wins.
Pentecostalism - He whose toys can talk, wins.
Non-denominationalism - Does it really matter where the toys came from?
Communism - Everyone gets the same number of toys.
Confucianism - Once a toy is dipped in water, it is no longer dry.
Voodoo - Let me borrow that doll for a second...
Hedonsim - Hang the rule book! Let's play!
Atheism - There is no toy maker.
Polytheism - There are many toy makers.
Evolutionism - The toys made themselves.
Existentialism - Toys are a figment of your imagination.
Baha'i - All toys are just fine with us.
Taoism - The doll is as important as the dump truck.

Finally, Calvinism - He who has the most toys was predestined to have them.

[restornu]

I was a member for 8 years of a predestination Presbyterian.

[restornu]

Presbyterian
COVENANT PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, 810-772-9639
19300 STEPHENS DRIVE, EASTPOINTE MI 48021

[CubicleGuy]

Mormonism - Every boy may have as many toys as he wants.

Not any more. ;-)

Therefore, it came to pass that the Mormon "toy theology" statement did stand in need of replacement, for, verily, the existing statement doth reflect only the smallest part of LDS theology according to the traditions of the fathers.

Wherefore, I, CubicleGuy, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I make an attempt to formulate a toy theology statement which accurately reflects the theology of the LDS Church during my days.

Mormonism - bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of the next generation of toy makers.

[CubicleGuy]

If you guys had an answer for it, that would be one thing -- but you never do.

The trick is that at that very moment, the inhabitants of Tyre and Sidon and Sodom were waiting, as spirits in prison, for Jesus to preach to them and every other person who had ever lived on the planet and who had never had the opportunity to hear and receive the gospel message (1 Peter 3:20, 1 Peter 4:6, Isaiah 42:7, John 5:25, 1 Corinthians 15:29, 1 Corinthians 15:29).

Despite the wickedness of those cities of the past, a merciful God was preparing to send His Son to them that they might yet repent, and that "the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live".

[CubicleGuy]

Oops: that should be 1 Corinthians 15:19 and 15:29.

[restornu]

Mark 8: 35
35 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel’s, the same shall save it.


http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/p/r/praisegf.htm

[jude24]

Weren't these some of the same arguments I made a year ago when I was an anti-Calvinist?

I was reading J.I. Packer's Evangelism and the Soverignty of God last night. In the opening chapters, he very briefly argues for God's soverignty in salvation (probably setting up the basis of his assumptions for the rest of the book. Crashed before I could finish it-- 4hrs of sleep just isnt quite enough.) The thrust of his argument is that even Arminians and anti-calvinists demonstrate God's soverignty over salvation in spite of their beliefs when they pray for His intervention in the lives of unsaved friends and relatives.

I wonder if a lot of the negative reaction Calvinism receives is due to the biased/inaccurate presentation of that the educational establishment has propegated about it. 5 years ago, I was a sophomore in a public high school where I was quite outspoken about Christianity. In social studies, when we reached the subject of Calvin, the teacher (who was usually fair) represented it as teaching that the church should only be concerned about the elite elect (or something like that). Of course, someone in the class shouted across the room, "Tim, are you a Calvinist?", and at that time (as indeed, now) I was. (My anti-calvinist phase didnt start for another couple of months, and ended about last August or September). I had to say yes, but how do you explain the nuances of what it actually teaches to a bunch of people who don't even know the thrust of the gospel, let alone systematic theology?