(August 1, 2016 at 4:53 pm)bleitzel Wrote: @ RobbyPants: Calvinism is pretty tough. I don't think it's fair to say it's the most intellectually honest version of Christianity. It's more akin to Islam. The God of the Bible acts within time, reacts to humanity. He seems to be taken by surprise sometimes and other times changes his mind. I know may Christians would gasp at this, but not every Christina in the world is a Rhodes Scholar (or even reads the Bible).
I would agree that the Christian God has the characteristics of omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience. But look at the normal definitions of those 3: Being all places at all times, the ability to do anything he wishes, and the knowledge of all things.
I'll start with omnipotence. Omnipotence does not mean the doer of all things, it means the ability to do anything he wishes (within the limits of ration meaning he can't create a rock heavy enough for him not to be able to lift, that's just a logic problem not a physical limitation). Omnipotence means God can create a world or not, it's up to him.
Likewise, omnipresence means the ability to be all places or none, to a greater or lesser degree. We don't suppose God is here in our Earth to the same degree he is in Heaven. His glory isn't fully displayed here as it is in Heaven. Likewise, it may be entirely void in Hell.
So why then do we say his omniscience must mean he knows all things? I think it's just because we didn't think big enough. If God's omnipotence means he can do anything he wants to do, then why must he know everything? Why can he not choose not to know some things? For consistency, shouldn't the Christina God's omniscience be defined as the ability to anything he chooses to know?
Sorry to go off on a tangent, but the Muslims believe Allah does all things and is in full control. Calvinism is closer to that theology than the Christianity of the Bible in that regard. Now, in regards to the source material, if there's any specific material you'd like to discuss?
To elaborate, most Christians I've talked to tend to have contradictory views of what they believe about God and stuff like free will and God's will. The two versions seem to manifest when talking to other Christians or talking to skeptics. When talking to skeptics, the theology gets fairly complex. Basically, the three omnis get described similarly to how you did. Free will becomes an important factor in the reason why god sandbags most of the time.
Where it gets different is when I listen to Christians talk to each other when they don't feel like they need to explain their theology to skeptics. Suddenly, free will goes right out the door. God's will is invoked when talking about "mysterious" things, and people thank God for things entirely composed of human decisions! I mean, I get thanking God for curing cancer or something, but it makes no sense to thank God for getting a particular job. All of the decisions made to hire someone are made by people with free will. Everything's always in God's hands... until some skeptic starts poking around, asking hard questions.
Now, I'm not saying you hold those two views simultaneously, but I'm speaking from my own experience with people I know in person and people I've talked to. Calvinists tend not to do this, because they have different views on free will. I'm assuming Romans 9 has a lot to do with it.
