Calvinism or Arminianism

The New Testament was delivered in letters. Do you think the Apostles gave the right to those they wrote to, to take a piece here and a piece there of what they wanted, and draw doctrine from it? How could one possibly get what the writer is saying except by considering context?

 

Not a Cal, not an Arminian - a BALANCED view

Many Christians, especially “babes in Christ,” or new converts, may have no or little conception of the alleged conundrum between God’s sovereignty and man’s fee will.
When a person says he believes in the “Sovereignty of God,” within the context of soteriology (doctrine of salvation), they generally mean what is defined by the Theological term, Theocentric Determinism. This means “God-centered determination” (i.e., Calvinism). The roots of Theocentric Determinism lie in a very common spiritual belief that everything happens for a divine purpose, or that everything that is, has a sufficient reason for being, and being precisely as it is, and not otherwise, from the foundation of the world.
Roughly speaking, Theocentric Determinism is the idea that every event that has occurred, including human will, cognition and action, was a direct result of and caused by an unbroken “causal chain” of prior divinely determined occurrences and conditions together with the laws by which God governs his creation, or broadly, “cause and effect”. There are no mysterious or wholly random occurrences of events. God has “determined” a purpose and a plan for all events as they have occurred and will occur, and no event happens other than the way God has determined it to be (predestination), even an individual’s choice to believe in Jesus as Savior.
Theologically, the term “free will” is defined many ways, but it is best summed up as Anthropocentric Libertarianism (i.e., Arminianism). This essentially means “man-centered liberty or freedom of will.” God does not assert coercing power over an individual’s will and choices beyond what an individual can resist; this results in individuals being held morally responsible and accountable for their actions. It further implies that the self-caused will can and does control some of the actions and choices of a man’s spiritual consciousness (i.e., accepting or rejecting the Gospel of Jesus Christ and His free gift of salvation).
Anthropocentric Libertarianism is generally held to be the combination of the following beliefs:

• that free will is incompatible with Theocentric Determinism;
• that human beings do possess self-caused and self-determining free will; and
• that Theocentric Determinism is false.

Anthropocentric Libertarians (self-determining free will) subscribe to the belief that states that an action cannot be both “free” and “determined” at the same time. Free choices are ones that could have been different to what they actually were (the ability of ‘contrary choice’). Therefore, this means that there is no “previous cause” prior to the individual freely choosing it; the individual’s will is the originator or determiner of future “causal” actions. The future actions of an individual are known to God (foreknowledge), but an individual’s future actions are not determined by God. The will is self-determining, hence it is a “free-will” and not divinely determined. God does “convict,” but does not “coerce,” the will.
Sovereign Compatibilism is the Theological position that Theocentric Determinism and Anthropocentric Libertarianism are in fact compatible. In other words, God’s Sovereignty and man’s free and responsible will are harmonious in God’s eternal decrees. The Compatibilist believes in the incomprehensible ability of God to exercise control over His creation in general, and people, individually, in such a manner necessary to not violate a person’s morally responsible will while maintaining his Divine Sovereignty over everything for His eternal redemptive purpose. Though an individual acts and chooses of his free and unencumbered will, his choices are known by God and in fact, fulfill precisely His perfect plan and purpose; hence it was determined from a divine perspective, but uncoerced from a human perspective.
This can best be illustrated by the Old Testament story of Joseph and his brothers. The brothers’ jealousy of Joseph was of their own free will. They acted upon their own free will. They changed their minds from casting Joseph into a pit, to instead selling him to passing Midianite traders. Of all the Midianite traders that had gone by their area of their own free will, they sold Joseph to the one that went into Egypt and sold Joseph to the exact person of the Pharaohs’ palace by his free will. We see a“causal chain of events” where each and every person acted of their own free will, yet at the end of the story, we read how Joseph’s brothers meant it for evil, but God meant it for good. We clearly see the Sovereignty of God working harmoniously with the free will of man, not in opposition to it. Yes, God can do all things.

 

Yes some of the New Testament was delivered in letters. I don't see what I stated requires your to reaffirm what is painfully obvious? Could you elaborate on this?

Define what you mean by 'doctrine'?

First off, I don't see where anyone, namely me, is questioning the value of looking at 'text in context' to derive 'literal' meaning of said text but I question the spiritual value of limiting the intended use of such method of expressions to literal meanings especially when the primary subject is one of the spiritual.

Peace.

 

Let me clarify my intentions so I am not misunderstood. I mean you no disrespect. Maybe I did not understand your post. I am just raising the issue that Doctrine as: The Work of Christ, Trinity, Atonement, or any subject that forms a belief system, which all church ages have had, cannot rest on just simply taking a text & forming a belief on that one text, unless that particular text can be shown by the context in which it is found to prove the the truth for which it is cited. Picking out verses to prove any point is dangerous unless the context of the text proves the point which you are trying to make.
For instance, say you use a verse to help a new convert or anyone for that matter in a truth of the Word of God. He runs off of that verse for help. He then comes into contact with someone who apposes the doctrine of say "eternal security". The believer uses the verse you gave him. Upon examination of the context the verse is proved wanting. What footing does he have now? I am just saying that context is very important to founding doctrinal - truths from the Word of God. No offence intended.

 

Like part of Romans 9, a few verses in John 6, one verse in the Psalms, and a couple in Isaiah...etc.

Like that?

 

Thank you for your clarity. Frankly I can find where I disagree with you 'at all'.

Could you share with me what in my post sparked a response from you? I'm at a loss.

Thanks for your kindness in your reply. Very nice.

God Bless.

 

Including the calvinists.

Who's "homework"...God's or man? I would say man.

 

I don't actually know. It appears I must have pretexted a part of what you said. I must have totally misunderstood what you said. My fault!

 

Part of Rom 9? I could present the whole of Rom 9. A few verses from John 6? How about the whole of John's entire letter! Your funny:smilewinkgrin:
Maybe you would like to list your favorite pretexts:tongue3:

 

I would agree with the first part. Calvinist's need to study as well.
Who else would need to do the homework? God already knows all! We never will in this life.
Personally, I don't like the term Calvinist. It seems to muddy up any topic discussed. It just seems to be the way people identify some of what I believe.

 

Not what I meant. We can study God's Word...or the work of men.

 

OK. Got it. But surely your not against studying after men? As long as they lead you in the knowledge of the Word of God? Of course no matter what your persuasion, men are given to error, so you must be given to personal study for sure.

 

You mean like this part of Rom 9:

How do you answer that question? Who is making this protest and why are they protesting?

And I noticed that no one in this thread answered my previous question:

Did the potter influence the clay? Or did he form it?

 

You knew what I was talking about, didn't ya? :smilewinkgrin:

My favorites? Romans 1 though 8, part of 9, all of 10, some of 11, the rest of Romans, one verse in 1 John, all of THE GOSPEL of John, (except for the parts you like), and basically everything that can't be used to prove the 5 points.

I AM JUST KIDDING!!! EVERYONE RELAX!!!

I may not be as smart as a calvinist, but I do love all of the Bible. :tongue3:

 

In the correct knowledge of the Word, no.

Question: Were you saved as a calvinist, meaning, did someone share the Gospel with you stating you might be one of the "elect"? Did you come to this doctrine from reading the Bible FIRST...or reading the works of men first, then saying "...oh yeah, I see where that says..."?

 

Romans 9:31-33 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Yes

 

by "form", calvinists substitute the meaning "create". I do not know of any potter who puts together the minerals and water that it takes to create what we call clay. The clay is already in existence. This is why it's dangerous to create a theological opinion from a simile.

 

Scuze me for butting in, but I can testify that I for one DID NOT get saved reading the bible. I got saved by the preaching of the gospel.

How did the Ethiopian get saved?
Phillip: Do you understand what you're reading?
EU: How can I, except some man should guide me?

So Phillip took the passage (Isaiah 53) and preached unto him Jesus.

 

You had me sweating for a minute, till I got to the end. I thought you went off the deep end.:smilewinkgrin:

 

Can you help me see the connection you're making? What does Israel's lack of faith have to do with the thing formed protesting and questioning the person who formed it?

And what is the implied answer to the question "Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it "Why have you made me like this?".