Calvinism vs. DoG??

Reprobation is synergistic.

Salvation is monergistic.

 

At least you are inconsistent.

Based on your other thread, if God is not in control of EVERYTHING, He is not sovereign. Are you saying He is not sovereign over reprobation?

 

Of course He didn't lie...you just don't understand comparing the physical to the spiritual is wrong.

 

I understand the above.

Implying a misrepresentation of what others believe is (and has been for many years), an inherent part of Calvinists (Doctrines of Grace) theology. I don't expect it to change even thought it is not very considerate of others. However, I considerate it a weakness in any theology that finds it necessary to imply a misrepresentation of another theology.

My point is that Calvinists should not be surprised when Non-Calvinists sometimes resent Calvinists when they continue to imply a misrepresentation of Non-Calvinists beliefs.

 

The bible uses natural death to illustrate spiritual death. This is wholly consistent with the way the entire bible works, using the natural to illustrate the spiritual. If God meant that a person were merely sick or incapacitated instead of dead, He would have used a different term. Instead He used the term dead to refer to man prior to regeneration. Speaking of regeneration, God uses not only that term but the term quicken (to make alive), pretty much telling us what He meant by dead.

 

Well, if what you say is true, death is the ending of life, and to be consistent in this usage you cannot hold to Augutine's original sin.

Of course I disagree the Bible uses the exact comparison, but rather the meaning behind separation and from what / whom.

 

Self salvationist ring a bell?

 

OK then I will continue to repeat this. For 11 Bucks, Go out & buy the book "The Doctrines of Grace" by James Boice & Phil Ryken...its in paperback & then non-cals will have at their fingertips all they need to know. A small investment if its your desire to understand. Let it be your Christmas Reading.

Besides, I dont see this Resentment you seem to keep implying we have for people who are not of the Reformed Standard. You havent seen me attack anyone except to shoo off someone that I believe had repeatedly attacked me. Rather Im commanded to love my Brothers & Sisters in Christ....even to show love for my enemy.

 

By using the term the Doctrines of Grace to describe Calvinism implying that Non-Calvinists do not believe in God's free grace as much as Calvinists do.. See post #80.

Many Calvinists also imply that Non-Calvinists do not believe in God being sovereign as much as Calvinists do. All Christians believe God is completely sovereign.

 

Not trying to be rude brother—but have you ever even opened a theology book to see the opposing viewpoints on these ideas? Or all these just ideas you’ve come up with b/c of your personal interpretation of Scripture? Just curious—b/c when Scripture is considered as a whole-- it’s a lil more complex than you make it.

 

Sure, death implies separation. But death necessitates the absence of life. You do not have death where you have life. If a person is death in a natural sense, that means the body is without life. Yes, there is a separation involved, but the absence of life is the necessary requirement for death.

Death doesn't mean ending of life, but absence of life. We speak of inanimate objects. These are dead object, they lack life.

When a person is dead spiritually, the meaning is they lack spiritual life. Quickening is the Lord imparting this spiritual life to the person. If you weren't dead you wouldn't need to be given life.

 

Gabriel,

I am not "throwing my hat in the ring" with the aforementioned. But I do hope that and assume that you are not saying biblical interpretation is only for the professional bible scholars, arent the Catholic brothers and sisters somewhat accused of this. Yes, I agree with you, there are "competing" views with regard to biblical interpretation, that is primarily what happens on this board. I am not certain about "it being a bit more complex than that". Unless of course, God only wants those with years of theological training to understand the essence of Him and His message. In fact, I think it is prudent to say, yes it is that simple. All spoken in love without malice of any sort.

 

Yay, is that twice we have found ourselves in agreement. Perhaps I am confused again though. :thumbs::thumbs:

 

I am not certain Luke, but I am getting "this feeling" that this is violating some rule of logic. And I know your love for logic, as I have one also. At the moment, my thinking is not "deep" enough to "unravel" it.

 

By using the "self-salvationist" label.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by drfuss
By using the term the Doctrines of Grace to describe Calvinism implying that Non-Calvinists do not believe in God's free grace as much as Calvinists do.. See post #80.

TC: I agree that could be understood in that way. By using almost any term to apply these issues to ourselves may tend to imply the other person does not have what we claim to have.

drfuss: How about using 'Unconditional Election" or "Irresistible Grace" which would be more descriptive and explicit.


TC: However my question was intended to deal with more than implications. I was asking how Calvinists misstate what Arminians believe.

drfuss: Some Calvinists have called NonCalvinists "Free-Willers" and have said that Non-Calvinist depend on themselves for their salvation. However, these may not be the majority of Calvinists.


Quote: drfuss
Many Calvinists also imply that Non-Calvinists do not believe in God being sovereign as much as Calvinists do. All Christians believe God is completely sovereign.

TC: Well, yes and no. But I will concede that most Christians, and certainly the vast majority participating in this thread, accept the Sovereignty of God, with the stipulation that the only limits placed on God are His own Self-limits.

drfuss: Well now that is refreshing. I can't remember seeing a Calvinists make that conciliatory a statement on BB; but then I stopped, a long time ago, following and participating in the Calvinist debates on BB.
__________________

 

If we are defining death under physical means, let's use a medical dictionary...

Death: 1. The end of life. The cessation of life.

Using "dead" in regards to inanimate objects is merely anthropomorphism. Nobody I know says a stone is "dead" or a toy is "dead". A log is dead...but...that is because it was alive at one point and it's life ended. Absence of life is the result of dying, not the definition of it.