I don't see how I could go wrong, do you?

Discussion in 'Calvinism/Arminianism Debate' started by Skandelon, Dec 17, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    OPTION 1: If I, as a non-Calvinistic believer, am wrong about my soteriology, then I could only be wrong because God so decreed it, right? God must have decided, for His own secret self-glorifying purposes, not to grant me enough grace to see my error and adopt Calvinism. So, if I am in error then I'm in error by God's unchanging divine decree and it ultimately must be a decision God made for his highest glory. Right so far? Or not? If not, then do you affirm the contra-causal free choice of believers?

    OPTION 2: If, however, I am right and Calvinism is false, then I have judged the Word of God correctly as a 'response-able' free moral agent and I would be defending the truth of God's glory against false Calvinistic teaching. And the Calvinists, also as free moral agents, would be held responsible for their errors.

    CONCLUSION: So, my conclusion is that non-Calvinism is the best position to hold, because you really can't go wrong either way given that in either option I'm fulfilling the highest purpose of bringing God the greatest amount of Glory. However, if you, as a Calvinist, are wrong; just consider the damage, disunity and potential consequences of your error in distracting from God's glory and His gracious provisions for the entire world.

    Is that conclusion logically incorrect? If so, how so? Be specific.
     
    #1 Skandelon, Dec 17, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 18, 2013
  2. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,548
    Likes Received:
    273
    I'm not 'predestinarian' as you would paint all DoGs, but I do somewhat agree with the above in that it is indeed a gift to be shown and to know these precious truths from the scriptures. Thank you LORD. I don't know why you're stuck at the low level you're at, I'm just glad I'm not you. Not being sarcastic or facetious in the least, this is genuinely my thoughts on this.
     
  3. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually as coming to faith as a non cal (as we all do...ironically), then a cal, and now back to non cal...how does that fit into #1? What did Jesus say about a house divided? ;)
     
  4. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    He was a cal at one point and repented of his error, so at no point was he ever stuck at any level. God must have had one strange plan.

    He would be 'stuck at the low level he is at' due to God's design, so why should you be glad His decree concerning you is different from him? If I'm a determinist I would be glad for Gods plan for everyone.
     
    #4 webdog, Dec 18, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 18, 2013
  5. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,548
    Likes Received:
    273
    I don't know what 'brand' of Calvinism he held to, or if there were some very hateful characters within that 'brand' that drove him away, but he sure manages to often misrepresent Calvinism as I understand it. Some of them must have done some very bad things to him for him to carry the grudge or the obsession or whatever it is that he does.
     
  6. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    You sound like he had the contra-causal free will to choose otherwise :)
     
  7. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    ........wow, try to get some honest feedback on a recent point brought up in a discussion (which certainly seems valid if contra-causal freedom is in question) and this is the level of banter you get in response? This is one of the most personally demeaning bullying type comments I've heard in a while.

    Revealing and sad...
     
  8. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    lol

    ...and that is the point! The very existence of forums like this only go to validate contra-causal free will.
     
  9. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. As I've quoted before, Calvinists are seriously divided among themselves and always have been. There is Supralapsarianism vs. Sublapsarianism vs. Infralapsarianism. 'The Supralapsarians hold that God decreed the fall of Adam; the Sublapsarians, that he permitted it' (McClintock & Strong). The Calvinists at the Synod of Dort were divided on many issues, including lapsarianism. The Swiss Calvinists who wrote the Helvetic Consensus Formula in 1675 were in conflict with the French Calvinists of the School of Saumur. There are Strict Calvinists and Moderate Calvinists, Hyper and non-Hyper (differing especially on reprobation and the extent of the atonement and whether God loves all men), 5 pointers, 4 pointers, 3 pointers, 2 pointers. In America Calvinists were divided into Old School and the New School. As we have seen, the Calvinists of England were divided in the 19th century.

    Whenever, therefore, one tries to state TULIP theology and then refute it, there are Calvinists who will argue with you that you are misrepresenting Calvinism. It is not so much that you are misrepresenting Calvinism, though. You might be quoting directly from various Calvinists or even from Calvin himself. The problem is that you are misrepresenting THEIR Calvinism! There are Calvin Calvinists and Thomas Fuller Calvinists and Arthur W. Pink Calvinists and Presbyterian Calvinists and Baptist Calvinists and many other sorts of Calvinists. Many Calvinists have never read Calvin’s Institutes of Christian Religion for themselves. They are merely following someone who follows someone who allegedly follows Calvin (who, by his own admission, followed Augustine).

    Calvinists believe that they have the right to reject or modify some parts of or conclusions of Calvin. I agree with them 100%, and I say, further, that we also have the right to reject the entire thing if we are convinced that it is not supported by Scripture!


    You are reading a nefarious intent into my posts because we happen to disagree soteriologically. The fact is that my best friend is Calvinistic and so is my older brother, along with many other close friends I work with on a regular basis. We get along quite well. Maybe you missed it, but this is a DEBATE forum created for the purpose of DEBATING these issues.

    How about you stick to the purpose and not make this personal as that is against the rules, and thus sinning, while I'm acting in accordance with the purposes and rules. So, who needs the rebuke here?
     
  10. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,116
    Likes Received:
    206
    The problem with this kind of rationale is very simple. Your whole line of reasoning is that God is to blame for your sin. According to this line of reasoning you could put adultery, murder, or any other sin in the place of theological error and make God the author of your sins.

    This line of reasoning does not represent our position at all but it does represent the straw man position you want to attribute to us.

    The gnat in your ointment is that we beleive God decrees all sin permissively (Psa. 76:10) in conjunction with full accountability by the sinner wherein the choice to sin is also the choice to forfeit ability to please God - Rom. 5:12-19; 8:7-8.
     
  11. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,126
    Likes Received:
    320
    Yes, possibly incorrect as you may not have all the information in one or both of your options.

    You have drawn a conclusion from two options which IMO do not fully explain the mind of God and in fact the scripture declares we can't know anyway:

    Isaiah 55
    8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
    9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.​

    Ecclesiastes 8:17 Then I beheld all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun: because though a man labour to seek it out, yet he shall not find it; yea further; though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it.​

    So I believe we can say from these two scriptures that neither Calvin or Arminius had the complete answer though they laboured to seek it out they found it not (which is not to say they were reprobate).​

    True, we now have the complete revelation from God but the present confusion and divisions both inter and intra-camp of these human theologies prove we are no better off now than when these two scriptures above (and there are others) were given.

    My advise for what it's worth or needed: Relax, forget the writings of Calvin and Arminus (at least for a season), trust God, and walk in the free gift of the salvation He has given us through Christ the son of God, Jesus Christ, God the son come in the flesh.​

    Psalm 46:10 Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth.​

    Revelation 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.​

    Revelation 21:6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.​

    HankD
     
    #11 HankD, Dec 18, 2013
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2013
  12. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    I believe that God is Sovereign over all of His Creation. That being said if you have some distorted view of the Doctrines of Grace I do not believe you can blame it on God.
     
  13. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    That is correct.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
  14. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Err... umm... because "that" is the part of the universe over which God is not sovereign??
     
  15. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,116
    Likes Received:
    206
    No response yet?
     
  16. Winman

    Winman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    0
    Simply denying a logical conclusion of Calvinism does not make the problem go away. Some Calvinists have been bold enough to admit that Calvinism is illogical and ridiculous

    At least some Calvinists are bold enough to admit their system is foolish and illogical.

    Simply saying, "We don't say God is the author of sin." does not negate the logical conclusions of Calvinism, just as a thief who was videotaped robbing a store who claims he never did it, doesn't negate that he actually committed the crime.

    But if you try hard enough, you can rationalize away anything.
     
    #16 Winman, Dec 18, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 18, 2013
  17. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not blaming God for being the author of sin, I'm blaming a SYSTEM for teaching things that lead to that erroneous conclusion. I understand that Calvinists would never say God is the author of sin, but in the same breath some would say he decrees the sinful desires of men (i.e. 'He decrees whatsoever comes to pass'), so what else are we to conclude? Authoring sin seems mild in comparison to unchangeably decreeing the sinful desires and thus choices and actions of men.

    I also realize different Calvinists approach this at different degrees. Luke is a hard determinist, for example, where as you seem more mainstream and balanced in your approach.

    Not all Calvinists actually believe that God merely permits evil as evidence on this very forum several times.

    Nevertheless, how does that work exactly in your worldview? Does man originate the evil desire and then God comes to know of it after man originates it? Or did God know it prior to man originating it, thus meaning it actually began or originated in the mind of God rather than man?

    I have my 'theories' about this (which is basically an appeal to mystery), but I'm curious as to your approach as compared to some others I've discussed this with over the years.

    So, in the case of my rejection of Calvinism. Is God merely permitting me to remain in my 'ignorance' or 'stubbornness' and choosing to withhold from me some measure of grace given to you and the other enlightened children?

    How are you supposing this works and how has what I've stated misrepresented what you really believe has happened?
     
  18. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    That is very gracious of you!
     
  19. Skandelon

    Skandelon
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    0
    Now, if only Calvinists could be so gracious. :smilewinkgrin:
     
  20. kyredneck

    kyredneck
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    Messages:
    10,548
    Likes Received:
    273
    If you didn't pick up on it, I was inquiring/wondering as to what might have CAUSED Skandelon to leave the truths of Sovereign Grace.

    http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1986587#post1986587

    IMO, you REGRESSED doctrinally when you left DoG. I reiterate I'm glad I'm not where you're at doctrinally. Never would I trade the joy and repose I've found through Sovereign Grace to go back to entry level.

    And I'll take that rebuke and repent. I should've never commented to begin with. Most of what you post I don't even relate with and I usually don't comment, but I somewhat agreed with the premise of your first sentence.

    When your personal move from Calvinism to 'non-Calvinism' has been shared on the thread, it brings a personal aspect into the topic, don't you think?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...