Featured Question About Cals/Non Cals

Even Lucifer had that freedom in the beginning, and so did Adam and Eve. And though theirs and human freedom in general was damaged and weakened in the Fall, it wasn't lost.

Since I believe so strongly that freedom is a basic part of God's character, I believe all his sentient beings remain free -- in differing degrees in different times and places, but always free.

I think there always remains the option and possibility of rebellion or obedience and loyalty. I can't prove it, but I believe this is in accord with God's character.

 

I believe Calvinism is false, and therefore not the Gospel. So, I guess I know what you think of me.

 

This biblical passagec -- the specific teaching of Jesus on the issue of freedom after death, especially as concerns "hell" -- would seem to entirely refute your current position:

Luke 16:19-31 (ESV) "There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. 20 And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, 21 who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man's table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried,

23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. 24 And he called out, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.' 25 But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.'

27 And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house-- 28 for I have five brothers--so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.' 29 But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.' 30 And he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' 31 He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.'"

Why, after realizing the error of his ways, and KNOWING AT THAT POINT FOR CERTAIN that a better existence was available at ths side of God, whom he could evidently see, did he not simply exercise his freedom of will and cross that divide, repent and turn to God? He seemingly GREATLY desired for that to happen, or at least just one ounce of mercy be extended his way, and when denied that, his next great desire was that no one else would suffer the same fate as he. But, alas, he actually had NO CHOICE in the matter, and neither would Christ send a special messenger apart from the WORD OF GOD ALREADY SENT to warn others whom this rich man loved of what was coming their way.

At this juncture, you either recant of your heterodox belief in after-life free will or admit that you are not in fact following what the Scriptures teach on the subject.

And, PLEASE note... I am not saying this to be mean-spirited -- not at all -- I am giving you the warning that the rich man in this story greatly desired to be given to his family. I am showing you IN THE WORD OF GOD that you are in error, not because of what I believe, but because of WHAT IS WRITTEN.

Don't end up sitting next to the rich man and wishing that things could be different, for they will be what they will be and you will have no choice in the matter.

 

So, you're saying that I'll go to hell if I continue to believe this about freedom?

 

Again, we're defining Calvinism differently.

 

No, I'm saying that you are "choosing" to believe something OTHER than what the Bible states. That may or may not cause you to go to hell. Your choice, I guess... :wavey:

 

No, you don't, and you can't unless you are a Calvinist.

No matter how one slices noncalvinistic thought, it boils down to the man doing or thinking something to a certain degree of righteousness.

Can a man not believe in the divinity of Christ and be saved? Calvinist, yes, Noncalvinist no. We won't judge his thinking as Christian, and we won't allow him fellowship, but could he be saved? Certainly.

Can a man not believe in a literal resurrection and be saved? Calvinist, yes, Noncalvinist no. We won't judge his thinking as Christian, and we won't allow him fellowship, but could he be saved? Certainly.

Can a man believe he freely chose to enter into covenant relationship with Christ and be saved? Certainly. We won't judge his thinking as Christian, and we won't allow him to hold office, but could he be saved? Certainly.

Jesus saves, not my notions of Jesus. I might have incorrect notions about the laws of gravity, but my encounters with gravity will by certain degrees change those notions.

 

You have carried the argument to a logical conclusion that was never explicitly stated.

Actually, you have it inside out. Calvinism does not determine the gospel, the gospel determines Calvinism. That is one of the primary facts that those who do not identify as Calvinists seem always to misunderstand. I cannot think of a SINGLE known Calvinistic scholar who would DARE to place a theological system in place of God's revelation as found in the Scriptures. Your fundamental misunderstanding about the process drives your false beliefs about the results of that process.

I would recommend that you actually read some Calvinistic theology and discover whether or not it orients on and is driven by the Scriptures or rather if it is "proof-texted" by the Scriptures. I believe that you would be shocked at what you discover, especially when the Calvinists ACTUALLY do the heavy homework of exegeting Scripture and work to reconcile the stances found therein.

Church history says that you are wrong, except for applying the name "Calvinism" to the Doctrines of Grace as expressed in the Scriptures and by virtually everyone in the early church until such a point in time that they eventually drifted into syncretism. This is all rather well documented and you can actually read about all this in several good books. Let me recommend one, Gregg Allison, "Historical Theology."

Not at all... Calvin based a lot of his understanding on those who came before, especially Augustine, who's views virtually mirrored Calvin's later efforts, all of which demonstrate that the views pinned to Calvin and his later disciples did in fact exist all the way into the early church!

We do indeed drive Calvinism BY the Scriptures, not the other way around.

 

1. You assume libertarian free will without proving it.
2. You have not touched the Scriptures I presented.

 

It is possible that I misunderstood your earlier response...

We rightly understand that Calvinism is NOT the gospel, and yet qualified preachers and theologians have said it that way down through the years, so there must be a second interpretation for what they were saying. A man like Spurgeon, though utterly human and capable of saying something untoward, would not make such a mistake unless he had a thought in mind that was other than the way those who use the remark against him think. So, in considering that, might we not say that Calvinism is the surest expression of the soteriology that the gospel stands for? And, to shorten that, we might end up with "Calvinism is the gospel" without meaning that the kerygma of Scripture depends on Calvinism for its existence, for truly it IS the other way around!

I'm actually glad to hear that... Most who argue some point as you did would never open a book or a theology that had Calvinist roots, for "god only knows" what they might find between those covers (use of small "g" intentional).

For simplicity sake above, I foreshortened the historical record considerably, but in essence, I agree with what you wrote above. The early church could not "confirm" Calvinism for it had yet to be derived in its modern form. But as I said, all the roots of Calvinism can be found in the writings of the early church fathers. That is also partly why I asked if you had read much Calvinistic work, for Calvin himself often quoted the Anti-Nicene Fathers as did those like Beza who came after.

Completely agree! Some claiming Calvinism do indeed cross the boundary to a logical conclusion that a true Calvinist ought not cross, for we are bounded by the Scriptures and can no farther travel into speculation about what we cannot know. That is also a though of Calvin, as well as those who we are speaking of that came earlier. In between Calvin and the Anti-Nicene Fathers, much happened in the RCC, and as they turned to allagory, heaped one bad teaching upon another, hinged their implications on a quasi-accurate Latin translation instead of the original languages, invoked Greek philosophy (with one refuting another), etc., all of which led to a radical re-purposing and misunderstanding of the doctrines that are now commonly called the Doctrines of Grace as portrayed in the Scriptures.

 

Calvinism is the acknowledgement of God's sovereignty in salvation.

 

I agree... Well said.

 

By your definition, unless one simply reads straight from the Scriptures, no one can be said to be "preaching the Gospel."

 

It's as I told you when we first met. If you mean one thing when you say Calvinism, and I mean another thing, then we aren't communicating. As it is commonly used, Calvinism refers to predestination according to God's purposes according to election. If you want to define it otherwise, that's your prerogative, but you're simply erecting a straw man.

Your definition of Gospel is likewise arbitrary, and unreasonably narrow. Its effect, if not its design, is to present noncalvinistic thought as equal to Calvinistic thought; to present error as equal to truth. If I am saying true things about Christ, I am preaching the Gospel. If I am saying erroneous things about Christ, I am not. Calvinism is either true or false. If it is true, then it is the Gospel, and anything that contradicts it is not.

Calvinism is the Gospel, anything else is not.

You distrust Calvinists. So?? What is that to me?