The calvinist system tries to reconcile things that cannot be reconciled in this worl

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Revmitchell, Mar 13, 2013.

  1. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,320
    Likes Received:
    786
    Consider Acts 13:48 and Acts 13:46

    Verse 48 is a pet Calvinist verse: “And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.”

    The Calvinist says, “See, here is a plain statement that those who believe are those who are sovereignly ordained to believe.” The problem is that the word “sovereignly” is added to what this verse actually states and Calvinist doctrine is read into the verse to make it say, “...as many as were sovereignly and arbitrarily elected believed.” Any possibility that God’s foreknowledge could allow for the exercise of human will is entirely discounted, but there is nothing in the verse itself to require such an interpretation.

    Also, in verse 46 we see a different story. “Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.”

    Here we see that salvation is associated with man’s response to the gospel. According to the plain teaching of this verse, these Jews did not go to Hell because they were not part of the elect or because they were sovereignly elected to reprobation, but simply because they refused to believe. They reprobated themselves. Paul told them that God wanted to give them everlasting life and they rejected it.

    Consider John 6:37 and John 6:40

    Again, John 6:37 is a favorite Calvinist proof text. “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.”

    The Calvinist finds his doctrines of Sovereign Election and Irresistible Grace here. The problem is that if “irresistible grace” is taught in this passage, it is for all who believe on Christ and not merely for a special few who were sovereignly pre-elected to be saved.

    This verse does not say that God has sovereignly pre-chosen only some for salvation and that it is those pre-chosen ones that are given to Christ. One must read all of that into the verse. It simply says that all that the Father gives will come to Christ. The question is this: “Who is it that the Father gives to Jesus?”

    That question is answered plainly in this passage only three verses later: “And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day” (Jn. 6:40). (Of course the Calvinist argues that it is only the elect who can “see the Son,” but one must read that into the verse.)

    In verse 40 we see that the sovereign will of God is that each and every sinner that believes on Christ will be saved. Here the sovereign will of God is to allow men a choice in salvation, and a great many other verses agree.

    Consider John 6:44 and John 12:32

    John 6:44 is another Calvinist proof text. “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.”

    The Calvinist finds sovereign election and irresistible grace here.

    Yet John 12:32 says, “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.”

    Here we see that Jesus draws all men.

    How can these seemingly contradictory things be reconciled? Calvinism doesn’t have the answer, because its proposed solution ignores or twists too many clear Scriptures.

    I don’t believe these things can be properly reconciled in this present world. We should simply let them stand and not try to force them into a perfectly formed theological system. God truly elects and man truly chooses. God elects and yet every man is urged to be saved and every man can be saved. God elects and yet sent His Son to die for the whole world. God elects and yet does not want any sinner to perish.

    All are equally true and Scriptural, so let them ALL stand and do not try to reconcile that which the Bible itself does not reconcile and which therefore cannot be reconciled into a neat theological package in this present world.

    http://www.wayoflife.org/index_files/0aa9ca178de0e532c4443d0bdfdec3e5-905.html
     
  2. 12strings

    12strings
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,743
    Likes Received:
    0
    So...

    1. Do you realize that SOME calvinists would agree that they are both true...and that calvinistic theology makes the most sense of them both...since most non-cal theologies would tend to minimize or negate the Election?

    2. What would you call a person who truly believes that God individually predestined who would be saved from the foundation of the earth, not based on foreseen faith, not speaking only in a corporate way...but also believes every man is responsible to choose Christ? Is he a calvinist? or one like you who simply accepts both teachings of scripture?

    3. Should we attempt at all to reconcile Galatians and James, wherein one says we are justified by faith apart from works...and the other says we are justified by faith and works? Should we attempt to reconcile these, or simply say, "Oh, they're both true!!!" Don't try to reconcile them.
     
    #2 12strings, Mar 14, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 14, 2013
  3. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,320
    Likes Received:
    786
    Folks just because someone posts an article does not mean that person automatically agrees with any or all of it.
     
  4. 12strings

    12strings
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,743
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wait, did you copy this from way-of-life? And do you agree with it or not? now I"m really confused...I thought you had just gone on a 6-post Anti-Calvinist rant!
     
  5. Thousand Hills

    Thousand Hills
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    1,488
    Likes Received:
    4
    Great post, heres a good sermon that talks about the point you are conveying.

    http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/43-15/twin-truths-gods-sovereignty-and-mans-responsibility
     
  6. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,320
    Likes Received:
    786
    Of course you did. Listen, if we cannot discuss issues that disagree with our view without characterizing them as a rant or anything else then why in the world do you come to a forum. All the posts are from the same article. It presents some very well thought out views and articulates them thoroughly.

    Why would you not want to take a look at that and discuss it?

    This is why we cannot have reasonable discussions on this board. Especially about Calvinism. Calvinists want to get into their own little holy huttle and bash anyone who dares oppose them.


    Good grief! How dare anyone oppose any part of Calvinism.
     
    #6 Revmitchell, Mar 14, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 14, 2013
  7. 12strings

    12strings
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,743
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think you have misunderstood my posts...

    I seriously thought you sat down and typed up 6 posts in a row. I didn't realize until your reply that you were pasting an article. I would characterize 6 posts thread in a row as a "RANT" no matter who posted them, even if I agreed with everything they said.

    ....and so, thinking I was responding to YOU, because I DO want to take a look and discuss it, I responded to one of them with some points for discussion.

    Also, I don't see what part of a 3 point rational response is defined as "bashing" anyone.
     
  8. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,320
    Likes Received:
    786
    The use of the word "rant" is not necessary and neither is it helpful. And when you use words like that it portrays someone who is angry and does not really want to deal with the criticism.

    I will just strike this up as yet another failed attempt to engage a Calvinist rationally. And I will just let this thread fall to the bottom.
     
  9. 12strings

    12strings
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,743
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry, I was trying be a bit humorous in calling it a rant. I was attempting to respond rationally with my first, 3-point reply, but you have ignored its points and simply attacked me. I still fail to see why.

    I misunderstood that the 5 (yep, I can't count either) threads were a pasted article...sorry about that. I'll try harder next time. But I DID respond to the content of the post, and would like to hear your thoughts on my response.
     
  10. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,320
    Likes Received:
    786
    The article makes the point that there are many view even among Calvinists. I would say that it is completely false that non cal theology would tend to minimize or negate election. The issue is not negation but a difference in definition. The problem with discussing these issues with calvinists is shown in your statement. If it is not the calvinist view then the calvinist attacks the opposing view (childishly I would add) by suggesting that we negate election or the sovereignty of God. Non of which is true. That kind of rhetoric is what causes so many problems. And it is just not necessary as it shows a complete disrespect for the other person and their views.

    I would not call them anything. I do not have a need to work within the confines of calvinist systematic theology and labels. Sometimes people try to explain more than was intended by God to explain. I am ok with not knowing the details of how.

    We need to take James words in context. I reject the idea that James insists that our salvation is based on works and faith.
     
  11. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,041
    Likes Received:
    48

    Very good counterpost!

    Calvinists do NOT hold man is a puppet/robot, and that God programs us to be saved...

    God does select and chose out whom he wills to get saved, but they MUST place faith in Jesus to confirm that truth, and ALL persons are responsible/accountible to God!

    Think that we don't really understand that NONE should get saved at all...

    IF God was "fair" about this, all should get condemned forever!
     
  12. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,320
    Likes Received:
    786
    And that would equally be a misrepresentation of the opposing view and a poor way to carry on a discussion.
     
  13. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,320
    Likes Received:
    786
    And I believe it is in the wrong spirit to try to see who can make the best counter post. That is more like playing politics and does not allow for a real discussion.
     
  14. 12strings

    12strings
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,743
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think what I said is any different than a non-cal opponent saying calvinism minimizes or negates human will/responsibility. Either statement is true to a degree, because each side emphasizes one over the other...very few hold them as competely equal. Cals use explaination to say human will is not contra-causally free. Non-cals use explaination to say that God's choice of us is either (a) based on foreseen faith, or (b) simply a choosing of us as a group, not of individuals.


    I would agree, but there are some who would argue that such a person was being dishonest if they did not call themselves a calvinist.

    I agree, but the point it doesn't always work to see two verses that seem to say contradictory things, and simply say, Oh well, I believe both of them, I'm not going to try to figure out how it's possible.
     
  15. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,320
    Likes Received:
    786
    Ok but do not assign that to me. I have not said that.



    I do not know who that is and it has nothing to do with me.


    I never suggested anything like that.
     
  16. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,041
    Likes Received:
    48
    Are you denying that some have posted here equating God is sovereign to mean that he pulls our strings as the Great puppet master?

    Accusing us of teaching that?
     
  17. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,320
    Likes Received:
    786
    I have not denied anything. I have not spoken of that. When you are dealing with me what others say has no bearing. However the arguments and characterizations on both sides could become more honest and less caustic.

    Kind of like this post

    http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1961401&postcount=1
     
    #17 Revmitchell, Mar 15, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 15, 2013
  18. salzer mtn

    salzer mtn
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2012
    Messages:
    1,581
    Likes Received:
    26
    The key word in this verse is ordained. Ordained means to appoint, determine. If one believes God appoints or detemines only those whom he foreknew would believe in him by their free will then the next thing a person would have to believe is the will is not in bondage to the nature of man. This verse clearly states the reason they believed is because they were ordained or appointed too. A person might say by believing this, man has no choice but to believe. In experience no one is made to believe, but we believe because we want to believe, his will becomes our will because his Spirit takes out the stony heart and puts in a heart of flesh in regeneration.
     
  19. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,320
    Likes Received:
    786
    Who said such a thing
     
  20. salzer mtn

    salzer mtn
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2012
    Messages:
    1,581
    Likes Received:
    26
    This is the interpretation of the foreknowledge of God by Arminians. I could have put it another way, God look down through time and saw who would believe on him, so these are the ones that he fore ordained to salvation.
     

Share This Page

Loading...