Featured The rise of Calvinism?

These theological positions pivot salvation on man's choice. So, from the Monergistic point of view, they are in opposition to God's sovereign decree.

 

Both Edwards and Calvin would be seen as "5 pointers" though!

 

Both cases that you cited though would be lost sinners refusing to get saved by God, as their sin natures and pride will not allow for that to happen....

 

John 1:13!

 

there can only be ONE true view on this issue on who or what determines our salvation in the ultimate sense! the great news is that even though free will/Arminian Christians misunderstood that basis, God still does save them by that basis!

 

What is the correct view by your understanding?

 

I disagree. Why do you think I hold to my theological position on the will of man in salvation? I hold to it because I believe it is true and faithful to scripture. I understand Synergists may claim to believe the same about their view but I disagree with them. I do not accept their view has correct. That does not mean I treat them poorly or intentionally misrepresent them. I just believe their view is wrong. The fact that you say the difference is not truth but subjective is your opinion.

 

Lost sinners will not come to Christ to save them by themselves, as sin natures cannot submit to God and His ways, so what determines who gets saved and why? if God does not choose to be active in saving lost sinners, and sinners cannot will themselves to even want to get saved, how does it ever happen?

 

By what basis did you determine Calvinism was wrong though? If you say the scriptures, there would be many passages that would support Calvinism!

 

That is your opinion. It is your opinion that Calvinism is not true and faithful to scripture. It is my opinion that it is. Labeling that a fallacy is also your opinion and it also wrong. In order for something to be a logical fallacy, there has to be an error in reasoning. How can studying the scriptures and considering the breadth of scholarship on a topic before coming to a conclusion be considered an error in reasoning? I certainly do not consider your opinion against Calvinism to be a fallacy. I am assuming you studied the issue and came to a similar conclusion for your belief. We just happen to disagree.

Please do not put words in my mouth. I never said the other side of the debate does not consider the biblical text not to be God's word. I disagree with their interpretation even if I respect the work they put into studying the text. And what if I am wrong on a doctrine that I hold to? It will not be the first time. I used to be a Synergist. I used to be a Dispensationalist. I used to be a Trichotomist. I used to be... I can go on. Each time my theological position changed it was ultimately because I was convinced by the study of the scriptures.

I will tell you what the real problem is. It is having an unsettled theology. I am that way with eschatology. I bounce around between Amillennialism and Post-Millennialism, although my compass's default position points to Amillennialism. When it comes to eschatology the only thing I am willing to fall on my sword over is that Jesus will return visibly and then the final judgment. So, I do not have a settled position in this area and thus I will not dogmatically claim other views are wrong (except Dispensational Pre-Millennialism).

 

What is interesting to me though is when one contrast and compares the Systematic theologies written by reformed/Calvinistic in church history to the works by non cals....
One side seems to have a better grasp of certain doctrines over the other side...

 

These have been raised against calvinism, right? Contradictions have been pointed out in calvinism and each time this is done by a person holding to a different belief system, calvinists point out a contradiction in that other belief system and go "but what about that?". Not having alternatives still doesn't justify a contradiction, right?

And even if we get past this, calvinists end on the "mystery of God" card - where the explanation of the contradiction somehow exists but is beyond our reach now. By this standard, all other doctrinal systems are equally true, right?

 

The major difference between Calvinism and non Calvinism seems to be due to mon cals misunderstand the full effects of the Fall towards humanity, and failure to see the totality of the scriptures in regards to salvation. they also see the fallacy of real free will as being the guiding principle behind getting to how God operates in salvation proper!