A Balanced Calvinism

You don't know what you are talking about Winman.

And you won't respond to 90% of my posts.

It's like you are talking AT me rather than WITH me.

 

I do. And I will grant that there is one further possibility that I did not share -- that we humans live perfectly according to God's Word (pre-law, and no need for law if we live perfectly according to His Word) and never, ever, miss a single thing.

But we already know that that opportunity is lost forever, and if not by Adam, then by me.

 

That is true. But at what cost!

 

Luke, respectfully, I don't agree with you here. In your zeal to present a sovereign God, I believe that you have overstepped the bounds of Scripture in a place or two, and no matter how we wish to argue a Reformed position logically, we can only argue it "Scripturally" and remain faithful to God at His Word.

Jesus does not have to love the Father. He can imagine nothing else, and because He is holy, can do nothing else. There is no coercion in the love of the Son for the Father -- such was the case for eternity past and into eternity future (if we dare use time to describe eternity).

I do agree somewhat that the best love transcends the will, but it also bends the will, which is perhaps what you are actually trying to say.

About your children, of course you can take a contrary position. Sadly, the curse of sin has caused many a father to dismiss his own children instead of loving them. But we cannot personify the love of God in human terms. God is not man, and man is not God! God's love is innate to His person-hood, ours is not.

 

Robert, really... I have over 3000 books on the shelves in my personal study, and another 1500 on my computer hard drive, from all sorts of authors with all sorts of theological vantage points, both those I agree with and those I disagree with. Such is the nature of study. I highly commend it, and heartily recommend that you try it!

You could even blame the Scriptures for the reason you are reading when the others in your church get after you for opening something other than your KJV Bible. :laugh:


The Apostle Paul, while in prison in Rome, could have asked for anything, but he took time to ask for his books!

11 Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry. 12 And Tychicus have I sent to Ephesus. 13 The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments.
2 Tim 4:11-13 (KJV)

 

Joh 15:12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.
Joh 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
Joh 15:14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.

 

I am not sure that the semantical swap will actually help your position very much. I do agree that "free will" is fraught with problems, the largest that we really don't have it. Not in the sense that many use the term here on the board, at least.

Really? I thought that the team made the decision whether to bring on a new player, not the player! The player is "free" to be available, but it is the team that chooses. In this case, I do think that your illustration of free agency can work to describe what is found in the Scriptures, i.e., we have the free agency to chose the depths of our sin -- we can sin less if we try -- but we still are not on "God's team" until God says so. We can never become something other than a sinner, though we lessen our sin, for "sinner" is the position we play until that position is changed by a supernatural act of the Capitan of the new team, God.

How do you know that God has set that rule? You are correct when you say, "Who said God "has to respond" to our will?" No one can say that, and God hasn't said that. That concept, at best, is a theological construct designed to allow man a "choice" (and stated as such in the Arminian articles) so as to have some means to respond to the moral culpability of our sin.

When you say, "A choice is a choice... there are ramifications for our choices..." you seem to be suggesting that if we never made a choice to sin that we would be okay with God. That, in all sincerity, is false, and every doctrine apart from full on Pelagianism says so, as do the Scriptures, plainly.

And, no, I am plainly not trying to mis-represent your position, but I continue to find your position one that doesn't really compute on a lot of levels. You "seem" to want to have absolute and utter free will, but at the same time disavow utter and absolute free will by merely re-defining the terms. You want "choice" and wish for God to react to our choice by making our choice God's choice -- a circular argument that also begs the question of choice. What you cannot explain is how we can be seen as "neutral" or better when in fact the Bible says that we have "all" sinned and fall short of the glory of God, something we know both from revelation and observation.

 

It is as I said... We are given the ministry of reconciliation, not reconciled twice. The ministry of reconciliation is essentially sharing the good news so that others may come into the once and for all reconciliation of God, yes, imputed to us by the atoning work of Christ. We "are" reconciled to Christ. We do not need to be further reconciled. That is for persons who are yet lost, and who have not received their reconciliation because they have yet to be re-born from above.

 

I too desire to be respectful here but I think in your desire to reconcile reformed theology with opposing viewpoints causes you overstep the bounds of Scripture.

Logic is God given. Scripture is logical.

You see he doesn't here and then admit he does in your explanation below.

It overwhelms the will and constrains it. Paul said, "The love of Christ constraineth us..."

 

To a point... But I think that you might agree that the "logical" extension of Calvinism is hyper-Calvinism, and we don't go there because the Scriptures pull up short of going there, even if logic dictates (as SO many say SO often here on the board) that we go all the way to a deterministic God.

 

Just because I don't have 4500 books, like you say you have, doesn't mean I don't read. I really don't appreciate your condescending tone.

I don't know where you got the idea that I attended a KJVO or even a KJVP church. I don't. Our new pastor hasn't used the KJV yet in any sermon I have heard. He generally uses the NIV, but often quotes out of other versions as well. Get your facts straight, don't assume (you know what assuming makes you, right).

Well, one thing for sure. The Apostle Paul wasn't referring to any books written by Calvin or Spurgeon!

 

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

Robert... Didn't you start that by saying that we Calvinists only read Spurgeon and Calvin? Just checing...

I also wondered what you read, but you filled in the blanks when you shared some of your favorite authors. Thanks. Helps me to know where you stand in your general theology, which is (from my vantage point) rather a cafeteria assortment sort of deal, but that is your business.

Have you ever considered bouncing your favorite fundamentalist writers off of other theologians? Might be informative, as some of their positions only test well when not compared to anyone else (or the Scriptures in context).

Thanks for correcting me. I actually appreciate it. I began to paint a picture of you based on your posts and I was wrong. I am always willing to be corrected by truth.

Duh... Who on earth said he did? It is when you say things like this that I go right back to wondering about you. And, I'm not attacking or saying anything bad here, just very plainly in the common sense of the word, "wondering" about you, your belief structure, your church's teachings, all of it.

 

I'm sorry you don't see the difference. I cannot flap my arms and fly, but if I desire to fly and someone gives me a plane, I have that option.

You don't understand free agency too well. While the team desires the player's service, if the player has met the league requirements of free agency, it is the player that has the option which team to play for...but the team also must be able to fit the player into their system and salary cap. Did you follow the LeBron debacle this summer? There were 6 teams that could fit him into their salary cap giving him the freedom to choose from any of the 6 teams. All 6 teams desired him.

Scrptire. Believe and be saved, believe not and perish.

Again, not remotely what I said or implied. SINNERS are given the choice to accept or reject.

Is that a surprise coming from someone holding to the contrary position? Honestly, I can say the same about your doctrine.

This is the reason for my frustration on here. Not only do I "seem" to desire what you state, I in no way even suggested what you put forth. In your zeal to defend your own faith, you erect strawman after strawman and then argue these made up points. This makes any extended dialogue fruitless since you take what is said and twist it to conform to what you want to hear.

 

You aren't reconciled when you are born again. Paul said we were reconciled by the death of Jesus Christ. It is a done deal, a completed work. The entire family of God was reconciled at the cross.

Why then, you may ask, does Paul want born again believers to be reconciled to God if they already are reconciled to God? Because there is a difference between the reality and my perception of it. This is where the gospel comes in. Paul tells me I really was saved when Christ died on the cross. I was reconciled to God, justified by His blood, and my sins were paid for. What the gospel does is bring this to light. The gospel is good news, it tells me what Jesus did for me. It declares His finished work.

 

You fail to see that "someone" must provide the plane...
Without the plane -- or God, in the case of salvation -- no matter how much you flap your wings, desire to fly, desire salvation, etc., you cannot have it.

Actually, I understand it very well. Like the "plane" above, the free agent needs a "team" to adopt him or her. Having multiple teams does not negate the need for at least one team, and without the team, the player is what, just a player with a desire.

That quip does not adequately describe the rule you set down for God (i.e., that God exerts His sovereignty by allowing His creatures free will). I'm asking for a sound biblical exposition that builds a case for your theology and I believe that you cannot build that case. I believe that because so far in history no one who remains faithful to the context of Scripture has been able to build that case.

Okay... I will stand corrected on what it is that you hold. As I have said, I am trying to represent the theology of everyone in the way they hold it.

You suggest that "Sinners are given a chance to accept or reject." Accept or reject what? "Sinners" by their very nature are already "rejected." It is Christ who "accepts" sinners when He issues the effectual call to salvation.

See above... And, no, I'm not sure I hold a "contrary" position from yours. I believe that I hold a position that is obviously different than yours in several places. Contrary seems to indicate "opposite" and we are not, at the end of the day, "opposite" each other. I am not a Satan worshiper, nor an atheist, so we are both arguing through a minutiae of details concerning the same salvation that is carried in Christ's gospel. Tossing about this sort of rhetoric is not all that conducive to solving the issues before us. You cannot escape the debate by nailing the debater to the wall because of his or her position. In any formal arena, that would be disallowed by moderators.

I assure you, I am not erecting any strawman. I am arguing very well covered theological points and I can and do use well-sourced background material that has been used in the church since its inception.

I would like it very much if you (and others) could dispense with the entire concept of "labels" and just deal with the points made in posts. It seems, at times, that even well-made points are dismissed out of hand because a "Cal" made them. Like I said above and in other posts, let's deal with issues, not where a person stands. As long as we allow the "label" of a person to color everything they say after, there can be no discussion and we end up in fundamentalistic hell where there is no possible learning, no possible solution, nor will persons of this mindset even allow God's Word to inform their positions. I certainly do not wish to be in that sort of camp, and I suspect that you do not either.

On to new material...

In order for free will to work as you have laid out above, there must be synergism between God and man. Synergism has been well-discussed in the theological realm, and it is indeed the dividing point between Amyraldian/Arminian and Infralapsarian/Supralapsarian positions. Synergism is what I asked you to deal with above, but I did not use the term. I choose to use your words, "free will" instead.

I asked you to defend "synergism" from a biblical standpoint and you said, "Scrptire. Believe and be saved, believe not and perish."

Here is what one Wesleyan theologian said about the biblical roots of synergism:

The paragraphs before the quote directly above are as follows (for context):

Of course, the author of the article above hasn't explained where the doctrine of previnient grace stems either, but it has the same issues as synergism. It cannot be derived directly from Scripture like God's election and pre-destination can.

Another theological article on synergism says this:

So, we find that synergism was an "introduction" to the classical understanding of God from the Scriptures, i.e., that God is sovereign in all things. We find that synergism was first promoted by the Greek Orthodox Church and later adopted by the Roman Catholic Church. It was overturned in favor of the scriptural view by the early Reformers, and again picked up and adopted by Arminius, and later Wesley (and of course, both Catholic and Orthodox still hold it as well). We find that synergism cannot be "directly" found in the Scriptures (and every synergistic theologian says the same) but must be "derived" by reading between the lines, so to speak.

I find that we cannot sustain a SCRIPTURAL argument that supports synergism, and any claim that refutes God's utter sovereignty. That is not argued from a "Cal" position, but based on my understanding of the texts of Scripture.

 

The more I look at synergistic free-willers, the more I realize that the proponents thereof, such as webdog, feel that they just aren't such bad people at all.

Just a tad bit sinful seemingly, with lot's of power and will and perfectly capable then of approaching God. :)

One more time: Kenneth Copeland theology is at least bold enough to come out all the way and tell it how it really is in a synergistic free will model, that is; That God needs us to invite Him by our choice to do so or He is powerless to accomplish anything. We must allow Him by our choice.

That is plain fact of what it teaches.

How sad and what a blatant lie.

 

I didn't fail to see that at all. God has provided the plane (sic) so to speak.

God allowing anything exerts His sovereignty. If He has allowed every person to accept or reject a gift, that is being sovereign. It's a matter of perception.

His gift. If all sinners are already rejected, there is no salvation for anyone as that includes us all. John 3:18.

While contrary can mean opposite, I didn't mean that in how I used it. I was referring to logically. We can focus on the semantics, or the topic.

When you insert "it seems" in every reply and then reply to what you "seem" to think is said, you are doing just that.

I didn't bring up any label...no idea what you are talking about here.

The very act of believing requires choice, which is contrary to monergism. The proof is so simple, yet you fail to grasp it.

 

t

You got one thing right...blatant lie would be correct.

One more time. Kenneth Copeland is NOT the spokesperson for non reformed theology. I would have thought in your new-found expertise on sotoeriology you might have learned that. Guess not.

To say it is the "plain fact of what it teaches" shows pure ignorance. Please learn your own view before trying to teach us about ours.

Interact with me publicly, not through PM. Let the forum see you for what you really are...unless you only have "PM keyboard boldness", tough guy ;)

 

Yep, synergism is a blatant lie. I am glad you are coming along.

He doesn't have to be THE spokesperson. He shares your sentiments. That's more than enough.

He's flying the flagship for you, and brings your thoughts to their logical conclusion: that you feel you are in charge of your destiny, and must choose to let God act.

Expertise? Uh, naw, that's your self given title. You alone are the self proclaimed expert. No one can teach you a thing. :)


Sad, really.