Arminian, Calvinism and a third view

I think it must be the devil who got a bunch of Christians to argue about how they got saved, instead of worrying about what they should be doing now that they are saved.

 

There's a little principle to understanding scripture that I refer to as IT IS, BUT IT AINT depending on the context of scripture, and understanding/using this principle is the only way to have a proper understanding of scripture.

The Jews rejected "God", why, he was in the form of the son.

The jews reject the leadership of the son, and never will accept his leadership until "GOD" beats hell out of them using the AC as a "rod".

You can tell who is leading/dealing with who just by the type of leadership, law and Prophets/Holy Ghost.

God is Jesus but he aint, the son
Jesus is God but he aint, the Father

depending on the context of scripture.

God "Foreknew" every single individual who would chose to be saved and wrote their names,

But the names he wrote wasn't because of his chosing, but foreknowledge of our chosing.

Through Foreknowledge God IS aware of the future, BUT IT AINT a future God predestinted.

Just as the Jews can't "rightly divide" the WORD (Father/Son) to see the truth in them,

most Christians can't rightly divided the WORD (Scripture) to see the truth in them.

The point calvinist miss is the fact that foreknowledge doesn't predestine the future, it can be changed, God came close to destroying all Israel and making a nation from Moses, then GOD repented,

foreknowledge doesn't bind God to any "particular plan", if the firstborn reject God, he can go with the second born. (Esau)

It IS true, God knows the future, but it aint true, God predestined that future, his "WILL/PLAN" was for none to perish through the death of Jesus.

Just as God came close to destroying Israel for their sins, then repented, he can also change his mind about the future of the world,


God most certainly would "HONOR" the death of Jesus for the sins of the whole world, IF man would believe, and that is a "possibility" which no Christian can deny.


Sure, God knows what the future IS going to be and many cast into hell,

But it aint his will for it to happen.

 

Good find.

 

Thanks, Tim.

 

This whole third view line is just another pious way of saying "I'm right, you're wrong." It's pious-speak in that it claims to somehow rise above the idiots on either side of them.

Look, no one has denied that there is a "third view". In fact, there are several "views" in this debate when you get into some of the details. We all fall along the spectrum from one end to the other. Most of the non-Calvinists on this board are not rank Arminians or Pelagians. Likewise, most of the Calvinists are not hyper-C's either.

The issue is not whether you think you've found some mediating position. The issue is whether what you believe is true or not.

 

If Tim did not believe it was true, he would not have posted it. If I did not agree, I would not have thanked him. I presume the same holds for the rest of those who responded.

 

But Helen, based on some of your other posts, you don't agree with this part of the article:

The author clearly believes Rom. 3:11 applies to everyone. You don't. This is just one example of how far outside you are from normative Evangelical doctrine, Calvinist or not. I'm sure you don't care, but your views on sin, hell and judgment would make the most ardent, rank Arminian squirm.

 

AAGGGHHH! I have answered this so many times I think I will write up something and ask Barry to put it on his website so I can just cut and paste after this!

Paul's quotes in Romans 3 are ALL taken from passages in the Old Testament which have to do with 'fools' who say there is no God, wicked men who prey on others, those who delight in evil, etc.

It is not in the least applying to normal, average sinners who aren't saved! It is part of Paul's argument that despite the law, both Jews and Gentiles are the same in that either can sink to the lowest levels of depravity. Remember, chapter 3 in Romans starts with "What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision?" He responds to himself saying there is much in every say, but then he says, in verse 9, "What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all!" That is his point -- that the law does not save! If it did, then the references he uses which often refer to Jews themselves and not just Gentiles in verses 10-18 lose their meaning.

If this is not the meaning of Psalm 14 then how do you explain "You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart. I will be found by you," declares the Lord... Jeremiah 29:13

or

"Seek me and live;
do not seek Bethel,
do not go to Gilgal,
do not journey to Beersheba,
for Gilgal will surely go into exile,
and Bethel will be reduced to nothing."
Seek the Lord and live,
or he will sweep through the house of Joseph like a fire.
Amos 5:4-6

Is that only for Israel to seek God? Or is He the God and Savior of the Gentiles, too?

Jesus Himself tells us in Matthew 6:33 to seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness...

Hebrews 11:6 says God rewards those who earnestly seek Him.

So please know it is imperative you put things into the context in which they are intended. What Paul was saying in Romans 3 had a definite intent and it was not to say that all men are hopelessly wicked, evil, and that none seek God. He is referring to those who delight in evil, which some, but not all, unsaved people do. And he was writing that for the purpose of showing that the law could not save, for the Jew could sink as low as the Gentile.

Context is everything.

 

So yes, I disagree with that part of the article (I punched the post button too early), but that does not mean I don't appreciate what Tim put up and agree with it in large part.

 

Fine, Helen - that is your take on the matter. But just a reminder - you disagree with the author above (a non-Calvinist) and with the vast majority of Evangelical Christians throughout the ages. Shoot, I'll even throw in the Catholics - they probably disagree with you, too (this is just a guess - I stand to be corrected), which puts you way out in left field.

But worse than your disagreement with the majority of Christendom, your view is wrong.

 

BTW, Paul was not expounding on those OT verses in particular. He was using biblical language to communicate the truth that ALL are under sin. The fact that he quoted verses from texts that are dealing with a particular type of sin or sinner does not negate the immediate context from which Paul is writing in his book to the Romans. It is so very clear from a plain reading that Paul is stating the fact that all are under sin - under a curse - and have nothing good within themselves to cure it.

That is the right view, and the view held by the vast majority of Christians throughout the ages. Yours is the wrong view, Helen.

 

First of all, Tim, thanks for the post. I am now a 5-point Calvinist, so, obviously, I disagree with the view of the author. But it is a view I used to hold, so I understand the attraction, and don't find it quite as distasteful as what I have seen from some on this board.

Secondly, Helen, when a NT author, such as Paul quotes a passage of the OT in support of a point he is making, we can gain a little understanding of what he is talking about by looking at it in its OT context. BUT, the chief area of concern is how he uses it in his NT context.

The passage in Romans 3 is pulled out of a few Psalms talking about the fools who have rejected God. BUT, in Romans, it is in the context of all of humanity - pagans, moralists, Jews, and Gentiles. Context does matter, but here it is the context of the letter.

A similar example would be this: in Romans 4, Paul quotes David again as saying...

Romans 4:7-8 "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, And whose sins are covered; 8 Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin."

If we took Helen's method, we would have to say that Paul was saying that the blessedness of forgiven sin only comes to kings of Israel who have committed adultery and murder, because Psalm 32 was written by David after his forgiveness by God for his sin with Bathsheba.

But the context of Romans 4 shows that Paul is pulling the illustration of David into a new context to describe the blessings of justification for everyone who believes.

Always look to the context of the NT passage to see what a NT author means by his usage of an OT quote.

 

Wonder why no one tries to put God/Jesus mission to save "ALL MEN",..."In Context"???

 

I read the whole article (who else actually did?) and i noticed that although it started off sounding neutral and good, it took a slippery slope towards Arninism. how could it not? if no one can explain this mystery like the author said cannot be done, why did he take a side? everyone does have a side don't they? so in reality it isn't a third veiw, I do agree it is a paradox.

 

Calvibaptist

I tried explaning this to Helen before but she seems to think I do not know the scriptures very well

After I quoted Romans 3:9-whatever no one seeketh after God...she wrote this to me

 

In which I responded

I forgot to add are not all those who reject God...FOOLS! duhhhh

 

The Bible defines the fool as one who states there is no God. So rejecting God does not make you biblically a fool. Especially if you are rejecting something you know is true and consciously preferring the lie, which a large number of people admit they do.

Pharoah acknowledged God and His existence and still chose otherwise. That did not make him, biblically, a fool. It did make him very lost and condemned, however! Judas walked with Jesus and knew He was for real. He never said 'there is no God'. So he was not a biblical fool either. He was the betrayer. That is very different.

No, you should not use Romans 3 in witnessing unless you use it in context. Besides, why try to convince people they are rotten? If they don't already know they are in deep trouble on the inside, they are not going to care what sort of remedy you are proposing!

It is the Holy Spirit's job to condemn. We are told to answer questions for our hope. We are told to disciple each other. We are told to tell the world the Good News.

We are NEVER told that it is our job to try to convince/convict people regarding their sin.

So no, don't use Romans 3. It is actually part of an argument Paul was using to help the legalistic Jews understand that, despite the advantage of the law, they were no different in essence than the Gentile. That is rarely an argument needed now.

If you look at Romans 2, you will find it is God's lovingkindness which draws people to Him in repentance, not anyone hitting them over the head with evidence of their rottenness!

Our job is to show the fruits of the Spirit in our lives, to live Christ in us, as a glove responding to the Hand (that example, by the way, came from a wonderful sermon by John MacArthur which I was privileged to help interpret for some deaf friends).

So PLEASE, NEVER use Romans 3.

Edit -- never use it in that way, is what I was trying to say. If you look at Paul's words after the verses he took from the Old Testament, however, you will find that ALL sin has been atoned for anyway! THIS is wonderful to share. So if you must use the quoted verses, don't stop there, please. Keep going:

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather through the law we become conscious of sin.

But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished -- he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

The atonement was for all. That is clearly stated. And having faith in Jesus -- to believe -- is all that is mentioned in this entire section regarding redemption. NEVER does Paul say that only the chosen are those who can believe. In fact, that appears to be the exact opposite of what he is talking about, for the Jews considered themselves chosen and Paul's entire argument is not only that they can be just as depraved as any Gentile, but that ALL have sinned. But in the same sentence as saying all have sinned, he comes directly to the point that this same 'all' are justified freely through grace by faith in Jesus.

No mention of any elect, and, in fact, chapter three denies explicitly the idea of the Jews that they are somehow special. I think Calvinists should take this to heart as well.

[ March 24, 2006, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: Helen ]

 

Frechy,

You are right, it is not a third view, it is a paradox.

Correct doctrine is all about balance, you can fall off either side of this issue as with many others.

God chose. I chose. Scripture presents both as true. However, Scripture is also abundantly clear that I could never have chosen Him if He has not chosen me first, it is by His Grace, not my own goodness or merit. What can't they see this? and just accept the paradox...