OPTION 1: If I, as a non-Calvinistic believer, am wrong about my soteriology, then I could only be wrong because God so decreed it, right? God must have decided, for His own secret self-glorifying purposes, not to grant me enough grace to see my error and adopt Calvinism. So, if I am in error then I'm in error by God's unchanging divine decree and it ultimately must be a decision God made for his highest glory. Right so far? Or not? If not, then do you affirm the contra-causal free choice of believers?
OPTION 2: If, however, I am right and Calvinism is false, then I have judged the Word of God correctly as a 'response-able' free moral agent and I would be defending the truth of God's glory against false Calvinistic teaching. And the Calvinists, also as free moral agents, would be held responsible for their errors.
CONCLUSION: So, my conclusion is that non-Calvinism is the best position to hold, because you really can't go wrong either way given that in either option I'm fulfilling the highest purpose of bringing God the greatest amount of Glory. However, if you, as a Calvinist, are wrong; just consider the damage, disunity and potential consequences of your error in distracting from God's glory and His gracious provisions for the entire world.
Is that conclusion logically incorrect? If so, how so? Be specific.
I don't see how I could go wrong, do you?
Discussion in 'Calvinism & Arminianism Debate' started by Skandelon, Dec 17, 2013.
Page 1 of 2
-
-
-
He would be 'stuck at the low level he is at' due to God's design, so why should you be glad His decree concerning you is different from him? If I'm a determinist I would be glad for Gods plan for everyone. -
I don't know what 'brand' of Calvinism he held to, or if there were some very hateful characters within that 'brand' that drove him away, but he sure manages to often misrepresent Calvinism as I understand it. Some of them must have done some very bad things to him for him to carry the grudge or the obsession or whatever it is that he does.
-
-
Revealing and sad... -
...and that is the point! The very existence of forums like this only go to validate contra-causal free will. -
Whenever, therefore, one tries to state TULIP theology and then refute it, there are Calvinists who will argue with you that you are misrepresenting Calvinism. It is not so much that you are misrepresenting Calvinism, though. You might be quoting directly from various Calvinists or even from Calvin himself. The problem is that you are misrepresenting THEIR Calvinism! There are Calvin Calvinists and Thomas Fuller Calvinists and Arthur W. Pink Calvinists and Presbyterian Calvinists and Baptist Calvinists and many other sorts of Calvinists. Many Calvinists have never read Calvin’s Institutes of Christian Religion for themselves. They are merely following someone who follows someone who allegedly follows Calvin (who, by his own admission, followed Augustine).
Calvinists believe that they have the right to reject or modify some parts of or conclusions of Calvin. I agree with them 100%, and I say, further, that we also have the right to reject the entire thing if we are convinced that it is not supported by Scripture!
How about you stick to the purpose and not make this personal as that is against the rules, and thus sinning, while I'm acting in accordance with the purposes and rules. So, who needs the rebuke here? -
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
This line of reasoning does not represent our position at all but it does represent the straw man position you want to attribute to us.
The gnat in your ointment is that we beleive God decrees all sin permissively (Psa. 76:10) in conjunction with full accountability by the sinner wherein the choice to sin is also the choice to forfeit ability to please God - Rom. 5:12-19; 8:7-8. -
You have drawn a conclusion from two options which IMO do not fully explain the mind of God and in fact the scripture declares we can't know anyway:
Isaiah 55
8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
Ecclesiastes 8:17 Then I beheld all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun: because though a man labour to seek it out, yet he shall not find it; yea further; though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it.
So I believe we can say from these two scriptures that neither Calvin or Arminius had the complete answer though they laboured to seek it out they found it not (which is not to say they were reprobate).
True, we now have the complete revelation from God but the present confusion and divisions both inter and intra-camp of these human theologies prove we are no better off now than when these two scriptures above (and there are others) were given.
My advise for what it's worth or needed: Relax, forget the writings of Calvin and Arminus (at least for a season), trust God, and walk in the free gift of the salvation He has given us through Christ the son of God, Jesus Christ, God the son come in the flesh.
Psalm 46:10 Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth.
Revelation 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
Revelation 21:6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
HankD -
-
in Christ,
Bob -
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Simply saying, "We don't say God is the author of sin." does not negate the logical conclusions of Calvinism, just as a thief who was videotaped robbing a store who claims he never did it, doesn't negate that he actually committed the crime.
But if you try hard enough, you can rationalize away anything. -
I also realize different Calvinists approach this at different degrees. Luke is a hard determinist, for example, where as you seem more mainstream and balanced in your approach.
Nevertheless, how does that work exactly in your worldview? Does man originate the evil desire and then God comes to know of it after man originates it? Or did God know it prior to man originating it, thus meaning it actually began or originated in the mind of God rather than man?
I have my 'theories' about this (which is basically an appeal to mystery), but I'm curious as to your approach as compared to some others I've discussed this with over the years.
So, in the case of my rejection of Calvinism. Is God merely permitting me to remain in my 'ignorance' or 'stubbornness' and choosing to withhold from me some measure of grace given to you and the other enlightened children?
How are you supposing this works and how has what I've stated misrepresented what you really believe has happened? -
-
-
IMO, you REGRESSED doctrinally when you left DoG. I reiterate I'm glad I'm not where you're at doctrinally. Never would I trade the joy and repose I've found through Sovereign Grace to go back to entry level.
When your personal move from Calvinism to 'non-Calvinism' has been shared on the thread, it brings a personal aspect into the topic, don't you think?
Page 1 of 2