[ :rolleyes: ] Or trying to. [/ :rolleyes: ]
Guess there are better things to try to do. :sleep:
Is there a retitle suggestion for Calvinism and Arminianism
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by agedman, Jan 9, 2012.
Page 9 of 13
-
-
-
Acts 2:23 Peter is preaching:
Maybe we could combine yours (deterministic) and mine (DoGs) and call us Calvinists Deterministic DoGs. -
-
I plead not guilty to deflecting, discreetly suggesting, tactics and dancing around.
And feel free to call me Tom. -
Oh, I've just had this flash. Instead of calling those who reject Calvinism non-Cals, how about:
No-Cals
For the one-pointers or two-pointers, how about
Lo-Cal
Sometimes I just amaze myself. -
-
Before I used the acronym DoG, I don't remember ever seeing anybody else employ it that way. But I don't claim it as original. I use it as a way to add a light touch to a serious topic that gets overheated sometimes.
Doctrines of Grace is a universally accepted synonym for Calvinist.
But on this board at least, if I describe myself as a DoG, most will know what it means. But there is no attempt to monopolize the term. You're welcome to use it, as well, if it fits your view.
I do not intend to flesh out or defend my views on this thread. That's not what it originally was about.
I rarely get deeply involved in these Cal-non-Cal threads, except to drop in, lob a bomb to stimulate discussion, and leave. It's called having fun.
And you can still call me Tom. -
I don’t find Calvinists claiming to preach THE “Doctrines of Grace” as an honorable thing to do for the reasons I have already stated. That the title has been being used this way for some time doesn't change my opinion of the use including that I find it misleading, especially to those who are not aware of the Determinist' implications imposed on grace from the Calvinists who have caused so much division and distaste for their doctrine that somewhere along the line many have resorted to claim this new title. Just because someone else does something doesn’t make it right or discount my reasons why it is seen as unethical even back to whoever started promoting the title as a replacement for Calvinism from the beginning of the use of it.
-
Reply to Deflection
Folks, behold the defense of Calvinism. -
-
DaChaser,
Van is an Open Theist in that he denies God's perfect knowledge. That is not a Baptist doctrine and contradicts even the most general reading of the boards Profession of Faith, thus is not allowed in a Baptist forum. If he wishes to discuss his views on this subject he will need to go to a non-Baptist forum. Sorry, but those are the rules he agreed to.... -
-
Reply to Agedman,
Lets take your assertions one at a time. Why would the NASB translate "en" as "by?" Here we have proximity, i.e. in, being used to denote cause, thus "by" the Spirit rather than "in" the Spirit.
Yes, sanctification here refers to a one time event, being set apart in Christ.
No, the sanctification (meaning set apart,an event) does not follow the election, it refers to how the election took place, i.e you pick an apple from the bin and put it aside in your cart. So you chose the apple by the setting aside work of your hand.
According to the foreknown plan of God, God chose you for salvation by setting you apart in Christ based on crediting your faith as righteousness.
Your effort to introduce the ability of God to do what Calvinism says He did has no merit, we are discussing what scripture actually says He did without adding to the text.
God chose you for salvation through the sanctification of the Spirit and faith in the truth. This is all about God's election of individuals and because His choice was based on faith in the truth, His election occurred during our lifetime, and was conditional.
The meaning of foreknowledge does not change if God is the one with foreknowledge. Notice Peter says Christ was foreknown as the Lamb of God before the foundation of the world. This is God using knowledge from the past, before creation. When Christ was crucified, it was by the foreknowledge of God, and note that God described it in detail in Isaiah 53, long before or in the past. Look at it this way, when God prophecies, He describes what will happen in the future, and then He causes what He described to occur, He brings it about. This is actually how the Bible describes God.
All this stuff about God controlling everything, exhaustive determinism, simply is an effort to change 2 Thessalonians 2:13 from what it says, i.e. a rewrite. Doctrine must be accord with scripture, not nullify it.
The point about salvation not being mentioned was that Calvinism applies through sanctification to "for salvation" in 2 Thessalonians 2:13, but we have the same thing described in the underlined portion of 1 Peter 1:1-2 without "for salvation" being mentioned. Thus being set apart refers to election, not salvation. Bottom line if something existed to be set apart, it cannot occur before that something was created. -
-
God saves us based upon being found in Christ By HIM placing us there, or by an act of personal will and faith to get us there!
One grants us security, while one does not! -
-
-
If we were to use your application of the illustration,any apple might just happened to fall in the cart as the cart was passing by and be considered "set apart." The apple may be rejected by the owner of the cart and thrown back. The rest of the apples might complain about their position, ability, and chance in comparison to other apples. The apples complaint is centered upon the apples and whatever reason the apple didn't fall into the cart.
According to the foreknowledge of God at the beginning of this world, He chose you for salvation by setting you apart and the sprinkling of the blood (purification).
"But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:"
I see - continual thanksgiving to God for the Thessalonian believers.
I see - the Thessalonians were greatly loved of the Lord.
I see - the reason they are greatly loved is because God choose them from the beginning (creation)
I see - the results of having been chosen were salvation.
I see - the believers were set apart by the Holy Spirit of God
I see - the believers believed the truth.
I don't see any evidence that I am attempting to "rewrite" the scriptures. If I am mistaken, I am certain any Greek scholar will be obliged to correct what I may have ignored or misstated.
I agree that "being set apart refers to election"
I disagree that something has to be created before being set apart. I have shown by stating the names of the parents of those not yet conceived yet specified as sanctified (set apart) by God, in the previous posts. -
Van and I hope to come to some Scriptural agreement. Not by stating personally held views and naming camps, but by a thorough discussion of the verses, with the hope the Spirit of God will illuminate us - those watching and participating in the discussion - the truth.
If the discussion falls apart, I am determined not to be the cause.
Page 9 of 13