Featured Non-Calvinist Help- Questions

@Silverhair continues to blow that smoke to cover for his own unbelief of a significant portion of scripture (which Calvinists didn't write). He derives great pleasure from blowing this smoke. Right shallow, I think.

Pe·la·gi·an·ism
[pəˈlāj(ē)əˌnizəm]
noun
christian theology

1. the theological doctrine of Pelagius and his followers, in particular the denial of the doctrines of original sin and predestination, and the defense of innate human goodness and free will:

If I'm Calvinist, Silv is Pelagian.

 

I have said many times that God has provided all the information necessary for one to trust in Him. But man can either accept or reject that information. It is only because of the acceptance of the information and trusting in God that one can become part of the elect and have access to the blessings that the elect are predestined to have.

I am curious as to why you would think humbling yourself before God would give one reason to boast.

When you think about it would not the idea that one was chosen before the foundation of the world cause one to think they must be special and give them reason to boast? They must have been special for God to pick them over all the others.

When any group runs to the far ends of the logic pool they fall into error. That is why were are to hold to the full teaching of God as found in scripture.

 

And there in lays the problem. There are so many versions of calvinism that you can not keep track of them. So to make it easier I just refer to those that hold to the DoG as calvinists.

Nice and simple. If one does not like to be called a calvinist then jettison the TULIP or whatever you call it and just trust scripture.

 

Why would I hold to calvinist doctrines? You say you are not a calvinist then suggest that those are the standard one should hold to.

You seem like a very confused man there KY.

As for Pelagius

In 1956, John Ferguson wrote

If a heretic is one who emphasizes one truth to the exclusion of others, it would at any rate appear that [Pelagius] was no more a heretic than Augustine. {pg 182}

Ferguson, John (1956). Pelagius: A Historical and Theological Study. Cambridge: W. Heffer & Sons.

Thomas Scheck in 2012 wrote:

In 412, Augustine read Pelagius' Commentary on Romans and described its author as a "highly advanced Christian" {pg 79}

An important result of the modern reappraisal of Pelagius's theology has been a more sympathetic assessment of his theology and doctrine of grace and the recognition of its deep rootedness in the antecedent Greek theologians... Pelagius's doctrine of grace, free will and predestination, as represented in his Commentary on Romans, has very strong links with Eastern (Greek) theology and, for the most part, these doctrines are no more reproachable than those of orthodox Greek theologians such as Origen and John Chrysostom, and of St. Jerome. {Pg 80}

Scheck, Thomas P. (2012). "Pelagius's Interpretation of Romans". In Cartwright, Steven (ed.). A Companion to St. Paul in the Middle Ages. Leiden: Brill. pp. 79–114. ISBN 978-90-04-23671-4.

So it would seem your view of Pelagius is a bit one sided. To a large degree, "Pelagianism" was defined by its opponent Augustine, and exact definitions remain elusive.

 

God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble. Thus "conditional grace" is biblical, but what verse supports unconditional grace. Jacob and Esau? Nope God chose the younger to make a point about the traditions of people.

Now it is true, some folks thought grace flowed only to those of a particular blood line (Jews) whereas grace was bestowed without that condition, i.e. the salvation of the Gentiles.

So it rains on the good and the ungodly, unconditionally, but at other times grace comes to those who believe.

 

I didn't insinuate that you did. I DECLARED your unbelief of a significant portion of scripture that was written long before Calvin. Somehow in your mind you think smearing your brothers and sisters in Christ that believe those scriptures justifies your unbelief. Well, it doesn't.

There you go again, spewing falsehoods. Never suggested such a thing. Can anyone dialog with you without these lies?

You're very deceitful Silv.

 

Don't create an argument that I didn't make and then refute it. Humbling yourself before God is not reason to boast nor is it a work to believe or exercise faith, for that matter. This is the problem:

If you leave it at that, you are discounting all the scripture and theology that says that we don't tend to understand, or be drawn to or interested in any of that "information" on our own. You go way beyond Calvinists, Reformed Baptists, PB's and even Roman Catholics in such an assertion, as well as Weslyans and other Arminians.

The fact is, it is a commonly held Christian belief that we are unable (because of our own tendencies and free will) to want to come to Christ without help. And even those who say the "help" is nothing more than the gospel message also believe that there is something supernaturally powerful in that message, more than just the bare information, that makes it effective. In practice I can prove this by the fact that anyone, no matter your declared theology, who prays for the salvation of another believes this. Otherwise, what in the world are you asking God to do if the person already has the information? It's up to you at that point, and any help from God, if "effective" means your are on your way toward Calvinistic theology.

 

Why do we have this name calling and throwing of rocks? I see it as dis functional Christianity that’s not serving anyone but Satan. The Christian church is shrinking,not growing… becoming more secular every day with the young people just walking away in disgust. I’ve been studying the Elder Gilbert Beebe who operated a large PB Absoluter movement up here in NY & NJ and he contended for the faith more in line with Calvinism resulting in churches closing their churches in the whole NE region. Now I’m seeing traditional Baptist churches either converting to Pentecost movements or closing their doors. Now the RCC will survive because of the Latino invasions and Methodists and Episcopals may survive for a time by introducing & embracing homosexuals and transsexuals but we Baptists will not survive w/o clinging to our willingness to be diverse and accepting it. And that’s going to be a hard pill for all of us to swallow.

 

Lets look at what you posted KY.
the denial of the doctrines of original sin and predestination, and the defense of innate human goodness and free will

Are those not calvinistic doctrines? Thus the comment. Why would I hold to calvinist doctrines?

What parts of scripture do you think I do not believe KY? I believe the Holy Spirit inspired word of God, I do not believe the calvinist misuse of those same scriptures.

Ky you do not seem to have a problem questioning what someone else believes but you get in a snit what anyone questions your views. Double standard there KY.

I have not hidden the fact that I see calvinism as an errant view of scripture. So why would you expect me not to oppose it?

To be clear I am not questioning whether calvinists are saved or not but I am questioning the view of salvation that calvinism teaches.

As I said before, I have yet to have any calvinist provide sound contextual scripture that supports calvinism. What I have seen is many verses taken out of context or special meanings given to words in the attempt to uphold that view.

If my continued stand against calvinism causes you distress I am sorry but I cannot see a reason to do otherwise.

 

Dave to quote you "If it's not decisive, then you are indeed sovereign, at least your final acceptance is the issue and there is no logical reason why you shouldn't be proud of your wise decision."

I was just answering your comment. Man has nothing to boast about when they humbly accept the offered gift of God.

How many times have I said that God reaches out to man through creation, the Holy Spirit or the gospel message etc. That is some of the various means the God uses to draw people to Himself but man must respond. If God did not think man could respond then you have to ask why all the effort on His part?

If the calvinist view were correct God needed to do nothing since the foundation of the world. He had already picked out those to be saved and those to be lost so no need for Christ, the conviction of the Holy Spirit etc. If you were one of the lucky ones you were saved no matter what and if not then you were lost no matter what. That's the fatalism that Augustine brought into the church from his pagan religion, Manicheanism.
Historical facts are not kind to calvinism and that seems to be why so few calvinists will take the time to check it out.

I am sure you know this but you do realize that many people came to faith in God prior to Augustine. So trusting in the power of God is not a calvinist idea it is biblical.

 

No. Coming humbly to accept the offered gift of God is not the issue. The issue is why or what caused you to do this. Either there was an influence outside of yourself that was decisive - or, it was because you correctly and wisely used the information provided and took the proper decision. And if that was the case I say you have every right to be proud of your wise decision.

I have no problem with the idea that the Holy Spirit draws and convicts and enlightens. And I have no problem with the idea that it is possible that some may reject this and be lost. Both concepts are found in scripture. But if it is true that such action of the Holy Spirit is decisive, then it is sovereign and not equally provided to everyone - score one for Calvinism. If it is not decisive, but advisory and helpful, then you are indeed the sovereign, determinate factor and if you choose wisely then why not be proud of your ability. If you are a rebel and the sovereign offers you a pardon and you take it why can you not feel humble gratitude for your pardon and still feel proud that you chose wisely, unlike the stupid slobs that did not accept the offer? I've deliberately made that sound a little harsh because a lot of that is what the most important Calvinists taught. Once again, look at Owen, who taught that the greatest sin a man can commit is to reject the offer of the gospel. He said it was a sin even the demons have not committed because no salvation was ever offered to them. He taught that persistently rejecting the conviction of the Spirit could result in the offer withdrawn permanently. That doesn't sound at all like the stupid characterization of Calvinism you give below:

I'll say it once again. The idea that God is sovereign in salvation, and the idea that man is responsible for his response to the gospel message are both taught in scripture. Both are also taught in the great Calvinistic confessions. The more you are rigid (logically speaking) in your theology, the more you will lean either to extreme hyper-Calvinism or to Pelagianism. Both of those systems have a clear, consistent logic to them and both are easily refuted by scripture.

 

So what about this refuting the doctrines of grace and Original Sin?

 

That is a foolish argument Dave. Why would someone boast in their inability to save themselves. It is not a matter of being wiser, which is a calvinist canard, it is realizing your lost state. You have read Romans 1:16 correct and Ephesians 1:13 and Romans 10:9-10 how about John 16:8-10. The way you treat scripture is that man is to dumb to be able to actually think for themselves. You have seen those verses where God says we are to seek Him, do you think He put them there just for show? Why do you think God said He will judge man for not knowing who He is if they could not actually evaluate the information that is available to them? Romans 1:18-19 It seems you are trying so hard to justify calvinism that you are willing to thrown scripture under the bus.

Look at what you said Dave. "I have no problem with the idea that the Holy Spirit draws and convicts and enlightens. And I have no problem with the idea that it is possible that some may reject this and be lost. Both concepts are found in scripture." But for some strange reason you fail you grasp the concept that if they can reject the gift they can also accept the gift. If they are proud enough to reject it they can be humble enough to accept it.

Then you wrote "But if it is true that such action of the Holy Spirit is decisive, then it is sovereign and not equally provided to everyone - score one for Calvinism." That is not a plus for calvinism but rather a negative. Your calvinism actually teaches an unbiblical concept. Your idea flies in the face of 1 John 2:2 Christ is the propitiation for all and 1 Timothy 2:3-4 God desires all to be saved. So your version of God goes against scripture. Why would you consider that a positive feature of calvinism?

I actually agree with Owen when he taught "that the greatest sin a man can commit is to reject the offer of the gospel." That shows a free will in his rejection but at the same time he had the free will to accept the gift. Calvinism does seem to miss that bit of logic.

Is it not the calvinists that hold to a divine determinism? Is it not the calvinists that say God picked out the elect before the foundation of the world? Come on Dave you can not hold to those foolish ideas and then say that what I said about calvinism is wrong.

Calvinism likes their TULIP and you can have it but I will stick with scripture.

 

I'm not sure what you are asking but I do think that someone humbly coming to Christ is a beautiful thing even if their analysis of the reasons they come are different than mine. One thing that bothers me is that sometimes when I read the guys that seem to be put up as the gold standard for Calvinist theology they say things that seem contradictory. For example, I have a sermon by Jonathan Edwards where he is basically saying that Christ has died for you, and all things are prepared for your salvation, and the only thing lacking is your consent! If I were to put that up without a source, most Calvinists I know would tear such a sermon apart as being at least "semi-Pelagian", and at worst, heresy.

I think you were on the right track in post 48. It bothers me greatly that everyone from free willers to high Calvinists can't worship together and not doubt each others salvation. I have a paper by Martin Lloyd Jones about the brief period in England where the Calvinist Puritans were in control. They were asked to come up with a list of essentials for being able to remain in fellowship as Christians. If I remember right there were 16 points and almost none of them involved anything related to the theological arguments of the TULIP.

 

Contrary to what many on here think I am not against calvinist but rather the views of calvinism that I find unbiblical. We should be able to have a civil discussion on the points where we disagree.

 

Stop blowing smoke. Those are NOT Calvinist teaching, it's Pelagian doctrine that YOU seem to emulate. Are you Pelagian? You can't bear the thought that the natural man is 'completely helpless' to come to God on his own, along with predestination and other doctrines of Sovereign Grace.

 

Now you're just being obtuse. The simple fact is that if the gospel is a set of propositions, with requirements and dangers and rewards promised, and the decision is up to you; then you can choose wisely or foolishly. I just happen to believe that on our own, we tend to choose foolishly. If you did OK on your own then you were wise on your own. So why not boast. I'm not saying you should, just that you have a right to. And related to that - the idea here is that if taken to it's logical conclusion this is exactly how you get to Pelagianism and later to Socinianism. (And I realize that people say Pelagius was a nice guy and wasn't that extreme himself. People also say Calvin wasn't a Calvinist.)

Nope. Owen and Edwards both insisted that men must always act using their rational minds and that this is an essential part of the interaction between God and men.

We know for sure, from experience that the action of the Holy Spirit is not equally given to everyone. Not everyone has the same call, circumstances, or opportunities. So yes. That is a Calvinistic principle. (The idea that God is acting sovereignly, rather than having some obligation to set up equal chances and opportunities). Are you telling me that you can read scripture and come up with the idea that God somehow gives everyone an equal chance and then each person, with a free, unencumbered will not influenced by anything but their own freedom can properly choose which way to go?

That is my whole point. You have John Owen saying that. This is the most highly regarded Calvinist in history. And you are attaching his statement with you agreeing with it - to a statement about Calvinism missing that bit of logic. All I am suggesting is that maybe it would be worth looking into what these guys were saying a little closer.

Some hold to an absolute determinism that goes beyond my understanding of the term. But sometimes you guys who are against all things Calvinism seem to be willingly playing ignorant. If God said "Silverhair, you are going to be in Michigan next Tuesday". Would you still have to go? Not according to the logic you are using. You would just somehow be there, whether you go or not. Yet that's the charge you make against any assertion of God acting in a sovereign manner.

 

KY your just blowing smoke and you know it. So now your going to deny what your calvinist teaching are. You are a strange fellow there KY.

You just will not accept what the bible teaches.

 

Per your interpretation of scripture. You appear not to see Calvinists and their own interpretation as having any validity and so your alienating fellow Christian brothers rather than trying to find common ground… and May I say this, that is a bad look for you in my eyes. Luckily God knows the hearts of his children.

 

If I told you I find the points of Sovereign Grace to be biblical you’d just say they are not and then Segway into a diatribe about Augustine and his taking stuff from pagans blah blah. So your stuck in your particular belief system without any quarter, how open minded is that.

when I first visited the Baptist Bible Forum they were replete with many different beliefs all at war with others kinda reminds me of a bar I used to go down town for a pool game and a beer or two… mostly three or four! Fights were guaranteed in both situations and it made for an exciting activity. Today I see some of you fellas as remnants of the past… nothing ever gets accomplished except everyone being pissed. It’s probably time to leave this place because nobodies growing! Honestly, do I have to move to Facebook to get content?