So I'm arguing with a hyperCalvinist/Camping follower

First, do they know they are elect or not? Of course they do not know, nor do you, nor does a Calvinist or an Arminian. Only God knows.

Second, they will live their life as they will live their life. Romans 1 is ample coverage for that. As the Scriptures indicate that every person is a lost sinner and that all are doomed if apart from Christ, how those sinners live their life is of no real consequence. In other words, why would we be surprised when sinners sin?

And third, WE don't hold anything against them. That is God's area of responsibility. We are messengers. We are to love and build up and pray. We can even be good examples (Paul said "follow me as I follow Christ...") but God alone is the holy and righteous judge. It is the concept that someone WE are to be God's police force, holding sinners in check, that has led to some of the antics we see in the Westboro clan and in some of the IFB movement (and I am not equating one with the other, but they both have similar actions).

 

Instead of drive by insults, why not attempt to engage in a meaningful conversation? My view is historical Arminian doctrine and you seem to be treating it as if it is some new unorthodox and unfounded teaching.

I know Calvinists don't care for it when non-Calvinists accuse you of "creative" interpretations when it comes to all those texts which certainly seem to contradict you dogma ("all the world" "not willing any to perish" etc etc). Instead, you appreciate it if they seek to objectively understand your perspective and address it with an intelligent and reasoned response. Is that just too much to expect on a Baptist Debate Forum?

 

Wow ok that answered everything perfectly. Thanks glfredrick.

 

There are all types/levels of "understanding" - we have no idea what the woman in the OP meant by "understand." You assume it is the "understanding unto salvation." Maybe, maybe not.

Suspicion based on a false assumption.

Not necessarily. The woman in the OP never said "understanding unto salvation," so we shouldn't assume that's what she meant.

Again, there are different levels of understanding. There is the understanding of basic facts. And there is the understanding of spiritual matters. And everything in between.

Skand, the problem with your initial post is that it tried to tie mainstream Calvinism with off-the-rocker Hyper-Calvinism demonstrated by the woman in the OP. Whether you did this intentionally or not, I don't know. You've added to your statement which has helped clarified your thoughts (i.e., Cals don't know who the elect are and evangelize), and you have changed/added to the words in the OP to provide further clarification (the "unto salvation" level of understanding). So I think we are done with this for now.

 

Skand, I don't disagree that Cals have to explain certain Scriptures in a way that may seem creative to others. In fact, everyone has to do this - it's systematic theology, and every camp has difficult passages to deal with. But one of the most common slams I see on here against Cals is that they "twist Scripture" and "explain away Scripture," etc. So I was just pointing out that non-Cals have to do the same to account for their theology. Again, everyone has to do this to a certain extent.

But I am curious - your view on this issue lines up with historical Arminianism? That's news to me, but I really don't claim to be an expert in church history. Your interpretation posted above is not something I've seen much at all, if ever.

 

I know you may not believe me, but I've actually talked with Dr. Al Mohler about some of these matters. He treated me with respect and brother love while addressing the questions and arguments as would any Christian scholar who has actually grappled with them before. He did not huddle with his other Calvinistic buddies while laughingly dismissing them as if they were new contrived heresies. But, to each his own.

 

I believe you are now using a red herring tactic to bring this into a debate about he said/she said instead of actually dealing with the issues at hand. We know that you have a bone to pick with Calvinism, and one of your particular styles is to ask that Calvinists agree with you on statements that you create. When we don't you tend to have a hissy fit. I'm not pointing this out to bash on you, I actually appreciate the fact that you will unashamedly argue for your position, but rather to very simply point out that you can get out of sorts when someone disagrees with your framing the debate. If you know Calvinism as you claim, then representing it accurately is no problem. That you do claim to know it and mis-represent it anyway is what some of us are making note of.

 

Yeah, you are probably right. She probably meant that they didn't even understand the words or the language. I'm sure she meant that the scripture looked like Klingon to them because they weren't elect to understand basic language. Yeah, that's probably it.

And since they were talking about spiritual matters I guess it wouldn't be safe to presume that is what she might have been addressing? Do you really think some hyper calvinist woman is out there interrupting other Christians witnessing on open forums in order to tell them that the non-elect can't understand basic facts? Let's be reasonable brother. Clearly she was addressing their inability to understand spiritual matters and be saved. If you want to nit-pick me as being someone who distorts you for that, I don't think I can help you. You appear just to be someone who wants to pick a fight.

 

Nothing has been shown in this thread where I've misrepresented Calvinism.

 

Only when those interpretations are indeed "creative." Take for instance "previnient grace" which is one of the required tenets of true Arminianism. From whence did that arise? Where is it detailed in Scripture plainly (or even based on several texts that can be built into a viable doctrine like we do with the Trinity)?

When we suggest that you are "creative" that's because you are indeed "creative" and you are tossing this and that into a salad of theology, hoping to create a unified structure, when in fact God has spoken otherwise about His divine soverignty AND human will.

 

I am thankful for your objectivity on this point. :thumbsup:

That is all too common and disappointing. I suspect that if people did really understand the true nature of this interpretation they'd be much less likely to adopt Calvinism in the first place. I'd be happy to go though this if you really want to understand it objectively and at least appreciate that which you have already chosen to reject as being "too creative" for your tastes.

 

Actually "prevenient grace (also referred to as prevenial) is a Christian theological concept rooted in Augustinian theology. Augustine held that prevenient grace cannot be resisted, whereas Arminians believe that it enables, but does not ensure, personal acceptance of the gift of salvation."

Are you too uneducated on the basics of the unified and structured theological doctrines of historical Arminian theology? Or do you just think it is a "salad" too?

Begging the question

 

I believe that only the elect will be saved. I agree that humans do not know who the elect are. I believe the bible is clear that our faith comes from being exposed to the word of God. Thus, I believe the best evangelism for Christ is done in expository preaching of God's word.

Romans 10:17
17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

God has chosen to regenerate people upon being exposed to the gospel.

 

Like gl said, you are trying to frame the debate to help your cause. Sorry, I'm not going to play your game anymore. It still stands that your initial post was an attempt to tie mainstream Cals with Hypers. Had you stated in your initial post that Cals evangelize and do not pretend to know who the elect are, I wouldn't have objected, despite your assumptions that all Cals agree on how much a lost person understands Scripture, when in fact Cals disagree on that point.

 

Another time, another thread, if you will. Not really interested in debating it now, just wanted to confirm that this is the same interpretation of that of historical Arminianism on John 6:44.

 

Actually I affirmed that most Calvinists wouldn't talk this way in my first post which is just the opposite of tying mainstream Cals to this woman. I also was careful to note the the agreement was only "technical," meaning that the basic facts were the same, but clearly her application is not...which once again I have affirmed in prior posts regarding Calvinists and evangelism as well as in this thread...but yet you continue with accusations about my "intent" without any clear proof of any distortions...

 

Skandalon in greek means what? Stumbling Stone....riiiiight! :laugh:

 

Ok. Just as there are Calvinists who word things differently, highlight different aspects of their doctrine and even disagree on points, the same is true of Arminians. However, yes, this is the basic interpretation of historical Arminianism.