If are motives are right, we can look to offer help Romans 1:7-12
What I wish the other side understood
Discussion in 'Calvinism & Arminianism Debate' started by Pastor_Bob, Apr 3, 2019.
Page 5 of 6
-
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
To others Calvinism is a corruption of the gospel, perhaps even another gospel entirely. It turns inward and focuses on man while superficially focusing on God with the pretense of upholding divine sovereignty.
When I was in seminary the comment was made that the Calvinism debate is an undergraduate issue that most have spiritually outgrown by the time they graduate, the issue for seminary being divine love.
I do not know if that is accurate, but I think for many of us who are in neither camp it is a useless debate. -
Here are my views, I am a one point Calvinist, I believe in eternal security, once saved always saved.
I am a two point Arminian, I believe Christ died for all mankind, and I believe in Conditional Election.
And here is where I part company with both groups:
I believe the election in Ephesians 1:4 was corporate, but I believe we are individually elected to salvation during our lifetime, after we have lived not as a chosen people.
I do not believe in Total Spiritual Inability, I believe in Limited Spiritual Ability, the fallen can understand and respond to the milk of the gospel, but are unable to understand spiritual meat, because they are not indwelt.
I do not believe in "Irresistible Grace" or Prevenient Grace, but I do believe in "Revealing Grace" where God and the Gospel are manifested to us.
Additional, some people have been hardened, as the first soil in Matthew 13, by the practice of sin or by the action of God (Romans 11) such that they are unable to receive the gospel. It is to these that the gospel is veiled. A good rebuttal to those who say the fall resulted in total spiritual inability is to ask why God hardened hearts (because there would be no need if the "T" were true.) Or why did Jesus speak in unexplained parables to preclude people coming for salvation at the wrong time. See Matthew 13 for the answer. -
First we are admonished not to be labeling ourselves after mortal men, not even Paul:
1 Corinthians 1
3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
...
12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
Secondly what is even worse this mortal man Calvin came almost 15 centuries after Christ.
If Paul admonished us for labeling ourselves after him (Paul) how much more so for Calvin?
Then - Calvin was a paedobaptist - are all those who follow him? Why not?
If he was wrong about something as simplistic as believer baptism what then of his soteriology? -
*I am using the term "free will" from a synergistic understanding of the human will in the ordo salutis. -
We don't know what we don't know. -
-
-
-
...And I know what is at the "heart of your terms". And I find it less than genuine...
Once again, "I reject the either/or claims of such definitions which are typically meant to bolster one's own position. I see the Synergist/Monergist definitions as nothing more than a teaching tool of the Determinist view that amounts to a roundabout way to impose that their opposition believes they save themselves and thus merely offering a fallacious false dilemma. Or in short, a way to say, "you accept the term, gotcha"... " -
-
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk -
First there is determinism in the sense that all events (including our moral choices) are determined by preexisting causes. Determinism is a product of Greek philosophy and can be readily seen in studying Greek mythology (which I recommend). Aristotle held to determinism. We typically refer to theological determinism which is that all events were pre-ordained to happen.
Then there is free-will, which is the ability to choose between two possible things uninfluenced (some push the "libertarian" part while other's shy away from it).
There is Compatibilism, which holds that free will and determinism are compatible and both can be held without inconsistencies. Some view this as "soft-determinism", but depending on the view it could be just as much "soft-free will". Some hold (like your's truly) that men have complete free will - men can choose to do good or evil - and at the same time God has predestined all that occurs. Not just "predestined" in a Jonathan Edwards sense, but decreed as well. The reason some, like me, hold this view is that we see the issue between God's will and man's will as anthropomorphic when applied to God (as comparing apples to oranges as if both were the same fruit). The idea, just to keep it short, is essentially God's will does not "fit" into human logic because God's will is ontological to God eternally transcends the human condition. So there is a sense of "mystery" in that this type of Compatibilist chalks up the nature of God's will as unknowable and the object or purpose of God's will as knowable through His revelation.
And then there are the "in-betweens", like legitimate "soft-determinism". -
There are more if we consider the ideas between views. -
The gospel is simple enough - Belief in the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ brings forgiveness of sin and the promise of eternal life.
The evidential test is simple enough:
Galatians 5
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
It's the "mechanics" of it wherein the problem lies. -
15“No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you.
Omnipotent and Omniscient is overrated and is not what makes God, God. -
-
When we start considering some of the different views on determinism it is easy to obscure the unclouded truth that is right in front of our eyes. No decree of God can be thwarted. God works in, out, and through His creation "for His good pleasure" (Philippians 2:13). As His children, we are the recipient of His beneficence no matter how He works His will. As God works His will of decree, does He nudge or prod us along as willing participants or are we drones that do as we are told? I think that depends on the circumstances. Certainly, Jonah saw both sides of God's will of decree at work. Here is where there is some level of mystery; how the will of Christians freely choose to serve God, while God's will takes precedence over all. -
-
Page 5 of 6