Where do Calvinists make their errors?

John,

You're right. I expressed my opinion. I've never claimed it was anything but my opinion. You have made it clear that you disagree with that opinion. Fine, let's move on.

In MY experience in dealing with these issues I believe that many Christians who are being persuaded by this resurgance of Calvinistic thought would be less likely to adopt it had they first been made aware of the issues I have presented here. Notice that I said, "In MY experience" and "I believe." That is not a proven fact, nor do I have any type of certified statistical data to present. I hope it is still ok to just state our opinions on this board.

Now, can we deal with the actual points that I made? Who knows maybe my "opinion" is correct? We won't know until we deal actually deal with it.

 

I'm not trying to debate grammar. I'm pointing to possible intent. I'm trying to make you see how Paul could refer to believers as being called but not necessarily mean that they were the only ones who were called. The fact is we KNOW that many are called by the gospel, but you are arguing that the call being refered to in this text is the inward, irresistably calling of the Holy Spirit. That has to be assumed upon the text because it says nothing about that. Your basing your belief upon a grammatical use of a phrase that could relistically be understood in more than one way. I'm just saying you need more than this to come to a hard and fast conclusion, which is why you shouldn't dismiss this as a possiblity.

You must admit that someone could say the phrase the way I did with the intent that I was expressing and that would be very reasonable. It is quite possible that Paul's intent was the same as someone who says, "Those called to ministry experience a great since of joy." This could be understood to mean that everyone who is called to ministry and who is actually following that calling will experience joy. The postive response to that calling can simply be implied within the statement. We understand that there could be, and likely are, people in the world who have been called to ministry who have yet to follow that calling and experience the joy. But that is not what the author would be attempting to express. Paul could very well be doing the very same thing here.

 

It's pretty clear that I'm not going to move you any on this subject, but here is one more effort. Quote from Adam Clarke's commentaries:

You may disagree with this as well and we may just need to agree to disagree on this passage and move on.

I would like to hear you interaction with my post earlier on this page where I deal with the analogy of you starting an African American church in the midst of extreme racism. I really thought that gave a good perspective for these issues.

 

In my Greek classes I do recall comments made by my instructors concerning the inconsistancies of some of the biblical authors in their use of greek grammar. Peter was usually the guilty one, but nevertheless, I don't believe the scripture ever claims infalliablity in terms of grammatical usage. Plus, I don't know that this is so much of a grammatical issue as it is speculation based upon what we believe Paul's intent was. If there were other passages where Paul had expounded upon his views of two callings, the gospel and the secret irresistable calling, then maybe I understand making that leap. But its never even mentioned, its only implied in a couple of verse that can be seen in more than one perspective.

 

Not necessarily. There could be, but if you understand the context from the entire NT and Paul's dealings with these issue that should be enough.

However, there are very clear clues to these racial issues in the very text we are dealing with in Thess.
I highlighted some just from this one I picked out:

See how he refers to their countrymen and contrasts that to Judeans. There are definately racial issues here.

 

Russell, you seem like a reasonable person. We have been dealing with what most see as traditionally Calvinistic proof texts here. In short, we are dealing with texts that I admit are more difficult for my position.

We could just as easily turn the tables and deal with difficult texts for Calvinists (truly objective Calvinists are willing to admit they exist). And you would have to apply some "explaination" that might touch on the grammatical structure or you might have to contextually point toward the author's intent to explain it within your system. Several specific verses come to mind but I don't want to divert our attention just yet.

As a former Calvinist myself I recognize the Calvinistic implications that can been drawn from these texts. But I can also just as clearly see an Arminian's perspective and the implications that can be drawn from their traditional proof texts. We must weigh those and objectively, with prayer, decide which interpretation carries the most weight. I will admit that for many years I sided with Calvinism because of my investment into its system. My family, friends, church and life were geared around my doctrinal stance. Its not easy to question that. It was one of the most difficult things I've ever done. Still today I don't claim to be an Arminian or a Calvinist because I recognize my uncertainies and consider myself a student of the Word who is ever changing as I grow in my understanding.

My cards are on the table, but please don't fail to see them because you've got your cards covering your eyes.

 

And your point is?

Remember I am showing why Paul might be thanking God for their being chosen. Paul is showing how Gentiles are like the Jews in that they have been chosen to recieve the truth and entrance into the covenant. The gospel is the power of God unto salvation FIRST TO THE JEW AND THEN THE GENTILES.

 

Well, of course you do. That's why you are a Calvinist. What ever perspective you are defending will seem to have the strongest arguments in your own mind. I admit that. Being one who has been on both sides of this argument I know how one views their own position. Its when take off your own beliefs and put on someone elses that you will see the others perspective. Try to debate in favor of Arminianism for once, just as an exercise. Pretend that God visited you and told you Arminianism was right and you had to read the scripture trying to understand it within that perspective. It is an eye openning experience, even for those who don't change their views. It helps you to grow stonger and it makes you a little less dogmatic about issues that you may be a bit too emphatic on.

That's like asking someone to show you the verses that argue against the use of cell phones. They don't exist. Why? Because cell phones didn't exist. In the same way we don't believe the "effectual call" exists so how could we find verses that speak against it? Its trying to prove a negative.

As far as election being the cause of faith. I don't know if I have a problem with that. It depends upon how you define election. I could list verses that speak about the gospel message being the cause of faith, but election precedes that so that would do nothing. The question would be what has God elected to happen?

Has He (1) chosen (elected) certain individuals to be irresistably called, hear the gospel, and then believe unto salvation. OR has He (2) chosen (elected) groups of people (who yes are made up of individuals) to receive the message of the cross granting them the opportunity to enter a covenant through faith with God, "first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles."

Either way, you could say election is the cause of faith. (I do know what you mean and I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm just pointing out a different perspective of election as it relates to our faith.)

 

I'm not quite sure what you just said here. It may be better for you to start a new thread if you want to talk about the tithe. Honestly, I'm not sure how that relates to our discussion here. Sorry, maybe I just missed it.

 

Russell55, where are you?

 

I would still like to discuss these common errors of Calvinism if someone is willing: