Are we just trying to understand the inconceivable?

[S.O.J.I.A.]

obey the LORD and proclaim the gospel to the world and stop quibbling over adiaphora.

 

[zippy2006]

You did not read or you did not care to consider what @RDKirk posted.

I did respond. He cherry-picked a verse and assumed a historical exegetical anomaly with literally zero explanation. That's standard low-level Calvinism, and re-hashing the same tired arguments would be not only pointless but would have no effect on the argument I already gave.

He thinks the free will debate is a live issue today and historically. It's not. That claim requires no exegesis.

 

[redleghunter]

I did respond. He cherry-picked a verse and assumed a historical exegetical anomaly with literally zero explanation. That's standard low-level Calvinism, and re-hashing the same tired arguments would be not only pointless but would have no effect on the argument I already gave.

He thinks the free will debate is a live issue today and historically. It's not. That claim requires no exegesis.

Lol the debate is not even settled in your church. When was the last time you read On Predestination Book I?

 

[zippy2006]

Lol the debate is not even settled in your church. When was the last time you read On Predestination Book I?

It is settled in my Church. That's another problem: the nuances of the debate are generally too difficult and complex for forum conversation. For example, RD's position about the fallen state of man presumably includes significant assumptions about the relation of grace to the unbaptized and the nature of justification. Trying to access such nuances with someone who, for example, revels in threads and polls such as this one seems beyond pointless. RD may be better equipped for such dialogue, but the point I've made requires no exegesis.

 

[redleghunter]

It is settled in my Church. That's another problem: the nuances of the debate are generally too difficult and complex for forum conversation. For example, RD's position about the fallen state of man presumably includes significant assumptions about the relation of grace to the unbaptized and the nature of justification. Trying to access such nuances with someone who, for example, revels in threads and polls such as this one seems beyond pointless. RD may be better equipped for such dialogue, but the point I've made requires no exegesis.

You completely ignored his references to the bondage of the will. Now brushing off that you are completely ignoring the works of your own church doctor St Augustine.

If you don’t want to get knee deep in the details then don’t bother doing a drive by assertion which will evoke a response.


Then again...

 

[RDKirk]

He thinks the free will debate is a live issue today and historically. It's not. That claim requires no exegesis.

I did not say that.

What I said is that resolving the issue has no impact on our response to the Holy Spirit.

I said that if it had, it would be as vigorously expounded by the apostles as the resurrection.

Which it is not.

 

[zippy2006]

I did not say that.

You certainly implied it. Here is the quote:

No, it doesn't.

If it did, scripture would spell it out clearly by multiple witnesses, and there would no more doubt or discussion about free will than there is about the resurrection.

Here is a corollary, "Since Scripture does not spell out free will clearly, there is doubt and discussion about free will."

Again, what I said is that there is very little doubt and discussion about free will, and in our contemporary period there is no more doubt about free will than the resurrection.

Of course the question of grace and free will has always been a live theological question, but it has always been out of bounds to completely deny free will, as Calvinists do. Augustine himself affirms this in his letter to Valentinus.

What I said is that resolving the issue has no impact on our response to the Holy Spirit.

You said that too, and I disagree with that too, but it isn't what I responded to.

 

[Oldmantook]

Some things are mysteries that we may not fully understand or know.

The Arminianism vs Calvinism thing.

God can at the same time give us free will, along with knowing in the end what we are going to do with it and where we will end up. I don't think God can be surprised or takes in knowledge passively. Since he is eternal, he also exists outside of time.

Could we be predestined? Maybe, who knows. What's the benefit of trying to understand God's decree anyways?

Although its interesting to see both theological views, does it produce any fruit is it worth going into?

A quote I found "I sometimes think it would be more profitable to just read the Bible and thank the Lord Jesus for saving us than try to figure it all out."
"Such a faith is preferable. People who try to be overly intellectual about the Bible sacrifice the mystery of the union with God to the reaches of their intellect."

I think we can all agree that God is among other things, both omnipotent and omniscient. Yet with both Calvinism and Arminianism we still have problems.
Calvinism boils down to (God is strong enough to save everyone) + (God does not want to save everyone) = Everyone is not saved.
Arminianism boils down to (God is not strong enough to save everyone) + (God wants to save everyone) = Everyone is not saved.

 

[redleghunter]

You certainly implied it. Here is the quote:



Here is a corollary, "Since Scripture does not spell out free will clearly, there is doubt and discussion about free will."

Again, what I said is that there is very little doubt and discussion about free will, and in our contemporary period there is no more doubt about free will than the resurrection.

Of course the question of grace and free will has always been a live theological question, but it has always been out of bounds to completely deny free will, as Calvinists do. Augustine himself affirms this in his letter to Valentinus.



You said that too, and I disagree with that too, but it isn't what I responded to.

See you missed it. Not even Reformed denies free will. I’ll referece you to Romans chapters three through eight.

Our wills are either in bondage to sin and death or are slaves to Christ and righteousness.

We indeed have wills and we act accordingly to Who or what we are in bondage to. This Libertarian fee will promoted often on chat sites is nowhere to be seen in the New Testament. In fact most of the NT when discussing “will” is that of God, not human will.

This is not only confirmed by the works of St Augustine but confirmed by the Council of Orange.

 

[redleghunter]

I think we can all agree that God is among other things, both omnipotent and omniscient. Yet with both Calvinism and Arminianism we still have problems.
Calvinism boils down to (God is strong enough to save everyone) + (God does not want to save everyone) = Everyone is not saved.
Arminianism boils down to (God is not strong enough to save everyone) + (God wants to save everyone) = Everyone is not saved.

It boils down to God too has a Will and Purpose.

 

[Oldmantook]

It boils down to God too has a Will and Purpose.

Yes, I agree but both Calvinism and Arminianism don't appear to be consistent with God's stated will and purpose.

 

[redleghunter]

Yes, I agree but both Calvinism and Arminianism don't appear to be consistent with God's stated will and purpose.

You have it completely figured out?
Calvin and the Reformers were consistent that God’s will and what He purposes to do will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven. Arminianism follows the same...at least classic Arminianism and Wesleyanism.

Unless of course you have some quote from a Reformer or Wesley or Aminius you are drawing your conclusions from?

Please share.

 

[redleghunter]

Why do you need to rely on having to quote someone? Just read your Bible for what it states.

I was referring to your statement on Calvinism and Arminianism. What do you base your claims on?

 

[Oldmantook]

I was referring to your statement on Calvinism and Arminianism. What do you base your claims on?

You would have to elaborate more as I thought I already answered your question.

 

[Bobber]

Could we be predestined? Maybe, who knows. What's the benefit of trying to understand God's decree anyways?

Well as Bible believers we are predestined....in some sense of the word. We can say this because the Bible does use the term. To what benefit is there to understand it correctly? Wouldn't it be for the reason to make sure the sinner has the most accurate vision of the character of God?

And why is that important? Does one truly want to be in relationship with someone of whom they consider their character is less than noble? If the picture Calvinists portray of the character of God is reprehensible to the listener than how can it not be counterproductive to the mandate Christ gave to the church....to go forth and persuade men to receive their reconciliation.

A quote I found "I sometimes think it would be more profitable to just read the Bible and thank the Lord Jesus for saving us than try to figure it all out."

I suppose in some way it might be good for many to just carry on not give it too much thought. Other people are longing for answers as their minds have become confused.

 

[redleghunter]

You would have to elaborate more as I thought I already answered your question.

Quote me where you gain your understanding of both theologies.

 

[redleghunter]

I assume that you have not studied the subject at all? So may I assume your opinion though sincere is an uniformed opinion? Reply to me once you have studied the subject for yourself and tell me what you think and not presumably speak out of ignorance. If God's desire is to save all and he can't save all even though He's omnipotent, how do you explain that? We can always agree to disagree. After all, it doesn't hurt to study does it?

Considering we are only to discuss Universalism in the Controversial Christian Theology forum we should go there.

But if you must know there have been several threads there already where Universalist views vary and there is not one systematic theology to point to.

 

[JohnB445]

Well as Bible believers we are predestined....in some sense of the word. We can say this because the Bible does use the term. To what benefit is there to understand it correctly? Wouldn't it be for the reason to make sure the sinner has the most accurate vision of the character of God?

And why is that important? Does one truly want to be in relationship with someone of whom they consider their character is less than noble? If the picture Calvinists portray of the character of God is reprehensible to the listener than how can it not be counterproductive to the mandate Christ gave to the church....to go forth and persuade men to receive their reconciliation.



I suppose in some way it might be good for many to just carry on not give it too much thought. Other people are longing for answers as their minds have become confused.

What changes, whether or not you know if God predestines people or lets them choose?

How does that have to do anything with the relationship with God? The Bible doesn't tell us to figure out God's decree. It tells us to make disciples of all nations, to repent of sin, etc.

 

[redleghunter]

If the picture Calvinists portray of the character of God is reprehensible to the listener than how can it not be counterproductive to the mandate Christ gave to the church....to go forth and persuade men to receive their reconciliation.

What’s reprehensible about while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.

And that:

1Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God.3And not only this, but we also exult in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance; 4and perseverance, proven character; and proven character, hope; 5and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.

6For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.7For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. 8But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of Godthrough Him. 10For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. 11And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.

12Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

15But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. 16The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. 17For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.

 

[Oldmantook]

Quote me where you gain your understanding of both theologies.

Have you yourself studied both theologies? If not, I won't do your due diligence for you. That's your own responsibility. If I'm wrong then correct me and go ahead and inform of how so.