Arminianism, Calvanism, isn't there ANY other option?

[PatrickM]

Oops, "CalvInism". Any "Molinists" around? Can't there be a third option to this friendly discussion as to our pre and post destination?

Luis de Molina was a 16th century monk who shook up the church at Rome by defining a third option. Middle Knowledge has been around for a while, and thought might be fun to discuss it's merits. Contrary to some opinions, it is NOT a form of Arminianism, as goes further than that.

Let's try to be civil here, eh? Remember, we're all on the same team, as long as we have Christ as our Lord and Saviour, right???????

 

[Arikereba]

I can't completely sign up with either Calvinism or Arminianism, especially if they're based on exclusivism that says that only Christians are getting into heaven. There's much in Calvinism that I can agree with--the idea that God's love for us is not based on anything we can do, that God will love us even when we make an utter mess of things. On the other hand, I like the idea that we have free will--and frankly, if we're not all getting into heaven, that had better be our fault rather than God's. (Yeah, I know about original sin and all the ways that Calvinists try to hedge around it--but I just can't buy it). And on the *other* other hand, how can it be said to be your fault if you don't believe something that you've never even heard of? So I end up being extremely uncomfortable with any exclusivist position. I wouldn't mind being a Calvinist, if I could be a universalist too. Though I kind of like Molinism, as a middle ground.

 

[PatrickM]

I can't completely sign up with either Calvinism or Arminianism, especially if they're based on exclusivism that says that only Christians are getting into heaven. There's much in Calvinism that I can agree with--the idea that God's love for us is not based on anything we can do, that God will love us even when we make an utter mess of things. On the other hand, I like the idea that we have free will--and frankly, if we're not all getting into heaven, that had better be our fault rather than God's. (Yeah, I know about original sin and all the ways that Calvinists try to hedge around it--but I just can't buy it). And on the *other* other hand, how can it be said to be your fault if you don't believe something that you've never even heard of? So I end up being extremely uncomfortable with any exclusivist position. I wouldn't mind being a Calvinist, if I could be a universalist too. Though I kind of like Molinism, as a middle ground.

You seem to have been around the spiritual block a few times! Indeed, it had better be our fault if we trample the blood of Jesus under foot. I believe God is so great a God, He could make us with a free-will, and still be in total control. It's not to big a job for my God.

Dr. William Craig has some very thought-provoking views on Middle Knowledge on his names' sake web site. Is very good reading, he has a Phd I believe in Philosophy, but is a true Christian, so knows how to carry a point to it's logical conclusion (read Calvinists & TULIP).

Good to hear from ya!

 

[reformedfan]

Calvinism is Biblical Christianity.
What do you mean 'original sin & the way Calvinists hedge around it'?

Calvinists believe in free will, it just doesn't mean what you think it means. Freedom is no one forcing you to do something against your will. No one forces us to sin, it's consistant with our nature & will. No matter how much you may love Christ, Romans 7 is exactly right, 1 John 5:3 notwithstanding. Adam & Christ were the only ones with completely free will, that is, free to obey God perfectly.
The way Boettner describes it, a bird with a broken wing may be 'free' to fly, that is, he wasn't born a fish or a billy goat. But can he do it?
Do more reading on Calvinism before you outright reject it.

 

[PatrickM]

Calvinism is Biblical Christianity.
What do you mean 'original sin & the way Calvinists hedge around it'?

Calvinists believe in free will, it just doesn't mean what you think it means. Freedom is no one forcing you to do something against your will. No one forces us to sin, it's consistant with our nature & will. No matter how much you may love Christ, Romans 7 is exactly right, 1 John 5:3 notwithstanding. Adam & Christ were the only ones with completely free will, that is, free to obey God perfectly.
The way Boettner describes it, a bird with a broken wing may be 'free' to fly, that is, he wasn't born a fish or a billy goat. But can he do it?
Do more reading on Calvinism before you outright reject it.

Actually, friend, this board was meant more for those who wanted to discuss alternative views to both Calvinism and Arminianism. You have plenty of boards to which you can defend your Calvinism, I had rather hoped to open dialogue to alternatives.

As we are not the first generation to address these issues, I feel there is nothing to be said from either side that has not been said for centuries.

I do, however, chuckle at your line "Freedom isn't what we think it means." I rather prefer to use common language, as does God in His word, to say what I mean, and mean what I say, using commonly accepted definitions.

Speaking of which, when you say man cannot turn to God because he does not have the ability, then isn't man's "free will" violated when God 'forces' upon natural man, who does not want God, a new nature to then want Him, against his will?

If man does not desire God in any way, then to put a new heart into a man who doesn't desire it is, by commonly accepted language, being forced upon man against his will.

 

[Lotar]

Well Lutheranism is another option.

 

[PatrickM]

Well Lutheranism is another option.

LNEOL. Laugh not exactly out loud. Ok, but isn't that just another form of Calvinism? Are we opening a whole new can of Worms (laff here!).

 

[Lotar]

LNEOL. Laugh not exactly out loud. Ok, but isn't that just another form of Calvinism? Are we opening a whole new can of Worms (laff here!).

Or rather, isn't Calvinism just another form of Lutheranism

No not exactly, though it is closer to Reformed theology than Arminian.

 

[Bastoune]

Arianism, Docetism, Montanism, Sabellianism, Monophysitism, Nestorianism... you've got lots of options to choose from!

 

[PatrickM]

Arianism, Docetism, Montanism, Sabellianism, Monophysitism, Nestorianism... you've got lots of options to choose from!

Ok, ok, so perchance I left myself open to that! Well, which one OF YOUR LIST do you prefer? C'mon, if you listed it, you gotta choose it.

Or are you saying if not Calvinism, then all heresies are open????

 

[PatrickM]

Or rather, isn't Calvinism just another form of Lutheranism

No not exactly, though it is closer to Reformed theology than Arminian.

Ah, the chicken or the egg debate!

Without opening this wide open, (he winces here) what would you say is the difference between Lutheranism and Calvinism, if any?

 

[Lotar]

Ah, the chicken or the egg debate!

Without opening this wide open, (he winces here) what would you say is the difference between Lutheranism and Calvinism, if any?

Lutherans believe God predestines those who are saved, the elect, but reject that God predestines people to hell, those who are not saved are lost because of their own sin and the hardness of their hearts. Lutherans also reject the doctrine of Preservation of the Saints, Christians can lose their faith.

 

[PatrickM]

Lutherans believe God predestines those who are saved, the elect, but reject that God predestines people to hell, those who are not saved are lost because of their own sin and the hardness of their hearts. Lutherans also reject the doctrine of Preservation of the Saints, Christians can lose their faith.

Thanx. My understanding re: Calvinism also denies that God predestines those not elected to heaven, to hell as well. It appears the only difference, then, is the Preservation doctrine? When you say "can lose their 'faith'", does that mean possibly end up in eternal punishment?

 

[Lotar]

Pure Calvinism says God predestines to hell as well.

Since justification is through faith alone, if someone lost their faith, then they lose their salvation.

 

[Yitzchak]

Where the bible is silent, so should we be in as far as it comes to emphatic statements of understanding theology. My third option is believe what the bible teaches , nothing more and nothing less. We should not be afraid to admit that we do not know a lot of things.
Perhaps our problem with this issue is that God has kept some secrets to Himself.

 

[skylark1]

The Interaction view

Predestination and sovereignty are NOT Calvinist doctrines, and man making choices and Christ atoning for all are not Arminian doctrines. They are Biblical doctrines. Interaction has few distinctives, because Calvinists can agree with many parts, and Arminians can agree with many parts. Much of the scriptural support is given in the preceding two views.

1. Outside of time, God foreknew and predestined all the elect, in such a way that everyone still chooses whether to put their faith in God or not. Just as our near-certain knowledge of the past did not coerce any person in history to do anything, God's certain knowledge of all time does not coerce us.

2. God is just and only holds people responsible for things they have a choice or opportunity to change, based on the knowledge they were able to have. We are so sinful that no one on their own could seek God, but God in some respects draws everyone.

3. We are fearfully and wonderfully made, but those created as objects of wrath as such because of their choices. We have free agency, or free-will in the sense that we can truly choose. However, like a drug addict is to drugs, our free will is too bound by sin to free itself. We are "free" in the sense of freely crying out in our helplessness. We have real choices to make. (Scriptural support: Joshua 24:14-15; 24-25; John 7:17; 5:35; Psalm 119:30,173; Proverbs 8:10; 16:16; Deuteronomy 30:19; Isaiah 56:4)

4. God does not coerce people's choices, but He more than passively permits too. Not only does God influence people such as Jonah or Saul externally, God in His judgment chooses to harden those who choose to harden themselves.

5. The sovereign, all-powerful God, who could have controlled all of us like puppets, instead has chosen to delegate a very limited part of His sovereignty and allow people to make Him sad and reject God's purpose for themselves (Luke 7:30). Ultimately God's purpose is always fulfilled though (Ephesians 1:11).

6. Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for the whole world. He died for potentially for all, but His atonement was not effective for those who failed to combine what they heard with faith.

7. Faith, or crying out of helplessness to trust in God is an "empty virtue". It carries no merit, and is not a work. Being saved by grace through faith does NOT mean we are saved of ourselves, or that faith is a work.

8. People in Hell personally bear all the guilt and responsibility for their chosen destiny. However, while some people in Hell can say they did not get all the knowledge or opportunities, they did reject the truth they were given.

9. Christians should tell people that God is loving and compassionate toward all He has made (Psalm 145:9, 13, 17). However, God does have a special love for the elect. Everyone is supposed to obey the Gospel. God sincerely offers salvation to everyone, even though God knows the choices everyone will make, and outside of time, and has already known and selected those will inherit eternal life.

10. The first half of 1 Timothy 4:10 is one place that shows the atonement has universal aspects. The last half of 1 Timothy 4:10 is one place that shows the atonement has limited (or definitive) aspects.

11. By God's grace all have a responsibility to seek God, and many do seek God, as David did. (Scriptural support: Psalm 63:1; 22:26; 24:6; 27:4; 34:10; 69:32; 70:4; 83:16; Proverbs 28:5; Zephaniah 2:3; Zechariah 8:21,22; Malachi 3:1 Matthew 7:33; 1 Chronicles 16:10,11; 2 Chronicles 11:16; 14:4; 15:12; 30:19; Ezra 6:21; Deuteronomy 12:5)


http://www.biblequery.org/opportunity.htm

 

[PatrickM]

Where the bible is silent, so should we be in as far as it comes to emphatic statements of understanding theology.

Amen to that. Dt 29.29, secret things belong to LORD, revealed are for us. Sometime, however, it is unclear as to what clearly silent vs. implied?

My third option is believe what the bible teaches , nothing more and nothing less. We should not be afraid to admit that we do not know a lot of things.
Perhaps our problem with this issue is that God has kept some secrets to Himself.

Ah, and I think here's the rub. Who decides "what the bible teaches?" However, probably Paul has it best, "Let each be fully convinced in his own mind." Ro 14:5b?

Do we really need to convince others, perhaps to feel validation for ourselves?

 

[CCWoody]

Oops, "CalvInism". Any "Molinists" around? Can't there be a third option to this friendly discussion as to our pre and post destination?

Luis de Molina was a 16th century monk who shook up the church at Rome by defining a third option. Middle Knowledge has been around for a while, and thought might be fun to discuss it's merits. Contrary to some opinions, it is NOT a form of Arminianism, as goes further than that.

Let's try to be civil here, eh? Remember, we're all on the same team, as long as we have Christ as our Lord and Saviour, right???????

Just so I have it straight, are you actually claiming to be a Molinist? You do know that the orthodox church has soundly denounced this deviation from the Omniscience of God a heresy?

 

[Sola Gratia]

Oops, "CalvInism". Any "Molinists" around? Can't there be a third option to this friendly discussion as to our pre and post destination?

Luis de Molina was a 16th century monk who shook up the church at Rome by defining a third option. Middle Knowledge has been around for a while, and thought might be fun to discuss it's merits. Contrary to some opinions, it is NOT a form of Arminianism, as goes further than that.

Let's try to be civil here, eh? Remember, we're all on the same team, as long as we have Christ as our Lord and Saviour, right???????

Modilism is considered a heresy by most of Christianity as it denies the nature of God and the trinity

 

[CCWoody]

Modilism is considered a heresy by most of Christianity as it denies the nature of God and the trinity

Patrick seems to be a follower of Molinism, a disciple of Luis de Molinia, not Modalism. They have been denounced by the church as 2 different heresies.

If you like, I'll see if I can find you a nice online resource about Molinism.