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

[CCWoody]

They weren't Biblical according to Jacob!

It doesn't matter if they were or not. Arminius was clearly into private interpretation. Until that time, the Reformation had one voice. Arminius was wrong. He was a divider who sowed error into the Reformation.

You toss around this term "orthodox church" rather authoratively. Almost as much as Catholics use the term, "infallibility of the Pope".

Did you have a point? As a plain matter of Scripture, the church is the pillar of truth. To say, as did the Pelagian heretics and then Molinia, Arminius, & those that followed that the church was wrong is to declare the scriptures themselves false. It is amazing that those who claim to listen to the teaching of the Holy Spirit always ignore what the Holy Spirit taught the churches in the past as they head into errors that have already been debated in the church.

These matters were settled a very long time ago.

As to the debate re: Pre-destination, Election, etc., there are miriads of other threads for you to do this. I was rather hoping to open a discussion to, shock of shocks, other possibilities.

You brought up Election and Reprobation in your previous post to me. If you didn't want me to address them, then why did you bring them up?

How can they deny Omniscience of God by saying that He foreKNEW every possible actions, and choose the possiblity we have today? You many have Molinists confused with Arminists.

I think you are confusing the Orthodox position with the Molinist position.

Grant God’s perfect Foreknowledge of All Potentialities, and Sovereign Freedom of Action, and you have just given the Calvinist the entirety of the debate. For if God, alone in Eternity, perfectly Foreknows all possible Creations, and perfectly Foreknows the operations of Free Will in each, from Beginning to End, and with Sovereign Freedom of Action Wills to give Actuality to the Creation of His choosing, then simply by the Act of Creation, He has Predestined all that will occur in that Creation -- having chosen to give Actuality to That One, in preference to all other Potential Creations which He could have willed into existence instead.

This is not to deny God’s capacity for Miraculous Intervention, for we worship a dynamic, Living God; but it does establish that God’s Interventions are themselves Predestined by Him from the Beginning, for He has Foreknown all possible Creations, and could have given Actuality to a Creation in which He would not intervene, or would intervene differently; But He Sovereignly Willed to give Actuality to the Creation (foreknown from beginning to end) which He chose, including therein His Foreknowledge of all Interventions which He would Effect.

Grant God’s Omniscience and Omnipotence, and the Augustinian/Calvinist will win the debate at its very root, every time. The Pelagian heretics knew this, which is exactly why they sought to deny God’s Omniscience -- they rightly knew it to be the anvil upon which Augustine would break them! And so it is with the ("Arminian") Pelagian and semi-Pelagians who hold the Church of Christ captive today.

Perhaps Middle Knowledge doesn't match up with your "orthodox churches". Isn't that why there was a Reformation in the first place?

The Reformation had nothing to do with the error of the Middle Knowledge disciples. You should study history if you think this was the reason for the Reformation.

I would rather prefer if you wish to carry on the fight for Calvin, to do so in your other threads? Take this as a capitulation if you wish. I am simply weary of the circular debate regarding all this. Ok? You win.

I'm not fighting "for Calvin." I'm earnestly contending for the faith and the truth which was given to the saints against the error of Molinism. As far as your charge of "circular debate" I have yet to actually see you present a position for debate.

It would seem to me that all you have done on this thread is ask the question "is there a door #3?" Well, to be blunt, the answer is "NO!"

Molinism is an error. It is an error that had already been settled by Augustine's day. It is an error that had already been settled by the time Luis de Molinia re-invented the error. It was an error that had already been settled by the time Arminius fell into it. It was an error that had already been settled by the time the modern day Molinists & Open Theists came along and decided that they knew better than what the Holy Spirit had already taught and had been settled for a very long time.

I'm not going to apologize if this fact wearies you.

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

*MOD HERE *

JUST A FRIENDLY REMINDER TO "PLAY NICE". BE CAREFUL TO NOT DO ANY NAME CALLING OR ANY INSINUATIONS THAT OTHERS ARE NOT CHRISTIAN.

THANK YOU

 

[PatrickM]

May I ask you, CCWoody, if you think this to be a Salvation issue? If I believe in my heart Christ is the Eternal Son, second person of the trinity, who died for my sins on the cross, and was raised for my justification, but adhere to some Middle Knowledge theology regarding pre-destination, am I not still saved?

Is this issue so important as to prevent me from knowing Christ the way I do? Cannot such energies be expended towards something other than such heated debate?

I do not see in "sola scriptura" Paul ever debating such issues with fellow Christians. He did get into it with unbelievers, however. Where would you put me, according to my confession above?

 

[Wilfred of Ivanhoe]

I think the question here is whether belief in predestination is necessary for a true salvation experience. Although I believe in predestination, I do not believe it necessary for repentance and everything else that goes along with salvation. The Bible states that none will come to Christ except the Father call him (John 5,7?). However, is it necessary for one who is coming to Christ to know that? Or does it only matter that this person believes upon the Lord and repents?

I've heard it put this way. Take a Christian through the Bible Grammer School before enrolling them into the University of Calvin.

 

[CCWoody]

May I ask you, CCWoody, if you think this to be a Salvation issue? If I believe in my heart Christ is the Eternal Son, second person of the trinity, who died for my sins on the cross, and was raised for my justification, but adhere to some Middle Knowledge theology regarding pre-destination, am I not still saved?

Is this issue so important as to prevent me from knowing Christ the way I do? Cannot such energies be expended towards something other than such heated debate?

I do not see in "sola scriptura" Paul ever debating such issues with fellow Christians. He did get into it with unbelievers, however. Where would you put me, according to my confession above?

I do not have sufficient information to make a judgment based upon what you have provided.

While a belief that Christ is the Eternal Son & second person of the Trinity are essential to a living faith simply believing that He dies on a cross for your sins specifically doesn't mean it is so. These are all required for a faith which saves, but in and of themselves are not sufficient.

So, as I have said, I do not have sufficient information. But why did you bring it up? I have certainly not called you unsaved and I haven't said that Molinianism is a fatal heresy.

I have simply been on track with this thread in maintaining that there is not a door #3 Molinianism. And, even though I have not expressed exactly why, I have also maintained that there isn't even a door #2 Arminianism.

Now, you may think we Calvinists are terribly wicked for insisting that those who have beliefs in error eventually address them if you like. It really doesn't bother me at all. Iron sharpens iron. Besides that, I post for those who don't know the difference so they can learn as well.

Now, if you should choose to respond to this post and wish to actually discuss what the Bible declares to us about the breadth and depth of God Omniscience, then here is a question for you....

Matthew 11: 20 - 27 --
Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. "Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you." At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure. "All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

• God foreknew Tyre and Sidon's free choice NOT TO REPENT in the case of His non-performance of such Miracles; AND
• God foreknew Tyre and Sidon's free choice TO REPENT in the case of His performance of such Miracles; AND
• God CHOSE not to perform these Miracles in Tyre and Sidon, a choice which had as its perfectly foreknown result the NON-Repentance of Tyre and Sidon, just as He foreknew.

True, or False?

 

[PatrickM]

"if you think this to be a Salvation issue? If I believe in my heart Christ is the Eternal Son, second person of the trinity, who died for my sins on the cross, and was raised for my justification, but adhere to some Middle Knowledge theology regarding pre-destination, am I not still saved?"

This is not enough information? Then, please tell me what else, "sola scriptura" is necessary for salvation?

It appears you might be hedging on this issue, pehaps due to the fact you many, indeed believe that a person truly does not have a relationship with Christ sans TULIP?

As to your second question, why True. You see, perhaps, again you confuse me with Arminianism. I'm not even a "classic" Molinist, but rather I agree with much of Dr. Craig's writings regarding "Neo-Middle Knowledge". And your above example is so good, I will include it in my arguments *for* Neo-Middle Knowledge, as it is a great example.

 

[CCWoody]

"if you think this to be a Salvation issue? If I believe in my heart Christ is the Eternal Son, second person of the trinity, who died for my sins on the cross, and was raised for my justification, but adhere to some Middle Knowledge theology regarding pre-destination, am I not still saved?"

This is not enough information? Then, please tell me what else, "sola scriptura" is necessary for salvation?

It appears you might be hedging on this issue, pehaps due to the fact you many, indeed believe that a person truly does not have a relationship with Christ sans TULIP?

Now, now. Accusing me of the heresy of neo-gnostic Calvinism is not very nice.

Let me state it this way: a mere assensus to the truth is not sufficient for salvation. This is why there will be a great many people who believe they are saved which will hear these awful words "I never knew you."

The scriptures are actually full of examples of persons who believed in God, but had absolutely NO salvation. Keep in mind that the LORD, after He had delivered the people out of Egypt, destroyed those who didn't believe. These people were not people who didn't believe in God. They saw the pillars by day and night. They ate the bread of heaven. They believed in God. There was something else defective which causes Jude to remind us that they really weren't believers. And in example after example after example in the OT it is spelled out what was wrong with these people.

And, it is this quality which added to an assensus to the truth becomes a salvific faith.

As to your second question, why True. You see, perhaps, again you confuse me with Arminianism. I'm not even a "classic" Molinist, but rather I agree with much of Dr. Craig's writings regarding "Neo-Middle Knowledge". And your above example is so good, I will include it in my arguments *for* Neo-Middle Knowledge, as it is a great example.

Perhaps you might be willing to actually lay out this "Neo-Middle Knowledge" for examination. I'm fairly certain I know where it is defective, but I'd like for you to state it yourself.

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

*MOD HAT ON*


ME THINKS YA ALL NEED TO COOL DOWN. THIS THREAD IS CLOSED FOR AWHILE

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

*MOD*


OK. . . I believe we've had a good rest. Remember. . .be Christ-like.

 

[PatrickM]

Now, now. Accusing me of the heresy of neo-gnostic Calvinism is not very nice.

Let me state it this way: a mere assensus to the truth is not sufficient for salvation. This is why there will be a great many people who believe they are saved which will hear these awful words "I never knew you."

According to my post, it was no mere assensus to the truth, please re-read. So, according to the specifics spelled out, if this is not enough information, what more would one need?

The scriptures are actually full of examples of persons who believed in God, but had absolutely NO salvation.

Again, of course a beliefe in "God" isn't enough, even the devil believes, and fears.

Keep in mind that the LORD, after He had delivered the people out of Egypt, destroyed those who didn't believe. These people were not people who didn't believe in God. They saw the pillars by day and night. They ate the bread of heaven. They believed in God. There was something else defective which causes Jude to remind us that they really weren't believers. And in example after example after example in the OT it is spelled out what was wrong with these people.

Again, please re-read, as I was very specific as to the belief of the heart, not merely in God, but in the work of Jesus, Eternal Son, on the cross specifically for my sins.

Perhaps you might be willing to actually lay out this "Neo-Middle Knowledge" for examination. I'm fairly certain I know where it is defective, but I'd like for you to state it yourself.

I actually did this for another requester, Quaffer, on an earlier post. For brevity, rather than re-print this, perhaps you could go back and read it?

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

I actually did this for another requester, Quaffer, on an earlier post. For brevity, rather than re-print this, perhaps you could go back and read it?

Perhaps you might be willing to actually lay out this "Neo-Middle Knowledge" for examination. I'm fairly certain I know where it is defective, but I'd like for you to state it yourself.

this is not anything that I said, I'm not sure who you're answering but it's not me. . .unless I'm missunderstanding what you're saying.

 

[PatrickM]

Dear Quaffer,
Uh, er, my computer took a dive, just before I attempted to post this. Honestly, it's not the "my dog ate my homework" excuse! I was attempting to respond to another post, and, well, all "hades" broke loose! :embarrased:

 

[SpiritPsalmist]

Dear Quaffer,
Uh, er, my computer took a dive, just before I attempted to post this. Honestly, it's not the "my dog ate my homework" excuse! I was attempting to respond to another post, and, well, all "hades" broke loose! :embarrased:

Dear? Wow. . . .that's what I like to hear towards a moderator. . .any and all acolade's accepted. No reason to be embarrased.

 

[PatrickM]

Dear? Wow. . . .that's what I like to hear towards a moderator. . .any and all acolade's accepted. No reason to be embarrased.