convince me

[Gus2009]

For a while now ive thought about Calvinism or reformed theology. I tend to be in agreement with all the points of tulip save u and maybe l and more specifically one of the ideas that stems from u, predestination(I know, im sorry, i bet you guys probably get tired of beating this same old dead horse). So maybe i should state my reservations and then ask my question.

Ok i see it like this. The only logical, rational conclusion of there being an omniscient, omnipotent God is that in fact, the elect are predestined to be saved. Otherwise, if man has free will, at least in this sense, there would be something outside of Gods sovereignty so hes not omniscient and not much of a god at all. Logically, rationaly this makes sense to me. Therien lies my problem actually, its simple really.

You see, im afraid of my own minds limits. Just because something makes the most sense to me doesnt nessecarily make it right. In alot of cases(probably most), the most logical, most rational answer is the right one. But when it comes to theology or really, Gods mechanic for how the universe operates i take caution.

A case in point would be the trinity. If im not mistaken, theologians and philosophers have basically stated that the whole three in one thing is not fully understandable, its a matter of faith. Alot of christians take this attitude towards predestination/free will but not Calvinist. And its not just trying to understand the mind of God type stuff where rationality and human understanding fails. It fails in trying to understand things in the world that are readily apparent and around us.

I suppose one would now say. Go read youre Bible, see what it says. But the arminian reads the same Bible you guys do and yet comes to very different conclusions. Whats going on there? I think what you deduce from reading scripture goes back to the whole rationality/logic thing. Another might say, the Holy Spirit will lead you to the truth. Theres an Arminian somewhere who would say that too. Somone or no one is getting it right.

So basically, these sorts of trains of thought have led me to become a fence sitter on the issue and my question is, where am i thinking wrong?

EDIT: This is not an attempt at baiting or some sort of aha gotcha question btw. I really was looking for some sort of answer(s). Another way to ask the question may be, is it possible that the apparent contradiction with free will and Gods sovereignty to actually just be a product of our limited understanding of God and the limits of our reason?

 

[mlqurgw]

The question you need to answer is which one actually glorifies God? No doctrine, or interpretation of the Scriptures, is correct that makes man more than he is and God less than He is. I think you already know that TULIP is what the Bible actually teaches. I just wonder if you will believe the Bible? There are many folks who hold to truth but few whom the truth holds.

 

[heymikey80]

I've generally found that arminians tend to pit verses against each other. "Who wins?" Certainly not God in those cases.

I'm also the first to say, Calvinists don't have it all down. There are numerous different viewpoints within Calvinism.

But the problem I hit was this.

If God's gonna tell us something, doesn't He intend it to be understood? Isn't the sole purpose of writing to communicate -- something?

So "election", God's "choosing", our being "chosen" is pervasively Scriptural -- we really ought to learn its meaning. "Unconditional Election" has a particular meaning, of course: God chooses without basing His choice on our wills or actions -- they're results, not causes. That's pretty-much what Scripture says in Rom 9:16, so I don't find this really preoccupying.

So in order to do justice to Scripture, we can't rationalize certain Scriptures away. We have to put them together. The verses have to mean something. They may mean something entirely different in arminianism, true. But they have to mean something. And the context virtually always captures that meaning somehow, I'm discovering.

For an honest example -- if the "foreknowledge" passage (Rom 8:29) weren't so doggone close to Romans 8:31ff, 9:16 & :19, I'd be feeling really worried about the arminian position about it. Because it becomes a "rare meaning" verse in Reformed thought. But in context, it really does become that "rare meaning." It has to. The contextual verses just rip the arminian position out of my grasp every time I read, "neither life nor death", or "not of human will or exertion".

Maybe this is a confession of sorts. Yeah, we're debaters and rhetoriticians like others. There we and arminians are the same. We can hammer away at our preferred meanings as if they're the most clear & obvious meanings of words outside the context -- but it's not really true. Debate is debate: a beauty contest over words.

But when we're forced to look at things in context and with a healthy sense of skepticism at our own personal reactions, the rules of debate are completely destroyed. It doesn't work. We're unpopular because we follow an unpopular God who has unpopular words to say to mankind. We know God is weird by comparison -- because we sinful people are so profoundly weird in a universe created by a good God. Our methods are counterintuitive to sinful people, often even to ourselves. But they follow a reason of an amazing sort. It's a path that's right -- even though we often do it wrongly, I fully admit it. We're all wrong.

To me that's a good thing. Because nobody like us can intuitively understand God.

 

[heymikey80]

Limited Atonement is dicey just because people don't recognize what it means. You're right, it's probably something else you're having trouble with -- maybe the Definite Atonement that almost always comes up inside this. The actuality of the Atonement is what Calvinists focus on -- who really gets what the Atonement paid for? Unconditional Election sort of forces this issue. Frankly, Amyrauldianism has some arguments in favor of it. I think it's a little "constructed", but if this area really gets twisted for you, this is a good thing to investigate. Then we can discuss this as Calvinists, and we can exclude a lot of options just based on our common assumptions.

For the record, I've also dealt with 5-pt Calvinists for whom their own view of Limited Atonement is rather "constructed". Just because there're certain ways of letting Scripture tell us what the Limits are, doesn't mean other people won't construct their own versions.

So, we can't escape our own limitations. They're still around. But they're in a narrower range of trying to comprehend it all. Not trying to clash verses and come out with our viewpoint.

 

[Gus2009]

Thanks for the responses. And youre right, i should take that into consideration, the point of conveying an idea is just that, too convey it.

I looked into Amyrauldianism and i find it interesting. I agree, it seems a little constructed with the whole two wills thing. But i can understand where he is coming from. God acts out of love for all mankind, not just to save the elect. Sort of a 4 point Calvinism or maybe a 4.5 point Calvinism.

 

[peace4ever]

For a while now ive thought about Calvinism or reformed theology. I tend to be in agreement with all the points of tulip save u and maybe l and more specifically one of the ideas that stems from u, predestination(I know, im sorry, i bet you guys probably get tired of beating this same old dead horse). So maybe i should state my reservations and then ask my question.

Ok i see it like this. The only logical, rational conclusion of there being an omniscient, omnipotent God is that in fact, the elect are predestined to be saved. Otherwise, if man has free will, at least in this sense, there would be something outside of Gods sovereignty so hes not omniscient and not much of a god at all. Logically, rationaly this makes sense to me. Therien lies my problem actually, its simple really.

You see, im afraid of my own minds limits. Just because something makes the most sense to me doesnt nessecarily make it right. In alot of cases(probably most), the most logical, most rational answer is the right one. But when it comes to theology or really, Gods mechanic for how the universe operates i take caution.

A case in point would be the trinity. If im not mistaken, theologians and philosophers have basically stated that the whole three in one thing is not fully understandable, its a matter of faith. Alot of christians take this attitude towards predestination/free will but not Calvinist. And its not just trying to understand the mind of God type stuff where rationality and human understanding fails. It fails in trying to understand things in the world that are readily apparent and around us.

I suppose one would now say. Go read youre Bible, see what it says. But the arminian reads the same Bible you guys do and yet comes to very different conclusions. Whats going on there? I think what you deduce from reading scripture goes back to the whole rationality/logic thing. Another might say, the Holy Spirit will lead you to the truth. Theres an Arminian somewhere who would say that too. Somone or no one is getting it right.

So basically, these sorts of trains of thought have led me to become a fence sitter on the issue and my question is, where am i thinking wrong?

EDIT: This is not an attempt at baiting or some sort of aha gotcha question btw. I really was looking for some sort of answer(s). Another way to ask the question may be, is it possible that the apparent contradiction with free will and Gods sovereignty to actually just be a product of our limited understanding of God and the limits of our reason?

From my experience with Arminians, they usually ignore most of the bible and quote only a few verses out of context. That's because Arminians want to believe they're free agents unhindered by a power higher than themselves. That's actually secular humanism that pays Jesus lip service.

But since all people who call themselves Christians claim to believe the bible, then no false teacher admits to being a false teacher. Nevertheless the bible says they exist. So only when one puts the whole bible together and comes up with an interpretation that doesn't contract any scripture, is his interpretation correct. But i never hear Arminians address passages like Romans 9:11-25 without adding or subtracting words and replacing them with their own. Never.

 

[Judson]

I happen to believe that Calvinism is true, but let me offer a somewhat different answer that many Reformed scholastics would find offensive.

I think we all need to admit our weaknesses and biases when we approach scripture. We come to the text not as pure interpreters, exegeting the text in a vacuum. Our culture, context, language, and upbringing has a big part to play in the view that you will end up embracing. Calvinism, Arminianism, Existentialism, Roman Catholicism all offer a "grid" or a lens through which we read and understand the bible. I'll venture to say that many of the biblical texts are difficult if not impossible to reconcile. Theologies provide us with a way of systemetizing and organizing the passages by emphasizing certain ideas and downplaying others.

When "deciding" on a theological system to embrace, first ask yourself some fundamental questions: which system glorifies God the most? Which system brings the most comfort to the soul? Which one is most rationally coherent? Which one is the most biblical faithful? Which emphases mean the most to me?

these are the questions that are going to lead you to embrace a system of theology, not the interpretation of individual passages.

I know a lot of people don't like this approach because it seems very relativistic and flexible. I just think if we take our human fallenness very seriously, we'll realize how subjective we really are.

peace.

 

[bricklayer]

I don't know how your mind works, but this is how God showed me.

God prescribes His creation, He is the author of His creation.

The difference between a human author and his characters is incalculable,
but it is quantifiable, it is finite.
The difference between the Creator and His creatures is infinite.
Even though we are oh so much more than two dimensional characters,
the difference between Creator and creature is infinite.

It is infinitely more ridiculous to think that a creature would contribute than to think that a character would contribute, to the story.

Once I realized that I had less ability to contribute to the story of creation than a character in a book has to contribute to the story,
I began to see how absolutely dependent on and subject to God I am.

The dawning of that utter helplessness was a dawning of a new day,
in my relationship with God.

 

[Jpark]

So basically, these sorts of trains of thought have led me to become a fence sitter on the issue and my question is, where am i thinking wrong?

EDIT: This is not an attempt at baiting or some sort of aha gotcha question btw. I really was looking for some sort of answer(s). Another way to ask the question may be, is it possible that the apparent contradiction with free will and Gods sovereignty to actually just be a product of our limited understanding of God and the limits of our reason?

That's because Calvinism and Arminianism are formed from the thoughts of a person.

And we know that a person is a mere human being which means they are not perfect and they are not always right.

Calvinism and Arminianism are not really opposed to each other. They both have it right. They just need to unite.

Free will and God's sovereignty can be reconciled if you see salvation as a co-op experience and God is the initiator of that relationship.

 

[Shulamite]

The question you need to answer is which one actually glorifies God? No doctrine, or interpretation of the Scriptures, is correct that makes man more than he is and God less than He is. I think you already know that TULIP is what the Bible actually teaches. I just wonder if you will believe the Bible? There are many folks who hold to truth but few whom the truth holds.

Precisely.

All must glorify God alone as Sovreign.
"All who were appointed to salvation believed".
The very word APPOINT says that God did it, not man. Man has not, does not, or will never appoint Himself to our Holy God. He chooses, appoints and ordains from before the foundation of the world.
As the scripture says, "Let every 'man' be a liar and God the Truth" Romans 3:4

Free will dethrones God and puts man as a "co-chooser".. .which is not scriptural. God is Sovreign or man is.... it can't be both ways. If Jesus had wanted us to see ourselves as Co-op with Him, He would have said, "You Chose Me and I did not choose You."
No! He clearly said, "You DID NOT choose Me, I chose you." Again, it can't be both ways. There is no grey area.

Romans 9 is very clear on this.