The entire debate arises from a philosophical approach to scripture by the reformers, trying to line up in a systematic way (systematic theology) various verses that support or 'fit' their system. Today, biblical theology first attempts to understand the texts themselves, and with so much more information available to us today some older style formulations are seen as beginning from an inadequate textual basis as well as having 'bought in' to a worldly ('flesh') perspective where reason and logical formulations are accepted as one's basic framework.
That both Calvinism and its variants and Arminianism can fire texts at one another ad infinitum indicates neither has an unassailable basis. Biblical theology sees election in a very different framework linked more to God's commitment to His promises than some kind of 'picking and choosing' of who will be in or out.
That the debate is somewhat one of words with little evidence that the real life of Jesus is part of it all, notwithstanding the sincerity of believers who hold to either position. I have done a lot of direct evangelism over the years. Never has some divine determinism been a vital part of any conversation with non believers. Their concerns and hopes are in very different areas.
John
NZ
That both Calvinism and its variants and Arminianism can fire texts at one another ad infinitum indicates neither has an unassailable basis. Biblical theology sees election in a very different framework linked more to God's commitment to His promises than some kind of 'picking and choosing' of who will be in or out.
That the debate is somewhat one of words with little evidence that the real life of Jesus is part of it all, notwithstanding the sincerity of believers who hold to either position. I have done a lot of direct evangelism over the years. Never has some divine determinism been a vital part of any conversation with non believers. Their concerns and hopes are in very different areas.
John
NZ
Upvote
0
