Questions for Calvinsts

[skypair]

Here's where the issue lies. It began with the first generation Christians. Without a Bible, they were saved in Christ but then became disciples of the person who baptized them. They became disciples of their doctrine — Apollos, Peter, Paul (1Cor 1) just as John the Baptism had his own disciples and no Bible to rely on.

So 1) this is how the church of Ephesus "left her first love." (1:4) They left Jesus to be disciples of the apostles instead. So right away other personalities got into the mix.

When John Calvin came along, he became a disciple of Augustine and cited his ideas more even than the Bible in "The Institutes." Now, of course, Calvin has disciples everywhere believing what he and Augustine believed — which is pretty much Greek mythology. Mainly it is that God foreordains our fate. He not being able to "look down the corridors of time," simply predestines the future in the same manner as the god's in "Oedipus Rex." In that story, the main character kills his father, marries his mother, and they is exiled blind from his country. No matter what he or anyone does, that is his fate.

There is a powerful need to folks to be disciples of the BIBLE — the WORD of Jn 1. It tells of the real world .. real God .. real people seeking God and His salvation from their youth. That was my real experience. Real people with free will and total ability to choose good or evil like those in the Bible.

skypair

 

[Choosethisday]

Skypair
Very well said. Understanding the Scriptures can be hard work so too often instead of doing the hard work of digging in for ourselves we find a teacher we like and "sit at their feet", so to speak, and let them fill in the blanks where we are too busy, or lazy, to do the research ourselves. This is OK for a newer believer but at some point I believe we are responsible for our having a working understanding of Scripture ourselves. Unlike too many evangelicals I don't believe the pursuit of exhaustive Scriptural knowledge is the end all itself but we are told "to be ready to give an answer". I think the Scriptures give us all we need to know but not necessarily all we want to know. On the Calvinism vs non-Calvinism issue I think the answer is available but it is not an essential, and certainly not worth dividing about.

 

[Metal Minister]

First, once again I don't want to argue about the non-essential theological differences between Calvinists and non-Calvinists but rather my concern is to find out why this should divide us as the Body of Christ. I will briefly respond for now but there are abundant forums where these differences can be argued.

Yes, TULIP is a mnemonic used to remember the points. There are some variations but TULIP is the most common one. Some Calvinists have suggested that the "L", limited atonement, be changed to "particular redemption" because they think this is more accurate in what they want to convey. Also, there is nothing magic about 5 points, though out history and even in different cultures the way the stanchions of Calvinism are portrayed sometimes end up with a different number of points.

As to Spurgeon, yes he was a reformed theologian, although more of a preacher than a theologian. He gave very powerful sermons aimed at the level of the average church goer. As to his view of the "two straight lines", today this is known by Calvinists as compatibilism, which is the idea that God simultaneously controls absolutely everything that happens, including when a person sins, and yet the person, even though they had no choice but to sin, is still responsible for the sin. I have studied campatibilism, and while I think I am following the logic, also think it breaks down and doesn't do what Calvinists want it to do. To me the theory is more about obfuscating the issue to the point where a person just shrugs and goes along with the party line. The idea that God fates a person to sin was unheard of within Christianity before Augustine. There is no question this is the case and even Augustine and later Calvin both stated that prior to the introduction of the idea by Augustine all of the church fathers believed in God granted free will. Remember, Augustine was heavily involved in Manichaeism and Neo Platonism. He was a brilliant theologian but almost certainly carried over some of his early ideas from this past philosophy.
METAL MINISTER
We are covering the same ground we have already covered with your post. The statements about non-Calvinists shows a misunderstanding of what we believe. Please, for now, stop listening to what some of the Calvinists teachers say we believe and go to some of the many sources for what we really believe. Then if you still think we are off the mark on an essential get back to me and we can talk more.

Yeah, no. I WAS an Arminian for most of my Christian walk, until a few friends here showed me the errors in its theology. I highly suggest seeking out Hammster, Skala, or one of those folks that spend a great deal of time in the soteriology forum whom are Calvinists. In fact, you don't have to even speak with them if you don't wish, just read their debates with the Arminians. I spent a long time banging my head against things like the golden chain of redemption. I even listened to those who would chop that up with no particularly explanation just to avoid admitting that it supports the Calvinist view. I suggest you start here before listening too deeply to other's views:

"What is Calvinism?" (James White): http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL45B9B434DB743160

 

[Choosethisday]

I have listened to dr white debate this subject. However, being a professional debater he seeks to win the debate instead of necessarily trying to find the truth. I would really love to hear two knowledgeable theologians sit down with no time limit and no preconceived positions and exhaustively cover this subject. But for now there are higher priorities than debates over dividing issues.

 

[JM]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-UkRp7UWus

 

[Metal Minister]

I have listened to dr white debate this subject. However, being a professional debater he seeks to win the debate instead of necessarily trying to find the truth. I would really love to hear two knowledgeable theologians sit down with no time limit and no preconceived positions and exhaustively cover this subject. But for now there are higher priorities than debates over dividing issues.

Smh, none of those videos are debates. They are lectures. Also, in a debate the point IS to win. It's to put forward the very best points for your side. It isn't like a football game where you take a knee when your opponent is blown out of the water. Does it also not occur to you "why" they were blown out of the water? If you have a specific question, I can try to answer it for you, but so far you've been too broad.

 

[Choosethisday]

First, if that was your voice you rival Max McClean in you oratory skills. As to the points in the video there was still several loaded statements and a general attempt to build a straw man argument. For instance, the term "synergism" would mean to work with. We reject this idea, as you do. Another example would be the statement ""Holy Spirit does all He can". Once again, we believe God has chosen to have sovereignty over His sovereignty and to limit, for now, the degree to which He exercises this sovereignty. Salvation is found in Jesus and none other, so salvation is a relationship where we come to Him by faith and abide in Him in faith. There is no work of ours in this.

Once again, I do not want to argue over this non essential and will longer go there. However, for some reason this seems very important to you. So maybe you would be a good choice to answer my original and primary concern. Why is this so important to you and others of like mind. I am very concerned at the direction I see the western church going on many aspects with a dividing of the Body being one of the most important. So please, why do so many, (thankfully not all), Calvinists think this disagreement is worth this risk?

 

[JM]

First, if that was your voice you rival Max McClean in you oratory skills.

That was a computer program. The free download gave me two options, one male the other female.

As to the points in the video there was still several loaded statements and a general attempt to build a straw man argument.

No, sorry…not a straw man. When one refuses the only conclusion that can be drawn, that is called invincible ignorance.

For instance, the term "synergism" would mean to work with. We reject this idea, as you do.

Who is the “we?” Why do you reject it? For a pretend middle way built upon philosophy?

Another example would be the statement ""Holy Spirit does all He can". Once again, we believe God has chosen to have sovereignty over His sovereignty and to limit, for now, the degree to which He exercises this sovereignty.

So, in essence, God limits the work of the Holy Spirit so the Holy Spirit does all He can within the limits pre-set by the Father. Where do you find the idea of the Holy Trinity limiting their sovereignty? The Triune God is never said to be limited in any manner.

Salvation is found in Jesus and none other, so salvation is a relationship where we come to Him by faith and abide in Him in faith. There is no work of ours in this.

There is performance and merit. You conflate sanctification and justification. The sinner must do “_________” to get “___________” which isn’t true.

Once again, I do not want to argue over this non essential and will longer go there. However, for some reason this seems very important to you. So maybe you would be a good choice to answer my original and primary concern. Why is this so important to you and others of like mind. I am very concerned at the direction I see the western church going on many aspects with a dividing of the Body being one of the most important. So please, why do so many, (thankfully not all), Calvinists think this disagreement is worth this risk?

If you believe the prime mover of your religion is you it affects all aspects of your life and worship. If you are the instigator to your own regeneration than why not have a more man centered style of worship with full band and worship team? Moralize the Gospel rather than preach about the wickedness of sin? Twin has already stated why it is important.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[Choosethisday]

I feel as though you still want to pursue an argument, and as I indicated, I am doing my best to not go there again, even though several of your statements are once again loaded with false assumptions and cry out to be answered. As to a "middle way", it seems you are trying to create a false dichotomy where I don't think one exists. It is not either as you see it or one where we share the work of salvation with God, but rather we accept or reject the work Jesus did. The terms "your religion" implies much as to how you may be judging me, apparently only because we disagree. If you live anywhere near Portland Oregon I would enjoy buying you coffee sometime and talking this over. In the meantime though, may I rightly infer you do think this a debate one over an essential of the faith?

 

[Metal Minister]

I feel as though you still want to pursue an argument, and as I indicated, I am doing my best to not go there again, even though several of your statements are once again loaded with false assumptions and cry out to be answered. As to a "middle way", it seems you are trying to create a false dichotomy where I don't think one exists. It is not either as you see it or one where we share the work of salvation with God, but rather we accept or reject the work Jesus did. The terms "your religion" implies much as to how you may be judging me, apparently only because we disagree. If you live anywhere near Portland Oregon I would enjoy buying you coffee sometime and talking this over. In the meantime though, may I rightly infer you do think this a debate one over an essential of the faith?

Its not an argument or false dichotomy, it's the entire discussion in a nut shell. Do I think Arminians aren't Christian? OF course not, they just have an error in theology. It's either 100% God's sovereignty/Will/Grace or its God+man in some form or fashion. If you believe that God calls, but we reject, then you are asserting we have some power over God, and that Jesus died for people in hell. However, if you believe that those whom God calls are His elect, and those He will not lose, then Jesus died for the elect. The only way around God's sovereignty is to be an unsettled theist, and claim God has no knowledge of the future. I highly recommend this debate: Is the Future Settled or Open? James White vs Bob…: http://youtu.be/fxOOcJxEEYU

It's a very good look into what I'm talking about.

 

[Choosethisday]

Once again, you are insisting we use your assumptions of terms and want to argue from there. Obviously Calvinists can do this if they wish but it does lead to different conclusions than we arrive at. I really have listened to many debates and read many books on this subject. The problem becomes the same as one would end up with if two persons were using the same map but different names for the cities. After awhile of driving the two people end up in two very different places. I have listened extensively to many Cavinistic teachers, such as Sproul, McCarthur, and others. Once they start using some of the usual assumptions their arguments no longer match what Scripture clearly conveys. However, I might try to come up with the time to read the book you referenced. As I have been able to put aside my Calvinist colored glasses I have been able to more clearly see the basic failures in this system of sot etiology. However, I am open to being intellectually challenged.

 

[Metal Minister]

Once again, you are insisting we use your assumptions of terms and want to argue from there. Obviously Calvinists can do this if they wish but it does lead to different conclusions than we arrive at. I really have listened to many debates and read many books on this subject. The problem becomes the same as one would end up with if two persons were using the same map but different names for the cities. After awhile of driving the two people end up in two very different places. I have listened extensively to many Cavinistic teachers, such as Sproul, McCarthur, and others. Once they start using some of the usual assumptions their arguments no longer match what Scripture clearly conveys. However, I might try to come up with the time to read the book you referenced. As I have been able to put aside my Calvinist colored glasses I have been able to more clearly see the basic failures in this system of sot etiology. However, I am open to being intellectually challenged.

Interesting, because mine was the exact opposite. First, I'm not using different definitions, these ARE the definitions. Synergism is when any act of man has any effect on God's salvation of that man. Period. Monergism is man has zero to do with it, and leaves God's sovereignty intact. That's it, that's all. You can try to squeeze something into an ambiguous middle ground, but it doesn't exist. There is only 2 ways. If a road sign says you have to go left or right, you cannot choose neither. This is your road sign. It's either go one way down Synergism Street, or the other down Monergism Avenue.

 

[Choosethisday]

Ok, I still don't understand. If I believe salvation is totally a work of God then where do I believe in synergism?

 

[Metal Minister]

Ok, I still don't understand. If I believe salvation is totally a work of God then where do I believe in synergism?

Where you said we had the will to reject it. If it's only God, then does God ever fail? If you say we can reject God calling us, then by default you are saying we accept God calling us. That is the definition of Synergism. Remember the golden chain of redemption:

Romans 8:28-30

And we know that in all things God works for the good[bless and do not curse]of those who love him, who[bless and do not curse]have been called[bless and do not curse]according to his purpose.[bless and do not curse]For those God foreknew[bless and do not curse]he also predestined[bless and do not curse]to be conformed to the image of his Son,[bless and do not curse]that he might be the firstborn[bless and do not curse]among many brothers and sisters.[bless and do not curse]And those he predestined,[bless and do not curse]he also called;[bless and do not curse]those he called, he also justified;[bless and do not curse]those he justified, he also glorified.

Where does that say we accept or reject God's will? It seems very clear that God is the one who does the saving, and man, in his fallen state would never choose God unless God changed that man's heart of stone to a heart of flesh. There is no middle ground.

 

[Choosethisday]

It still seems we are talking past each other. How is it that God is failing if He allows us this choice as part of His plan?

 

[Metal Minister]

It still seems we are talking past each other. How is it that God is failing if He allows us this choice as part of His plan?

If God draws a person, and they can thwart that drawing, it is a failure of God. He has no failures. Therefore any He draws, come to Him. John 6:44
No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

 

[skypair]

Skypair
Very well said. Understanding the Scriptures can be hard work so too often instead of doing the hard work of digging in for ourselves we find a teacher we like and "sit at their feet", so to speak, and let them fill in the blanks where we are too busy, or lazy, to do the research ourselves. This is OK for a newer believer but at some point I believe we are responsible for our having a working understanding of Scripture ourselves.

This is precisely how we ought to approach what we hear! In fact, many people will come to find out from reading scriptures themselves that they have been taught falsely.

I initially had some really good teachers — Dr Rogers, Jack Hyles, Lester Rolloff, etc. who stuck to scripture "reading." Hardly a word was said that didn't appear in the Bible. But with the Spirit, I did learn to glean much from scripture alone.

Thanks for your comment!

skypair

 

[skypair]

Yeah, no. I WAS an Arminian for most of my Christian walk, until a few friends here showed me the errors in its theology.

Yes, there are problems with Arminianism .. but don't jump out of the frying pan into the fire! The error of Calvinism, IMO, is much worse. To NOT come repentantly before the Lord in prayer surrendering your life to Him for His salvation is by far worse then never having known the gospel to begin with.

By far better is the Arminian concept of "prevenient grace" leading to surrender to God calling on the name of Jesus Christ for salvation.

skypair

 

[skypair]

It's either 100% God's sovereignty/Will/Grace or its God+man in some form or fashion. If you believe that God calls, but we reject, then you are asserting we have some power over God, and that Jesus died for people in hell. However, if you believe that those whom God calls are His elect, and those He will not lose, then Jesus died for the elect.

Well, may I just say that the only way man cannot be involved in his own salvation is if he/she is not saved! In that case, man might easily think that he is saved but actually be deceived, right? There has to be some way that a man makes a "connection" to God else he is not connected at all.

skypair

 

[Metal Minister]

Well, may I just say that the only way man cannot be involved in his own salvation is if he/she is not saved! In that case, man might easily think that he is saved but actually be deceived, right? There has to be some way that a man makes a "connection" to God else he is not connected at all.

skypair

Yes, there are problems with Arminianism .. but don't jump out of the frying pan into the fire! The error of Calvinism, IMO, is much worse. To NOT come repentantly before the Lord in prayer surrendering your life to Him for His salvation is by far worse then never having known the gospel to begin with.

By far better is the Arminian concept of "prevenient grace" leading to surrender to God calling on the name of Jesus Christ for salvation.

skypair

These 2 posts denote a distinct ignorance of Calvinism. I HIGHLY suggest watching the videos I posted earlier so you can clear up your misconceptions. (If necessary, let me know and I'll repost the link. ) Calvinists believe (as I posted) that God is the only moving part in salvation in that we as humans, being fallen and loving our sin, would never willingly choose God. It is only through God's will that our heart of stone is changed to a heart of flesh.