What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[Mark Quayle]

The first time a universalist forced me to say all doesn't always mean all I had issue with believing that.

—With believing that all doesn't always mean all? Or with believing one of these two thoughts: "Beyond that, it can be true that God finds no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but to claim therefore, that free will trumps God's plans, is simply illogical."?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Sorry, I view myself as a grateful co-heir with Jesus (Romans 8:17), not a pawn in a tightly controlled hardware or software simulation.

Seems odd to me that you should find it necessary to think of it that way. But by whose credit and actions are we co-heirs with Christ? By the innate integrity of our choices, or by the righteous power, purity, loving mercy and wisdom of God?

It means "all without exception" here. To assert that Paul was referring to "all without distinction" makes no sense - as Paul was not contrasting different kinds of people.

To assert that Paul was strictly referring to the elect in verse 4 & 6 (which supports Calvinist doctrine) also makes no sense. If that is what Paul meant he would phrased 1 Timothy 2:1-6 completely differently - he would have said something like "we need to pray for all men because we don't know who God will choose to save".

I didn't say that was the correct use of "all" there. I was saying you are probably familiar with the several ways (or at least aware that there are several ways) Reformed doctrine deals with those verses.

But your logic, that God would have said something like "we need to pray for all men because we don't know who God will choose to save" if in Timothy 2:1-6 'all' didn't mean 'all', (and other uses), is faulty. Not only, as I have earlier mentioned, does God have other reasons besides the hearer's possible salvation, for the preaching of the Word, (and for that matter, prayer for everybody, etc), but he need not explain his reasons to us. I have heard that sort of logic used concerning various doctrines since I was a child, and it made no sense to me then either, though I tried to make it fit. FWIW, "That can't be true, because if it was true, then God would have said, 'X'," makes less sense than to say, "That can't be true, because if it was true, then God wouldn't have said, 'Y'." But even that is too easily full of presumption.

Yes, God finds no pleasure in the death of the wicked. But, I never mentioned anything like man's "free will trumps God's plans" - so no lecture on logic please.

God does not orchestrate evil, nor tempt anyone. Have you ever considered the possibility that God's plans accommodate man's "free will"? Sometimes man's evil "free will" decisions, termed sin, result in judgement. As believers we can repent and ask for forgiveness based upon the blood of Jesus. Also, per the book of Job, we live in a fallen world - so sometimes bad stuff happens anyways - in the end, things turned out well for Job - so don't lose heart.

I didn't say that you "mentioned anything like, man's "free will trumps God's plans"," although, if your claims are extrapolated, and set against the truth that God has planned all things, that is what your claims work out to, which is why you deny that God has planned all things. Yet somehow, the 'inescapable' logic that your claims necessarily imply that things happen by mere chance, or, at least, that there are multitudes of independent little first causes trotting about the planet, (both notions of which are logically self-contradictory), somehow escapes you! And this you do, in the face of Scripture's teaching that God in fact is the one-and-only beginning, and therefore, First Cause of all things.

Notice God does not in Scripture couple together the two: "God does not orchestrate evil, nor tempt anyone." That is your construction. God does orchestrate how evil affects everything it affects. He controls and limits its 'work', for his own purposes. And this he does both directly and by use of means.

Your question, "Have you ever considered the possibility that God's plans accommodate man's "free will"?" is ironic! It has been my claim all along that God's plans not only accommodate, but make use of, man's "free will"! But I'm glad that at least your words here show that free will does not operate outside of God's plans.

 

[RickReads]

—With believing that all doesn't always mean all? Or with believing one of these two thoughts: "Beyond that, it can be true that God finds no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but to claim therefore, that free will trumps God's plans, is simply illogical."?

I was referring to your denial of the word all in 1 Timothy 2:6 which is destructive to the Calvinist view.
Your indoctrination prevents you from accepting that the word all means everyone. As a Calvinist, you must add a proviso to the text that says all only means the elect.

The first time I had to do that I realized I had a problem in my doctrine. That was about 20 years ago.

 

[Cormack]

You have no basis but presumption upon which to claim that the beer could have happened.

It’s not simply a presumption that life contains the possibility or alternatives, rather an it’s an immediately assessable experience that God has created man to live within. An experience of libertarian freewill is the key there.

You however are assuming on a lack of alternative choices against the reality of your own everyday experience. Human realities like regret, remorse and decision making aren’t presumptions nor are they optional.

We are writing about epistemology here, and the fact of counter causal choice is as justifiable as anything humans can believe.

God not only "knows who's going to be saved", and who isn't, but he also causes the effects brought about by the Gospel, both to the elect and to everyone else —that is, the Gospel attracts some but drives others away, being foolishness to them.

Calvinists aren’t neutralising the objection when they load more baggage onto the point, rather they are amplifying the charge against their philosophy of Calvinism.

Offering the gospel to people for the purpose of punishing them isn’t a “well meant” offer. It’s not sincere, not only is the gesture of bringing someone the Gospel designed for harm under the Calvinistic model, but it’s not even able to meet the definition of an “offer,” since to offer means “present or proffer (something) for (someone) to accept or reject as desired.”

There’s no “accept or reject” under Calvinism, there’s only an inability to accept the things of God. Just think about that term good news, the “good news” ends up being used as a means to harm people according to Calvinism.

Once again, the offer is valid, and the choice is real.

Thank God nobody is writing about real or unreal, rather from the get go everyone has been using the term “well meant” and “sincere.” Valid is up for grabs and “real” just goes to ignore the whole point of my argument.

Let’s say someone pushes a gun into your face and demands that you jump to the moon, that’s “real,” but it’s not a “sincere” or “well meant” offer.

Since you overlooked these questions once, I’m going to quote myself again so that you have another opportunity to answer.

So you believe it’s logical to offer someone a gift you don’t have for them, and again you believe it’s logical to then punish that person for refusing the gift that you don’t have for them?

It’s logical to cause mankind to be incapable of repenting, and then to punish them for not repenting and rejecting a gift not purchased on their behalf?

See I thought that was illogical. I’d love to hear the logic of that explained, without having to retreat into mystery. Remember to retreat into mystery makes you into another illogical inconsistent Calvinist.
​

Are these propositions “logical” and if so how are they logical? Not “valid,” “real” or any other new word that ends up functioning as a red herring.

 

[RickReads]

.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I was referring to your denial of the word all in 1 Timothy 2:6 which is destructive to the Calvinist view.
Your indoctrination prevents you from accepting that the word all means everyone. As a Calvinist, you must add a proviso to the text that says all only means the elect.

The first time I had to do that I realized I had a problem in my doctrine. That was about 20 years ago.

Thanks for explaining. It seems you think my indoctrination drives my logic and my conclusions. While I don't deny there is some of that going on —i.e. that what anyone already believes always influences what that one thinks of whatever one hears and sees— my "indoctrination" was quite the opposite of Calvinism. I did not even know, when I studied such texts, after they did not make sense to me as an Arminian, that Calvinism read them the way I found myself forced to understand them. I was not indoctrinated in Calvinism.

But, even in common English, does it not usually appear the use of "all" does not always mean "absolutely everyone who ever existed"?

Also, I must not have explained it clearly enough to you: That 1 Timothy 2:6 is not one where I take "all" to mean only "all the Elect". Maybe the shortest way I can show it is to say, "all kinds of people". The issue at hand here is that "all people" means to include both Jew and Greek. (Secondarily, it may be useful to mention that this passage also can be taken, like some others, to refer to the fact that Christ alone is the salvation for anyone included within the logical group (mathematical set) he refers to here as "all people" —thus it is referring to the fact that there is no other savior. That explanation may be cumbersome and unwieldy. That does not make it untrue.)

 

[Cormack]

This really helps to clarify the well meant offer of the gospel for users reading. God ordering Christians to offer the gospel to a world of doomed reprobates is either. . .

Well meant and sincere,

Or,

Ill intentioned and disingenuous.

 

[RickReads]

Thanks for explaining. It seems you think my indoctrination drives my logic and my conclusions. While I don't deny there is some of that going on —i.e. that what anyone already believes always influences what that one thinks of whatever one hears and sees— my "indoctrination" was quite the opposite of Calvinism. I did not even know, when I studied such texts, after they did not make sense to me as an Arminian, that Calvinism read them the way I found myself forced to understand them. I was not indoctrinated in Calvinism.

But, even in common English, does it not usually appear the use of "all" does not always mean "absolutely everyone who ever existed"?

Also, I must not have explained it clearly enough to you: That 1 Timothy 2:6 is not one where I take "all" to mean only "all the Elect". Maybe the shortest way I can show it is to say, "all kinds of people". The issue at hand here is that "all people" means to include both Jew and Greek. (Secondarily, it may be useful to mention that this passage also can be taken, like some others, to refer to the fact that Christ alone is the salvation for anyone included within the logical group (mathematical set) he refers to here as "all people" —thus it is referring to the fact that there is no other savior. That explanation may be cumbersome and unwieldy. That does not make it untrue.)

I like common English. It leaves you with less room to tap dance and the only thing cumbersome to me is my internet. I run my pc off a hotspot so it is slow. Makes it very time-consuming if I am expected to rebut somebody's cut-and-paste manifesto or analyze a lengthy speech and reference a pile of
scriptures. I`m generous with my time to post as many scriptures as I do but if you can respect my limitations I`m ready to indulge you.

I appreciate the background info, makes me curious to learn how an Arminian can get so
confused

We both know the word all has multiple meanings. What matters is the context if I may stretch that word a bit.

Paul uses the word Greek because a lot of his converts were Greeks and his use of the word is interchangeable with the word Gentile.

Lets Roll. Have at me and have fun. Tell me how Arminianism let you down

 

[Mark Quayle]

It’s not simply a presumption that life contains the possibility or alternatives, rather an it’s an immediately assessable experience that God has created man to live within. An experience of libertarian freewill is the key there.

"Assessable" according to man's subjective view. It is only our point-of-view. It is not provable fact.

But perhaps it would be more palatable to you if I put it like this: "'Possibility' does not operate in a vacuum! (thanks to @Clare73 ). God set it up, and only one thing ever happens, (not both or several possibilities), by his design of reason, logic, and his principle of cause-and-effect."

You however are assuming on a lack of alternative choices against the reality of your own everyday experience. Human realities like regret, remorse and decision making aren’t presumptions nor are they optional.

Not at all. The alternatives, both real and illusory, are there from which a choice will be made. "Human realities like regret, remorse and decision" are actual, but are irrelevant as to whether the options from which one had decided had been real or illusory.

We are writing about epistemology here, and the fact of counter causal choice is as justifiable as anything humans can believe.

You have here stepped out of the argument into the irrelevant. The fact that one can choose against some [perhaps more obvious] causes has no relation to the fact that one is always caused to choose what one chooses.

Further, you are dead wrong that "the fact of counter causal choice is as justifiable as anything humans can believe". One huge and immediate example is the fact of God's existence, which makes more sense than the fact that I should exist (yet, "here I obviously am"). But I expect you were indulging in a bit of hyperbole.

Calvinists aren’t neutralising the objection when they load more baggage onto the point, rather they are amplifying the charge against their philosophy of Calvinism.

Offering the gospel to people for the purpose of punishing them isn’t a “well meant” offer. It’s not sincere, not only is the gesture of bringing someone the Gospel designed for harm under the Calvinistic model, but it’s not even able to meet the definition of an “offer,” since to offer means “present or proffer (something) for (someone) to accept or reject as desired.”

There’s no “accept or reject” under Calvinism, there’s only an inability to accept the things of God. Just think about that term good news, the “good news” ends up being used as a means to harm people according to Calvinism.

You misrepresent Calvinism when you say that there's no "accept or reject" under Calvinism. Calvinists do indeed tend to hyperbolize at times to get a point across, and here is a point at which it is easy for them to do so, in their haste to demonstrate Total Inability and the Fallen nature of man. But Calvinism does not deny the will and choice —real, effectual choice— rather, it demands them, and shows them to be necessarily at enmity with God, until regeneration, upon which one is finally able to accept instead of continuing to reject, God's "offer".

What Calvinist says that the Gospel is offered for the purpose of punishing anyone? It seems to be your joy to misrepresent Calvinism. Read Romans 9 again, particularly vss 22 and 23.

Thank God nobody is writing about real or unreal, rather from the get go everyone has been using the term “well meant” and “sincere.” Valid is up for grabs and “real” just goes to ignore the whole point of my argument.

Let’s say someone pushes a gun into your face and demands that you jump to the moon, that’s “real,” but it’s not a “sincere” or “well meant” offer.

Since you overlooked these questions once, I’m going to quote myself again so that you have another opportunity to answer.

So you believe it’s logical to offer someone a gift you don’t have for them, and again you believe it’s logical to then punish that person for refusing the gift that you don’t have for them?

It’s logical to cause mankind to be incapable of repenting, and then to punish them for not repenting and rejecting a gift not purchased on their behalf?

See I thought that was illogical. I’d love to hear the logic of that explained, without having to retreat into mystery. Remember to retreat into mystery makes you into another illogical inconsistent Calvinist.
Are these propositions “logical” and if so how are they logical? Not “valid,” “real” or any other new word that ends up functioning as a red herring.

The red herring here, is your proposing of these questions as valid.

I can almost see the frustration in your face when I say, "The command does not imply the ability to obey."! Even a universalist has a problem resolving the "is - ought" dilemma.

But it is not necessary to go there; I need only say that you continue to demonstrate your need to operate on God's level, knowing what is actual and what is illusory. You also demand the right of the creature to absolute sovereignty over his choices, as if his preferences and attitudes were his alone to control, and not the purview of his master.

Your questions, I did not answer as such, due to their presumptive nature. To answer them as given would indicate an acquiescence of their validity, which I will not do. As to how they are invalid, I have already shown in the paragraph immediately above this one, and in earlier posts in similar words. You offer up for our consideration a faulty paradigm, in which we creatures can consider a temporal offer from an eternal, all-wise perspective of result. That is not our place. We cannot go into the future and looking back, say, "hey, that's not fair!".

But I will try to answer some of your objections and other statements:

You say, "To retreat into mystery makes you into another illogical inconsistent Calvinist." I retort, "Hardly!" Even if a retreat into mystery showed my inability to explain something, it does not demonstrate logical inconsistency concerning Calvinism, nor does it demonstrate that I am logically inconsistent, but only that I am presently unable to otherwise explain what I believe.

You say, "Thank God nobody is writing about real or unreal, rather from the get go everyone has been using the term “well meant” and “sincere.” Here again you go into anthropomorphistic use of terms. Can you really define what, from God's point of view, is well meant, or sincere, for him to do? And yes, when we preach the Gospel, we are preaching his "offer", not our sincere and well-meant offer. Even the term, 'offer', smells of humanity's soft pov and not of God's absolutely solid and reliable ways. But as above, you mean for me to deal directly with your narrative, and I refuse to be drawn in. Notice too, that I have yet to hear anyone explain God's ways in being ignorant of or having no causative role in the existence of hard things and suffering, or exactly how it is that "first cause" can logically back away from our free will.

You say, "Let’s say someone pushes a gun into your face and demands that you jump to the moon, that’s “real,” but it’s not a “sincere” or “well meant” offer. I suppose I should retort, "Do you really equate that with what Calvinists believe concerning the Gospel?" Again, from God's point-of-view, none of the ultimately lost will accept the Gospel, and, in fact, even the Elect cannot accept the Good News until God changes their heart. Furthermore, that changed (regenerated) heart will eventually accept the offer, and that, gladly, not as an opposition to their will. You want SINCERE? Oh, it is sincere alright. So sincere that the mockers call it a threat and even the believers fail to comprehend what a sacrifice Christ has given. Do you really think God means to make Christ pay for sins that the sinner ultimately ends up having to pay for himself? You want WELL-MEANT? Do you think God thinks kindly on those upon whom he did not decide to show mercy, who have of their own rebellion rejected him and called him a liar and irrelevant? You want GOOD NEWS? What else is the Gospel, to those who believe? I could argue hours on the good effects the Gospel has also on those who don't believe, such as Christ's authority in tempering the effects of sin upon the individual even during this life and restraining through common and specific graces the depths to which an individual would otherwise sink by the will of Satan and by the will of the sinner himself. But that is not the argument I wish to show you; I want to make obvious the presumptuousness of claiming uncaused free will.

You say, "Valid is up for grabs and “real” just goes to ignore the whole point of my argument". I say, "So what?" The whole point of your argument is based on some false ability of man to see from God's point-of-view, as though man operates on God's level. You want to take God's general commands which lend themselves to specific circumstances, and exchange them for God's specific but unknown-to-us plans and means of accomplishing those plans. That isn't just ignorance, but presumption.

 

[Mark Quayle]

This really helps to clarify the well meant offer of the gospel for users reading. God ordering Christians to offer the gospel to a world of doomed reprobates is either. . .

Well meant and sincere,

Or,

Ill intentioned and disingenuous.

So, you intend to present a God who was ignorant of what would happen, even though he set in motion all that would cause it. I assume, but am not sure, that you do, at least, believe that he at least knew what would result from his creating, no? If you believe that God knew when he created, yet did not know, you are contradicting yourself.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Tell me how Arminianism let you down

I was born an MK into a fundamentalistic semi-Wesleyan style Christian Missionary family. My father never used the word, Reformed, nor Calvinism, and I don't think he even considered himself of that ilk. My mother would have rejected the notion outright, I think. But it was never brought up. My father did, however, consistently insist on the Sovereignty of God, and affirm certain other things as Scriptural that my mother seldom discussed. And I thank God he did, as they came useful in understanding why the doctrines and precepts and mindset I had been given "weren't working for me" as a presumably growing believer.

Long story very short, certain seminal memories (facts, events and impressions) can be told here:
- Early on, pre-school, the realization that storms were not only under God's control, but that they were in fact his doing, and that he was enjoying himself in them, and that instead of being afraid, I could enjoy them too as a result.
- The notion coming to me as a young child that if I was to claim to not be a Christian, that I would not have to be obedient to my parents and could lie and steal and whatever else I wanted to do to my satisfaction; but then, upon that consideration, when I realized, strangely enough not that it would be impractical, but that I was unable to deny that God was indeed real, and that I belonged to him.
- The day it occurred to me that God himself was not a co-resident within reality, but the 'inventor' of reality.
- As a young teen the irrational fear of midnight every night, as though the rapture was not likely to occur right after midnight, but until midnight I did not honestly think (based on the fact that I was always falling short of obedience) that my decision to accept him could have been genuine*, and I feared the rapture would come and I would be left behind.
- The ongoing daily struggle and frustration, attempting to live up to the supposed 'norm' of faithful victorious Christian walk, attempting to understand why I could not attain the sanctification and purity I so dearly desired, or even the success as a believer I was told was mine. Being told so many new ideas that I drank up like strong soup, believing in, only to be let down once again by my own failures, my own rebellion mocking me to my face.
- As a young adult, the hours of prayer and study to understand, the tears, and screams of my heart toward God, even as I slowly began to realize how much I needed him, not just for strength, but that I wanted to be close by him. But ever, my own sin staring me in the face.
- As a young married, the realization that the claim, "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life", was of human origin, or at least, that his wonderful plan for my life did not include what I had thought it would.
- All the many many many exhaustingly many efforts of well-meaning believers to explain what was wrong, and of myself to study and pray in my attempts to understand, all falling short of doing the job. And the whole stack of cards concerning the Christian walk falling down around me, and me giving up, over and over and over, to find that I didn't even know how to do that.
- The ever so slow realization that what I most dearly desired, and didn't even know it at the time I prayed for it, was happening to me, and I was coming to know Christ as real in a way that theory and doctrine is only able to attempt to express, but not to produce —that God was the default, and all else is noise, but for his works.
- The way Scripture began to jump out and scream at me for attention, so many magnificent themes and principles, and such beautiful thoughts, all leaving an impression, but few of them quite entirely retrievable, as at the first time they hit me. One such that still lays me low involves that whole story of Job, but nearing the end of the conversation, the agonizing joy induced by his words in Job 19 is later followed by God saying that Job alone had spoken the truth concerning God, and not the wisdom of his 'friends'. The only thing I can find Job saying about God that is different from what his friends say, is that God does whatever God does, for his own reasons, and not because of what his people do or do not do, or say:

25 "I know that my redeemer lives,
and that in the end he will stand on the earth.
26 And after my skin has been destroyed,
yet in my flesh I will see God;
27 I myself will see him
with my own eyes—I, and not another.
How my heart yearns within me!"

- Somehow I no longer find my concern for my eternal safety, but for my holiness, i.e., my closeness or intimacy with Christ, or more immediately, that I and his people learn and know God and understand his satisfaction and joy in his deeds, in what he is doing.

You may ask at this point, what it is that makes me say that Arminianism let me down: Arminianism led me to despair, it did not teach me the truth about God, though through it I learned truth about myself that it did not teach —my total inability. It is Arminianism that led me to despair, but what I found instead of Arminianism, was the sovereignty and power of God. I will not say that Calvinism or Reformed Theology taught me this, but I will say that what I learned as a result of my despair taught me Reformed Theology. Not because it is Reformed Theology, or Calvinism, but because they claim the same things I learned —that this life is not about me, nor even does my destiny depend upon me, but upon Christ my God, and that there are far more important things going on than whether I qualify.

*I have learned that the genuineness of my faith is by the fact, not that I generate my faith, but that the Spirit of God generates it in me. Likewise, then my decision, including my "decision for Christ", or what most Christians for the last 75 years of so call, "accepting Christ", is no more real of itself than my commitment, which is zilch, if God himself did not do it in me. HE is the constancy and indeed the REALITY behind any integrity in my choices, both by primary motivation and continued substance. This is not Arminianism, where the truth of my decision depends on my "intelligent or educated decision" and "heartfelt sincerity" and so on, and not on the source of reality himself.

 

[Clare73]

I was born an MK into a fundamentalistic semi-Wesleyan style Christian Missionary family. My father never used the word, Reformed, nor Calvinism, and I don't think he even considered himself of that ilk. My mother would have rejected the notion outright, I think. But it was never brought up. My father did, however, consistently insist on the Sovereignty of God, and affirm certain other things as Scriptural that my mother seldom discussed. And I thank God he did, as they came useful in understanding why the doctrines and precepts and mindset I had been given "weren't working for me" as a presumably growing believer.

Long story very short, certain seminal memories (facts, events and impressions) can be told here:
- Early on, pre-school, the realization that storms were not only under God's control, but that they were in fact his doing, and that he was enjoying himself in them, and that instead of being afraid, I could enjoy them too as a result.
- The notion coming to me as a young child that if I was to claim to not be a Christian, that I would not have to be obedient to my parents and could lie and steal and whatever else I wanted to do to my satisfaction; but then, upon that consideration, when I realized, strangely enough not that it would be impractical, but that I was unable to deny that God was indeed real, and that I belonged to him.
- The day it occurred to me that God himself was not a co-resident within reality, but the 'inventor' of reality.
- As a young teen the irrational fear of midnight every night, as though the rapture was not likely to occur right after midnight, but until midnight I did not honestly think (based on the fact that I was always falling short of obedience) that my decision to accept him could have been genuine*, and I feared the rapture would come and I would be left behind.
- The ongoing daily struggle and frustration, attempting to live up to the supposed 'norm' of faithful victorious Christian walk, attempting to understand why I could not attain the sanctification and purity I so dearly desired, or even the success as a believer I was told was mine. Being told so many new ideas that I drank up like strong soup, believing in, only to be let down once again by my own failures, my own rebellion mocking me to my face.
- As a young adult, the hours of prayer and study to understand, the tears, and screams of my heart toward God, even as I slowly began to realize how much I needed him, not just for strength, but that I wanted to be close by him. But ever, my own sin staring me in the face.
- As a young married, the realization that the claim, "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life", was of human origin, or at least, that his wonderful plan for my life did not include what I had thought it would.
- All the many many many exhaustingly many efforts of well-meaning believers to explain what was wrong, and of myself to study and pray in my attempts to understand, all falling short of doing the job. And the whole stack of cards concerning the Christian walk falling down around me, and me giving up, over and over and over, to find that I didn't even know how to do that.
- The ever so slow realization that what I most dearly desired, and didn't even know it at the time I prayed for it, was happening to me, and I was coming to know Christ as real in a way that theory and doctrine is only able to attempt to express, but not to produce —that God was the default, and all else is noise, but for his works.
- The way Scripture began to jump out and scream at me for attention, so many magnificent themes and principles, and such beautiful thoughts, all leaving an impression, but few of them quite entirely retrievable, as at the first time they hit me. One such that still lays me low involves that whole story of Job, but nearing the end of the conversation, the agonizing joy induced by his words in Job 19 is later followed by

God saying that Job alone had spoken the truth concerning God, and not the wisdom of his 'friends'. The only thing I can find Job saying

And Job 13:15. . .

about God that is different from what his friends say, is that God does whatever God does, for his own reasons, and not because of what his people do or do not do, or say:

25 "I know that my redeemer lives,
and that in the end he will stand on the earth.
26 And after my skin has been destroyed,
yet in my flesh I will see God;
27 I myself will see him
with my own eyes—I, and not another.
How my heart yearns within me!"

- Somehow I no longer find my concern for my eternal safety, but for my holiness, i.e., my closeness or intimacy with Christ, or more immediately, that I and his people learn and know God and understand his satisfaction and joy in his deeds, in what he is doing.

You may ask at this point, what it is that makes me say that Arminianism let me down: Arminianism led me to despair, it did not teach me the truth about God, though through it I learned truth about myself that it did not teach —my total inability. It is Arminianism that led me to despair, but what I found instead of Arminianism, was the sovereignty and power of God. I will not say that Calvinism or Reformed Theology taught me this, but I will say that what I learned as a result of my despair taught me Reformed Theology. Not because it is Reformed Theology, or Calvinism, but because they claim the same things I learned —that this life is not about me, nor even does my destiny depend upon me, but upon Christ my God, and that there are far more important things going on than whether I qualify.

*I have learned that the genuineness of my faith is by the fact, not that I generate my faith, but that the Spirit of God generates it in me. Likewise, then my decision, including my "decision for Christ", or what most Christians for the last 75 years of so call, "accepting Christ", is no more real of itself than my commitment, which is zilch, if God himself did not do it in me. HE is the constancy and indeed the REALITY behind any integrity in my choices, both by primary motivation and continued substance. This is not Arminianism, where the truth of my decision depends on my "intelligent or educated decision" and "heartfelt sincerity" and so on, and not on the source of reality himself.

 

[RickReads]

I was born an MK into a fundamentalistic semi-Wesleyan style Christian Missionary family. My father never used the word, Reformed, nor Calvinism, and I don't think he even considered himself of that ilk. My mother would have rejected the notion outright, I think. But it was never brought up. My father did, however, consistently insist on the Sovereignty of God, and affirm certain other things as Scriptural that my mother seldom discussed. And I thank God he did, as they came useful in understanding why the doctrines and precepts and mindset I had been given "weren't working for me" as a presumably growing believer.

Long story very short, certain seminal memories (facts, events and impressions) can be told here:
- Early on, pre-school, the realization that storms were not only under God's control, but that they were in fact his doing, and that he enjoyed was enjoying himself, and that instead of being afraid, I could enjoy them too as a result.
- The notion coming to me as a young child that if I was to claim to not be a Christian, that I would not have to be obedient to my parents and could lie and steal and whatever else I wanted to do to my satisfaction; but then, upon that consideration, when I realized, strangely enough not that it would be impractical, but that I was unable to deny that God was indeed real, and that I belonged to him.
- The day it occurred to me that God himself was not a co-resident within reality, but the 'inventor' of reality.
- As a young teen the irrational fear of midnight every night, as though the rapture was not likely to occur right after midnight, but until midnight I did not honestly think (based on the fact that I was always falling short of obedience) that my decision to accept him could have been genuine*, and I feared the rapture would come and I would be left behind.
- The ongoing daily struggle and frustration, attempting to live up to the supposed 'norm' of faithful victorious Christian walk, attempting to understand why I could not attain the sanctification and purity I so dearly desired, or even the success as a believer I was told was mine. Being told so many new ideas that I drank up like strong soup, believing in, only to be let down once again by my own failures, my own rebellion mocking me to my face.
- As a young adult, the hours of prayer and study to understand, the tears, and screams of my heart toward God, even as I slowly began to realize how much I needed him, not just for strength, but that I wanted to be close by him. But ever, my own sin staring me in the face.
- As a young married, the realization that the claim, "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life", was of human origin, or at least, that his wonderful plan for my life did not include what I had thought it would.
- All the many many many exhaustingly many efforts of well-meaning believers to explain what was wrong, and of myself to study and pray in my attempts to understand, all falling short of doing the job. And the whole stack of cards concerning the Christian walk falling down around me, and me giving up, over and over and over, to find that I didn't even know how to do that.
- The ever so slow realization that what I most dearly desired, and didn't even know it at the time I prayed for it, was happening to me, and I was coming to know Christ as real in a way that theory and doctrine is only able to attempt to express, but not to produce —that God was the default, and all else is noise, but for his works.
- The way Scripture began to jump out and scream at me for attention, so many magnificent themes and principles, and such beautiful thoughts, all leaving an impression, but few of them quite entirely retrievable, as at the first time they hit me. One such that still lays me low involves that whole story of Job, but nearing the end of the conversation, the agonizing joy induced by his words in Job 19 is later followed by God saying that Job alone had spoken the truth concerning God, and not the wisdom of his 'friends'. The only thing I can find Job saying about God that is different from what his friends say, is that God does whatever God does, for his own reasons, and not because of what his people do or do not do, or say:

25 "I know that my redeemer lives,
and that in the end he will stand on the earth.
26 And after my skin has been destroyed,
yet in my flesh I will see God;
27 I myself will see him
with my own eyes—I, and not another.
How my heart yearns within me!"

- Somehow I no longer find my concern for my eternal safety, but for my holiness, or more immediately, that people learn and know God and understand his satisfaction and joy in his deeds, in what he is doing.

You may ask at this point, what it is that makes me say that Arminianism let me down: Arminianism led me to despair, it did not teach me the truth about God, though through it I learned truth about myself that it did not teach —my total inability. It is Arminianism that led me to despair, but what I found instead of Arminianism, was the sovereignty and power of God. I will not say that Calvinism or Reformed Theology taught me this, but I will say that what I learned as a result of my despair taught me Reformed Theology. Not because it is Reformed Theology, or Calvinism, but because they claim the same things I learned —that this life is not about me, nor even does my destiny depend upon me, but upon Christ my God, and that there are far more important things going on than whether I qualify.

I'm not the sharpest tool so forgive me for that. I love testimonies so thank you for that. I`m not seeing the connection to Arminian doctrine apart from a possible church connection.

Outside of school and forums such as this, it doesn't get talked about much. I was oblivious to my Calvinism and my subsequent conversion to Arminianism until I came to the internet. I was in fact pursueded that I`m Arminian by a CF member.

For me, Arminianism is just a checklist of doctrines. My inner struggles, Romans 7, and my victory Romans 8.

 

[Mark Quayle]

And Job 13:15. . .

Yes, indeed! Though my Arminian-leaning family would still claim that is the gritty "dig in and do" determination of the believer, as duty, and as implied, ability, in and of his own determination. "Well, yes, that is, of course, depending on God for strength and help..."

No mention ever of even the constancy of my obedience being secondary to God accomplishing [precisely] whatever he set out from the beginning to do. Yet, meanwhile, holding to a notion of God having little more than some general nebulous (albeit wonderful, of course) plan for my eternal being, but having a wonderful specific joyous plan for this life, if I would only obey him. They had no guarantees of any joy in this life, as it depended on me, and on him only by way of my obedience.

 

[RickReads]

Yes, indeed! Though my Arminian-leaning family would still claim that is the gritty "dig in and do" determination of the believer, as duty, and as implied, ability, in and of his own determination. "Well, yes, that is, of course, depending on God for strength and help..."

No mention ever of even the constancy of my obedience being secondary to God accomplishing [precisely] whatever he set out from the beginning to do. Yet, meanwhile, holding to a notion of God having little more than some general nebulous (albeit wonderful, of course) plan for my eternal being, but having a wonderful specific joyous plan for this life, if I would only obey him. They had no guarantees of any joy in this life, as it depended on me, and on him only by way of my obedience.

Nothing against your family but doesn't sound Arminian to me. It sounds more like works for salvation mingled with religious superstition about life problems that come against everyone.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I'm not the sharpest tool so forgive me for that. I love testimonies so thank you for that. I`m not seeing the connection to Arminian doctrine apart from a possible church connection.

Outside of school and forums such as this, it doesn't get talked about much. I was oblivious to my Calvinism and my subsequent conversion to Arminianism until I came to the internet. I was in fact pursueded that I`m Arminian by a CF member.

For me, Arminianism is just a checklist of doctrines. My inner struggles, Romans 7, and my victory Romans 8.

I sent that before I was properly done proofreading it, and had never finished what I meant to follow up on concerning the asterisk following the word, "genuine". I have edited it, and hope you see the differences.

 

[RickReads]

I sent that before I was properly done proofreading it, and had never finished what I meant to follow up on concerning the asterisk following the word, "genuine". I have edited it, and hope you see the differences.

As I said before I love testimony and I would not judge any of that. It actually serves to give me a bit of zeal for your walk with God. But I was expecting more of a doctrine dual from you so if you don't mind I`ll move us in that direction. I appreciate the testimony though and I sincerely mean that.

I believe your family had an imperfect understanding of Arminian doctrine. Arminians believe in Prevenient grace which is indeed your experience of faith seeded in your heart by God Himself. Everything spiritual you described to me is the Arminian belief. So I believe your upbringing has led you to misunderstand Arminianism which I am fully prepared to engage you on the merits thereof.

if you want we can go do a beat-up on Arminians thread similar to all these Calvin threads and I will defend the Arminian side. And I`ll smoke yer when I do.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I'm not the sharpest tool so forgive me for that. I love testimonies so thank you for that. I`m not seeing the connection to Arminian doctrine apart from a possible church connection.

Outside of school and forums such as this, it doesn't get talked about much. I was oblivious to my Calvinism and my subsequent conversion to Arminianism until I came to the internet. I was in fact pursueded that I`m Arminian by a CF member.

For me, Arminianism is just a checklist of doctrines. My inner struggles, Romans 7, and my victory Romans 8.

That view of Arminianism is perhaps more lucid, or at least, more useful, than mine was when operating from within it. Arminianism is a sort of half-breed between Reformed Theology and Pelagianism. My extended family would not accept being called Arminian, nor even Wesleyan, but would be happy with Methodist and other such labels. They are probably what could be called 4-pointers, strongly disagreeing with the Limited Atonement, yet admitting to some difficulty with the problem of 'efficiency' in the death of Christ. But the strength of the other 4 points is weakened, or perhaps even redefined, by the focus of Arminianism: The Arminian mindset is that God adds to our efforts, or, to be more kind, that we add to what God does —he does his part, we do ours, otherwise, God cannot accomplish his will. The Arminian mind is perhaps most easily demonstrated in the manner of monergism vs synergism, where to them, salvation only results from God's work and our willingness to be worked on combining for a greater effect than God's work alone. They do not easily see that even their willingness is itself too, the work of God.

When I, in theological discussions with my family, first told them that what I had come to believe was essentially Calvinism, the immediate objection was the question, "But if God is the one who decides your salvation and all that follows it, where is the motivation to obey?" completely neglecting what I can attest to concerning even them, too —that the love of Christ compels us, not only in that we are motivated by love for him to by force-of-will obey him, but that his love residing in us, in the person of the Spirit of God, drives us. We find ourselves possessed of a need to obey. We don't only hunger and thirst after righteousness, nor are we merely grateful; we must obey.

Their notion of Christian life, is to by some means (which I consider dangerously near to divination) to ascertain "God's will for your life". And then to, with his assistance, pursue that 'job', 'calling', 'goal', 'destiny', 'purpose' or whatever "with all your heart". And that is done, not to neglect, but to make use of all the Spiritual disciplines and principles given in Scripture for one's growth. And in that mindset, you see their construction: not of GOD, but of God plus us.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Nothing against your family but doesn't sound Arminian to me. It sounds more like works for salvation mingled with religious superstition about life problems that come against everyone.

Perhaps I wasn't descriptive enough. They are adamant that those God has chosen will indeed come to him, and that they will indeed be saved. Their confidence is rightly in God, but somewhat like the Arminians here promoting the absolute freewill of the creature, their thinking is that God variously cannot or will not do, if the person does not do first. They will also reject outright the notion that God regenerates a person as a cause of that person actually "coming to" Christ. They believe being born again is a result of submission and repentance, and not the other way around.

 

[RickReads]

Perhaps I wasn't descriptive enough. They are adamant that those God has chosen will indeed come to him, and that they will indeed be saved. Their confidence is rightly in God, but somewhat like the Arminians here promoting the absolute freewill of the creature, their thinking is that God variously cannot or will not do, if the person does not do first. They will also reject outright the notion that God regenerates a person as a cause of that person actually "coming to" Christ. They believe being born again is a result of submission and repentance, and not the other way around.

The issue with regeneration is that the Spirit of Christ must circumcise your heart and come to live within you. That cannot occur until after you find out about Jesus and have your sins forgiven. Paul clearly spelled out an order of events that must occur in a sequence.