Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8796 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-21-2017 7:02 PM
360 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: Flyer75
Post Volume:
Total: 820,979 Year: 25,585/21,208 Month: 1,212/2,338 Week: 333/450 Day: 26/72 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
19NextFF
Author Topic:   Calvinism and Arminianism remix
Phat
Member
Posts: 9893
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 1 of 283 (744547)
12-11-2014 5:44 PM


In this topic, I want to wipe the slate clean and more fully discuss various doctrines of Christian Faith and how the arguments basically break down.

Conditional Election

God’s choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world was based upon His foreseeing that they would respond to His call. He selected only those whom He knew would of themselves freely believe the gospel. Election therefore was determined by or conditioned upon what man would do. The faith which God foresaw and upon which He based His choice was not given to the sinner by God (it was not created by the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit) but resulted solely from man’s will. It was left entirely up to man as to who would believe and therefore as to who would be elected unto salvation. God chose those whom He knew would, of their own free will, choose Christ. Thus the sinner’s choice of Christ, not God’s choice of the sinner, is the ultimate cause of salvation.

Unconditional Election

God’s choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world rested solely in His own sovereign will. His choice of particular sinners was not based on any foreseen response or obedience on their part, such as faith, repentance, etc. On the contrary, God gives faith and repentance to each individual whom He selected. These acts are the result, not the cause God’s choice. Election therefore was not determined by or conditioned upon any virtuous quality or act foreseen in man. Those whom God sovereignly elected He brings through the power of the Spirit to a willing acceptance of Christ. Thus God’s choice of the sinner, not the sinner’s choice of Christ, is the ultimate cause of salvation.

Universal Redemption or General Atonement

Christ’s redeeming work made it possible for everyone to be saved but did not actually secure the salvation of anyone. Although Christ died for all men and for every man, only those who believe on Him are saved. His death enabled God to pardon sinners on the condition that they believe, but it did not actually put away anyone’s sins. Christ’s redemption becomes effective only if man chooses to accept it.

Particular Redemption or Limited Atonement

Christ’s redeeming work was intended to save the elect only and actually secured salvation for them. His death was a substitutionary endurance of the penalty of sin in the place of certain specified sinners. In addition to putting away the sins of His people, Christ’s redemption secured everything necessary for their salvation, including faith which unites them to Him. The gift of faith is infallibly applied by the Spirit to all for whom Christ died, therefore guaranteeing their salvation

According to Arminianism:

Salvation is accomplished through the combined efforts of God (who takes the initiative) and man(who must respond)—man’s response being the determining factor. God has provided salvation for everyone, but His provision becomes effective only for those who, of their own free will, “choose” to cooperate with Him and accept His offer of grace. At the crucial point, man’s will plays a decisive role; thus man, not God, determines who will be the recipients of the gift of salvation.REJECTED by the Synod of Dort. This was the system of thought contained in the “Remonstrance” (though the “five points” were not originally arranged in this order). It was submitted by the Arminians to the Church of Holland in 1610 for adoption but was rejected by the Synod of Dort in 1619 on the ground that it was unscriptural.

According to Calvinism:

Salvation is accomplished by the almighty power of the Triune God. The Father chose a people, the Son died for them, the Holy Spirit makes Christ’s death effective by bringing the elect to faith and repentance, thereby causing them to willingly obey the gospel. The entire process (election, redemption, regeneration) is the work of God and is by grace alone. Thus God, not man, determines who will be the recipients of the gift of salvation.REAFFIRMED by the Synod of DortThis system of theology was reaffirmed by the Synod of Dort in 1619 as the doctrine of salvation contained in the Holy Scriptures. The system was at that time formulated into “five points” (in answer to the five points submitted by the Arminians) and has ever since been known as “the five points of Calvinism.”

The above was taken from Calvinism-vs-Arminianism comparison chart

quote:
Calvinism and Arminianism are two systems of theology that attempt to explain the relationship between God's sovereignty and man's responsibility in the matter of salvation. Calvinism is named for John Calvin, a French theologian who lived from 1509-1564. Arminianism is named for Jacobus Arminius, a Dutch theologian who lived from 1560-1609.

The author at Got Questions points out that

quote:
It is interesting to note that in the diversity of the body of Christ, there are all sorts of mixtures of Calvinism and Arminianism. There are five-point Calvinists and five-point Arminians, and at the same time three-point Calvinists and two-point Arminians. Many believers arrive at some sort of mixture of the two views.

Lets open this up for discussion, with the only presupposition being that GOD exists and that Jesus and the Bible are generally assumed presuppositional to our philosophy.

Also allowed in this topic are other conclusions and how they are logically arrived at, given of course that GOD exists.

Faith & Belief, please

Edited by Phat, : added

Edited by Phat, : spallin


Saying, "I don't know," is the same as saying, "Maybe."~ZombieRingo

One of the major purposes of debate is to help you hone your arguments. Yours are pretty bad. They can use all the honing they can get.~Ringo

If a savage stops believing in his wooden god, it does not mean that there is no God — only that God is not wooden. (Leo Tolstoy)


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by NoNukes, posted 12-12-2014 3:32 PM Phat has not yet responded
 Message 4 by iano, posted 12-12-2014 8:25 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply
 Message 93 by GDR, posted 08-07-2017 6:20 PM Phat has not yet responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12533
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 2 of 283 (744549)
12-12-2014 7:44 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Calvinism and Arminianism remix thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9998
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 3 of 283 (744576)
12-12-2014 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
12-11-2014 5:44 PM


My guess is that very few religious denominations adhere very closely to Arminianism because of issues other than the ones given here. For example Arminianism does not include Trinitarianism

I'd also note that Lutherans are Trinitarians who also reject unconditional election and Calvinistic predestination.

And despite what any one side would have you believe, there is Biblical support for each of those positions.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Phat, posted 12-11-2014 5:44 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
iano
Member (Idle past 743 days)
Posts: 6164
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


(1)
Message 4 of 283 (744579)
12-12-2014 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
12-11-2014 5:44 PM


Although I'd have problems with Arminianism, the basic notion: man's will energizes or brings about the tipping over into salvation, is one I agree with.

Calvinism has a couple of problems from my perspective.

1) Unconditional election. tUlip

In order to say election is unconditional (on man's input), you need to a) know what all the possible conditions open to man's input might be and b) demonstrate, biblically, man not in a position to satisfy any of them.

The bible appears to exclude some conditions (e.g. the work of man as contributing to mans salvation) but that's not to say it excludes all conditions possible. A mighty task that: to define the totality of man such as to identify all possible areas of man pertaining to his activating his salvation. And then show all possible conditions unfulfillable by man. Identifying some doesn't mean you've identified all possible.

2) Predestination. tuliP

There are relatively few passage dealing directly with this and the few that there are speak about a category of people who are predestined to this, that and the other. Take this, from Ephesians 1:

"3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed US in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. 4 For he chose US IN HIM before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he predestined US for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given US in the One he loves"

You can (with a bit of difficulty) read this as meaning God predestined certain people to be holy and blameless, to be adopted. To be saved - in other words. No mention of the criteria involved in his choosing - he just predestined certain folk to be saved (and inevitably, others to be not saved). Calvinists assign the finger of God to His "Sovereign Will (a.k.a. God can do what he likes without reference to notions of justice, logic we might be labouring under).

(Which to me, diminishes God. Not because he'd owes us anything - other than, perhaps, acting according to the very highest form of the spirit of justice that we try to imbue our own lives with - in the imperfect and impoverished way we do. Image and likeness and all that.)

You can look at it otherwise.

Paul is writing to fellow Christians. The saved. So whenever he says "Us" or "Us in him (Christ)" it must be remembered that he is referring to Christians/the saved. Which means that what has been predestined to occur has been predestined to occur to the saved. The saved shall be adopted, the saved shall be made holy and blameless in his sight (the process of sanctification). Clearly not that the saved shall be .. er... saved.

Considering vs 4 (and smoothing over the translation):

Before the creation of the world, God chose that all who would come to occupy (by a means not here revealed) a folder called "Us in him" would be made holy and blameless in his sight. That this folder didn't contain any individuals at the time God ordained this is what would happen it subsequent contents isn't the issue. He preordained/destined this is what would occur to and and all who would subsequently be saved. The criteria for salvation isn't mentioned here, nor need it be. All that is being described is the process that the saved (the 'us' Paul is addressing) shall undergo. A process put in place "before the creation of the world"

Although rivetting, in that it constitutes a handbook of explanation for someone who finds themselves saves and is eager to know more of what that entails, it isn't myterious

Edited by iano, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Phat, posted 12-11-2014 5:44 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 12-12-2014 10:44 PM iano has not yet responded
 Message 6 by Faith, posted 12-12-2014 10:59 PM iano has not yet responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 26449
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


(1)
Message 5 of 283 (744585)
12-12-2014 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by iano
12-12-2014 8:25 PM


Although I'd have problems with Arminianism, the basic notion: man's will energizes or brings about the tipping over into salvation, is one I agree with.

Except that any role of man's will outside of God's will is exactly what is excluded by the teachings about grace alone being the basis of salvation. I don't see any room for "other conditions" in which man's will could possibly act independently of God.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by iano, posted 12-12-2014 8:25 PM iano has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by herebedragons, posted 12-13-2014 12:14 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26449
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 6 of 283 (744586)
12-12-2014 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by iano
12-12-2014 8:25 PM


Calvinists assign the finger of God to His "Sovereign Will (a.k.a. God can do what he likes without reference to notions of justice, logic we might be labouring under).

Except that Calvinists teach that God acts with perfect justice and perfect mercy.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by iano, posted 12-12-2014 8:25 PM iano has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1413
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 7 of 283 (744610)
12-13-2014 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Faith
12-12-2014 10:44 PM


Except that any role of man's will outside of God's will is exactly what is excluded by the teachings about grace alone being the basis of salvation.

This is taking the idea of grace alone too far to the point it makes God a manipulator - a puppet master. Man accepting the gift is not the same as one earning the gift or doing something which deserves God's grace. His grace is given precisely to those who do not deserve it, which is none of us. I would actually see it the opposite way ... those that are the elect are part of an exclusive group, a group that excludes - absolutely denies access to - the vast majority of people who have ever lived.

I have an analogy that I think might illustrate this.

There are 1,000 prisoners on death row awaiting execution. The governor declares that he is going to issue pardons to all prisoners on death row and set them free. However, the governor knows that many of the prisoners hate him, and in fact they actually like being in prison. Many others just would not do very well in the outside world since prison is all they have known for many years. So he fills out the pardon papers only for those who he knows will accept it, which is only about 100 individuals. He then goes around to the cells of the prisoners whom he has pardoned, opens the cell door, places the pardon in their hand and escorts them out of the prison. After releasing all 100 pardoned prisoners, he then orders that all remaining be executed immediately.

Now, imagine the same scenario, but in this case, the governor writes a pardon for every one of the 1,000 prisoners. He then takes them around to each prisoner one by one and personally offers it to them. But many of the prisoners hated him and they refused to take the pardon, some even spit on him and cursed him. The governor was saddened by this, but what could he do? He can't force anyone to take the pardon. A few did take the pardon, and they were released from the prison. The governor then allowed the executions to continue as scheduled.

So, in which case did the governor desire that all receive a pardon? In which case did any of the prisoners do something that deserved or earned a pardon?

I don't see any room for "other conditions" in which man's will could possibly act independently of God.

There is another part of this I don't think you have considered. If this is true, then all the members here at EvC who you have such disdain for and continuously chastise for their despicable ideologies are simply acting out God's will in their life. As no one could possibly act independently of God's will, they should not receive your loathing, but your approval. But the fact is, you believe that people DO act independently of God's will.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 12-12-2014 10:44 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 12-13-2014 12:35 PM herebedragons has responded
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 12-13-2014 2:39 PM herebedragons has responded
 Message 12 by Phat, posted 12-13-2014 2:43 PM herebedragons has responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 26449
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 8 of 283 (744611)
12-13-2014 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by herebedragons
12-13-2014 12:14 PM


Just one quick answer for now:

If you have the capacity to accept the gift, then you "have something of which to boast," something to chalk up to your own praise, something you did of your own free will apart from God's grace. It is indeed a "work" although you are trying to deny that by a semantic route.

I'll come back to this later.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by herebedragons, posted 12-13-2014 12:14 PM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by herebedragons, posted 12-13-2014 2:13 PM Faith has responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1413
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 9 of 283 (744614)
12-13-2014 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
12-13-2014 12:35 PM


If you have the capacity to accept the gift, then you "have something of which to boast," something to chalk up to your own praise, something you did of your own free will apart from God's grace. It is indeed a "work" although you are trying to deny that by a semantic route.

Do you really think the prisoners in my analogy left the prison bragging about how they took the pardon from the governor's hand?

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 12-13-2014 12:35 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Faith, posted 12-13-2014 2:43 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 26449
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


(1)
Message 10 of 283 (744617)
12-13-2014 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by herebedragons
12-13-2014 12:14 PM


This is taking the idea of grace alone too far to the point it makes God a manipulator - a puppet master. Man accepting the gift is not the same as one earning the gift or doing something which deserves God's grace.

As I say above, though, it is doing something that takes credit for oneself. "I was smart enough to accept it." As Luther said -- Luther, not Calvin -- "The only thing I contribute to my salvation is my sin."

His grace is given precisely to those who do not deserve it, which is none of us.

I'm sure you mean "all of us?" All of us do not deserve His grace, right? But if you are saying that since we don't deserve it our choosing to receive it doesn't count for anything, that really doesn't compute. If we aren't completely dependent on grace but do the work of accepting it all on our own, then we've contributed something to our salvation and "have something to boast of." It's not ALL of grace if we contribute anything from ourselves.

I would actually see it the opposite way ... those that are the elect are part of an exclusive group, a group that excludes - absolutely denies access to - the vast majority of people who have ever lived.

How on earth does anyone's being Elect, a sinner who is the recipient of God's free grace, exclude anyone else from anything? This does seem to be how some people misunderstand the concept but it really makes no sense. How does having been saved deny anyone else access to salvation? The Great Commission is to call all to salvation and the expectation is that they will come or they won't. But the call is out there, nobody is keeping it from them and some WILL come. There is no known limit on the number of the Elect and all are invited to join.

I have an analogy that I think might illustrate this.

There are 1,000 prisoners on death row awaiting execution. The governor declares that he is going to issue pardons to all prisoners on death row and set them free. However, the governor knows that many of the prisoners hate him, and in fact they actually like being in prison. Many others just would not do very well in the outside world since prison is all they have known for many years. So he fills out the pardon papers only for those who he knows will accept it, which is only about 100 individuals. He then goes around to the cells of the prisoners whom he has pardoned, opens the cell door, places the pardon in their hand and escorts them out of the prison. After releasing all 100 pardoned prisoners, he then orders that all remaining be executed immediately.

Now, imagine the same scenario, but in this case, the governor writes a pardon for every one of the 1,000 prisoners. He then takes them around to each prisoner one by one and personally offers it to them. But many of the prisoners hated him and they refused to take the pardon, some even spit on him and cursed him. The governor was saddened by this, but what could he do? He can't force anyone to take the pardon. A few did take the pardon, and they were released from the prison. The governor then allowed the executions to continue as scheduled.

You are apparently attributing the first scenario to Calvinism but that is not Calvinism, I suppose it's a figment of the Arminian imagination. The second scenario is the actual case: the offer of pardon is given to EVERYONE and some accept and some don't. It's only after we know who has accepted that we know who is elect, that's not something that can be known in advance, and even if God knows it we don't, we're told to offer the pardon to all, and we do.

So, in which case did the governor desire that all receive a pardon? In which case did any of the prisoners do something that deserved or earned a pardon?

I'm not sure what the confusion is here but there is certainly some kind of major confusion going on. The governor, that is, God, according to Calvin, offers the pardon to ALL. The Bible is very clear about that and so is Calvin. The first scenario represents no Christian system I'm aware of and certainly not Calvinism.

As for deserving a pardon, that's not the point. The point is that you give the individual the power to accept it out of his own free will then he has contributed to his own salvation apart from God, as I've said more than once above.

I don't see any room for "other conditions" in which man's will could possibly act independently of God.

There is another part of this I don't think you have considered. If this is true,
If what is true? I'm not sure what you are referring to here.

... then all the members here at EvC who you have such disdain for and continuously chastise for their despicable ideologies are simply acting out God's will in their life.

That's the typical hypercalvinism you are all committing. No Calvinist thinks that way. It's Arminians and anti-Calvinists who get all hung up on trying to apply some half-baked determinism to individuals. We are all responsible for our sins or our despicable ideologies. It's a cop-out to try to blame it on God through hypercalvinism.

As no one could possibly act independently of God's will, they should not receive your loathing, but your approval. But the fact is, you believe that people DO act independently of God's will.

No, this is confusion at least, hypercalvinism too. I'm not sure what the best way of stating it is but just as we offer the gospel to all, we expect all to be free to accept it as far as we ourselves can judge, because we have no ability to see God's will in these matters. Scripture actually says something about this too:
-

Romans 9:19-20: Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

The first part is what you are saying here. How can He find fault since nobody can resist His will? Paul goes on to answer you in that passage.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by herebedragons, posted 12-13-2014 12:14 PM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by herebedragons, posted 12-13-2014 4:10 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26449
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 11 of 283 (744618)
12-13-2014 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by herebedragons
12-13-2014 2:13 PM


Do you really think the prisoners in my analogy left the prison bragging about how they took the pardon from the governor's hand?

They would take it from the Governor's hand according to Calvinism too. The difference is whether you explain that as done by their own free independent will, which you may think your analogy illustrates but in fact it doesn't since that's the expectable action no matter what your theology --those who do are the Elect --, or that their ability to receive it is ultimately to be attributed to God's grace rather than to themselves. Something we can't ever know in the act itself but know by inference after the fact. if they leave simply grateful to the governor then they are giving him the credit, not themselves but since he has no power to affect their action it really doesn't work as the analogy you want it to be.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by herebedragons, posted 12-13-2014 2:13 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Phat, posted 12-13-2014 2:54 PM Faith has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9893
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 12 of 283 (744619)
12-13-2014 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by herebedragons
12-13-2014 12:14 PM


The Governor and The Warlord
HBD writes:

There are 1,000 prisoners on death row awaiting execution. The governor declares that he is going to issue pardons to all prisoners on death row and set them free. However, the governor knows that many of the prisoners hate him, and in fact they actually like being in prison. Many others just would not do very well in the outside world since prison is all they have known for many years. So he fills out the pardon papers only for those who he knows will accept it, which is only about 100 individuals. He then goes around to the cells of the prisoners whom he has pardoned, opens the cell door, places the pardon in their hand and escorts them out of the prison. After releasing all 100 pardoned prisoners, he then orders that all remaining be executed immediately.

Now, imagine the same scenario, but in this case, the governor writes a pardon for every oneof the 1,000 prisoners. He then takes them around to each prisoner one by one and personally offers it to them. But many of the prisoners hated him and they refused to take the pardon, some even spit on him and cursed him. The governor was saddened by this, but what could he do? He can't force anyone to take the pardon. A few did take the pardon, and they were released from the prison. The governor then allowed the executions to continue as scheduled.

Excellent analogy!

faith writes:

The point is that you give the individual the power to accept it out of his own free will then he has contributed to his own salvation apart from God, as I've said more than once...

jar used to have an analogy known as The Warlord:

quote:
There once was a missionary in China. The village he was in was very poor, the crops had failed and people were near starving. One of the warlords showed up and told the people, if they would abandon their current master and join him he would see they got food. Just believe in him and all will be okay. Any that did not believe in him would be left to starve to death.
The warlord could have saved everyone, he had wealth and more than enough food, but instead he wanted to save only those who would follow him.

The analogy goes on to teach that the warlord had enough food for everyone and thus should have fed everyone...including those who did not like him nor wish to follow him.

jars analogy would have the governor not only offering a pardon to every prisoner but releasing every prisoner whether they accepted the pardon or not..whereas HBD analogy says that all are offered the pardon yet only those who accept the pardon will have an opportunity to benefit from it.

I would only say that you can lead a horse to water but you cant make him drink.

Edited by Phat, : added Faith

Edited by Phat, : clarified jars analogy


Saying, "I don't know," is the same as saying, "Maybe."~ZombieRingo

It's easy to see the speck in somebody else's ideas - unless it's blocked by the beam in your own.~Ringo

If a savage stops believing in his wooden god, it does not mean that there is no God — only that God is not wooden. (Leo Tolstoy)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by herebedragons, posted 12-13-2014 12:14 PM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Faith, posted 12-13-2014 3:00 PM Phat has responded
 Message 19 by herebedragons, posted 12-13-2014 4:19 PM Phat has responded
 Message 61 by Phat, posted 07-20-2017 5:02 PM Phat has not yet responded

Phat
Member
Posts: 9893
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 13 of 283 (744620)
12-13-2014 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Faith
12-13-2014 2:43 PM


I Beg Your Pardon,Maam
Faith writes:

The difference is whether you explain that as done by their own free independent will, which you may think your analogy illustrates but in fact it doesn't since that's the expect-able action no matter what your theology --those who do are the Elect --, or that their ability to receive it is ultimately to be attributed to God's grace rather than to themselves. Something we can't ever know in the act itself but know by inference after the fact. if they leave simply grateful to the governor then they are giving him the credit, not themselves but since he has no power to affect their action it really doesn't work as the analogy you want it to be.

The critics maintain that the very idea of an elect on one hand and those who are perishing on the other(Taken from a John MacArthur sermon, by the way) is itself wrong.

Of course we could argue that the potter has every right to make some pots foreknowing their eventual value and sale at market whereas making other pots that he knows will never make it. Critics maintain that picking and choosing(ultimate foreknowledge) is evil. Personally, at the end of the day, I believe that God is God and that I am alive through His Grace alone and that if I die I am in His hands. Critics would argue that my idea of God needs work, however.


Saying, "I don't know," is the same as saying, "Maybe."~ZombieRingo

It's easy to see the speck in somebody else's ideas - unless it's blocked by the beam in your own.~Ringo

If a savage stops believing in his wooden god, it does not mean that there is no God — only that God is not wooden. (Leo Tolstoy)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Faith, posted 12-13-2014 2:43 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Faith, posted 12-13-2014 2:57 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply
 Message 20 by herebedragons, posted 12-13-2014 4:29 PM Phat has not yet responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 26449
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 14 of 283 (744621)
12-13-2014 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Phat
12-13-2014 2:54 PM


Re: I Beg Your Pardon,Maam
The Bible contains those ideas, Phat, Calvin did not make them up.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Phat, posted 12-13-2014 2:54 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by jar, posted 12-13-2014 3:03 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26449
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 15 of 283 (744622)
12-13-2014 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Phat
12-13-2014 2:43 PM


Re: The Governor and The Warlord
The warlord could have saved everyone, he had wealth and more than enough food, but instead he wanted to save only those who would follow him.

The analogy goes on to teach that the warlord had enough food for everyone and thus should have fed everyone...including those who did not like him nor wish to follow him.

If this is meant to characterize Calvinism it is completely wrong. God saves people according to His own sovereign will, not according to some notion of who likes and will follow him, because as scripture makes clear, and as Calvinism expresses in the concept of Total Depravity, there is nobody who likes God or wants to follow him == we're all born in sin and are all "at enmity" with God until we're saved. It's the act of saving us that changes us, we're born again and are new creatures with new hearts who are able to love God though before we were just sinners as every member of the human race is. God often chooses the worst sinners too, those who hate Him the most. So that analogy is just plain wrong.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Phat, posted 12-13-2014 2:43 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Phat, posted 12-13-2014 3:13 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
1
23456
...
19NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017