Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,590 Year: 2,847/9,624 Month: 692/1,588 Week: 98/229 Day: 9/61 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Calvinism and Arminianism remix
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(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 replied

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

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


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 replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


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 replied

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

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(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 replied

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

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


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 replied

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

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


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 seen this message but not replied

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

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


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 replied

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

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 31 of 283 (744692)
12-14-2014 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by herebedragons
12-13-2014 4:10 PM


Faith writes:
How on earth does anyone's being Elect, a sinner who is the recipient of God's free grace, exclude anyone else from anything?
You answer with this quote from Wesley:
Go now and find out how to split the hair between thy being reprobated and not elected; how to separate reprobation, in its most effectual sense, from unconditional election! Acknowledge then that you hold reprobation. Avow it in the face of the sun. To be consistent with yourself, you must openly assert, that without reprobation this election cannot stand. You know it cannot.
As a matter of general fact the one class implies the other, I've acknowledged that, but your original statement sounded like you meant there is some direct connection between one person's election and another's reprobation but that's not implied in this at all. We don't know who's elect and we don't know how many are in each category. What if the reprobate included only the unrepentant sadistic mass murderers of history? Does God's election of anyone send them to Hell? Do you feel bad for them? My election does not determine my neighbor's reprobation. I see nothing in this to imply such a thing. In general the fact of election implies that some be elected to be reprobate but your way of connecting the two is wrong.
I'll have to come back to the rest but you said this to Phat:
When Paul mentioned that God made some pots for noble purposes and some for common purposes, he wasn't saying that he made some that were worthless and to be destroyed. The image is of a skilled potter who makes some pots to hold water and some to hold jewelry. He was talking about gifts, not that he would make good pots and useless pots.
Pots are made to hold wine and water and food, and also to hold dishwater and garbage and even human waste.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by herebedragons, posted 12-13-2014 4:10 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 97 of 283 (816837)
08-11-2017 9:34 PM


the usual two errors
The most central facts seem to be getting left out of this discussion.
1. The brutishness of life is due to the Fall, not God's original Creation.
2. The ability to do good works depends on being saved so it's hardly selfish to focus on it.

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by jar, posted 08-11-2017 10:02 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 122 of 283 (816995)
08-14-2017 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Tangle
08-14-2017 3:37 AM


Re: Why do you care?
Majority Christianity has always taught that the Creation was severely damaged by the Fall, so why is this discussion going on as if what we have now is God's original Creation? Shouldn't you address what is actually Christian doctrine? Jesus had to come because of the Fall, His death redeems not only those who believe in Him but the whole Creation itself, which has suffered as a result all this time. That's standard Christian doctrine. The lion WILL lie down with the lamb in the redeemed Creation. It will be restored to its original beauty and peace at that time. That is standard Christian doctrine.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Tangle, posted 08-14-2017 3:37 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Tangle, posted 08-14-2017 4:47 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 127 of 283 (817012)
08-14-2017 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Tangle
08-14-2017 4:47 PM


nope it's the mainstream view
Faith writes:
Majority Christianity has always taught that the Creation was severely damaged by the Fall, so why is this discussion going on as if what we have now is God's original Creation? Shouldn't you address what is actually Christian doctrine? Jesus had to come because of the Fall, His death redeems not only those who believe in Him but the whole Creation itself, which has suffered as a result all this time. That's standard Christian doctrine. The lion WILL lie down with the lamb in the redeemed Creation. It will be restored to its original beauty and peace at that time. That is standard Christian doctrine.
Oh Faith, that's so batshit crazy that virtually no modern Christian believes that nonsense any more.
As I said, it's the majority view and always has been. Where are you getting your information?
Here's one scripture passage that says what I'm saying:
Romans 8:18 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.
But this is the point - you all make such random stuff up that it's impossible to discuss it except one by one.
I agree that at EvC there is such a cacophony of different views presented as "Christian" the poor unbeliever has little chance of sorting it all out. I despair of getting anything true across when I'm up against so many "Christians" who don't know what they are talking about or have accepted some compromised view. I have come by my views from years and years reading books and books and listening to sermon after sermon by a whole range of Christian teachrs, but predominantly mainstream Protestant teachers and when I say my views are the majority view I know that's true. I've done a fair amount of quoting scripture and relevant writings but still I understand an unbeliever has no particular reason to believe what I say over others. At EvC we get all the oddball points of view. And unbelievers tend to like the naturalistic ones best so making a case for the true supernatural historical panorama presented in the Bible isn't easy.
You'd think that would be enough to tell you it's all made up, but apparently not, us humans can and do believe anything and everything.
I base my views on the Bible and the best exegetes of the Bible, I don't make any of it up.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
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 125 by Tangle, posted 08-14-2017 4:47 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Tangle, posted 08-15-2017 2:54 AM Faith has replied
 Message 136 by ringo, posted 08-15-2017 12:01 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 129 of 283 (817030)
08-15-2017 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Tangle
08-15-2017 2:54 AM


Re: nope it's the mainstream view
What proportion of Christians do you imagine believe in the literal truth of the creation story?
Even when I was being taught it as a child, we wer told it was a story not a literal truth.
"Liberal" churches would teach that. What was your denomination?
I don't know how many liberal versus Bible-inerrancy churches or Christians there are these days so it's hard to guess, but the Bible believing churches all teach a literal view of the Creation. In my town there are about twenty Christian churches, I've visited maybe two thirds of them over the years, picking the ones I expected to be conservative. I'd say those two thirds teach a literal Creation. It's a guess since I wasn't there for that teaching.
ABE: It's possible that members of those churches have differing views, however, because of confusion between what they get from school or general knowledge and what the churches actually teach.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
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 128 by Tangle, posted 08-15-2017 2:54 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 144 of 283 (817099)
08-15-2017 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by ringo
08-15-2017 12:01 PM


Re: nope it's the mainstream view
Adam and Eve didn't fall. They became more like God. They grew up and left the nest.
They lost their original connection with God, they could no longer hear Him as they used to, they now had to deal with a world in which thorns impeded their work of growing food which hadn't existed before, the woman had to suffer pain in childbirth which she hadn't had to before, she was also subject to the domination of her husband which hadn't been the case before, they were now subject to physical death too, which wasn't the case before their disobedience. And God subjected the entire Creation to death as well because of their sin (Romans 8:18-22), and the whole point of Jesus' coming was to save us from the eternal punishment incurred because of sin, and to eliminate sin and its effects from the world that were brought about by the Fall. If there hadn't been a Fall there wouldn't have been any need for Jesus to come, to redeem us and the whole Creation both.
I don't know why you didn't get at least some inkling of all this basic theology in your church experiences. If Adam and Eve's disobedience had had the positive consequences you impute to it, one does have to wonder why there is so much turmoil and bloodshed in life now that didn't exist before their Fall.
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 136 by ringo, posted 08-15-2017 12:01 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by ringo, posted 08-15-2017 1:22 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(1)
Message 160 of 283 (817129)
08-15-2017 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by ringo
08-15-2017 1:22 PM


Re: nope it's the mainstream view
Faith writes:
They lost their original connection with God, they could no longer hear Him as they used to....
Obviously not true. The whole Bible is the story of people hearing God.
Only selected people whom God chose as prophets, and that is in fact evidence for what I said since the vast majority did not and do not hear God as Adam and Eve did before they disobeyed.
The only change after The Apple was that they no longer believed everything He said blindly. He did, after all, lie to them. As grownups, they had to think for themselves.
He didn't lie to them, they DID die as a result of their disobedience. And everything I said about how they were now subject to suffering that hadn't existed before is true.
They went from a paradise to a world full of distress, disease and death. What a jaundiced picture of "growing up" you have.
... they were now subject to physical death too, which wasn't the case before their disobedience.
The Bible doesn't say any such thing.
'
Sure it does:
Romans 5:12-14 Therefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
ringo writes:
God said it: they became more like Him.
In respect of knowing good and evil. But otherwise it was the beginning of all the suffering in the world for man and beast.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by ringo, posted 08-15-2017 1:22 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by ringo, posted 08-16-2017 3:25 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1435 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 200 of 283 (817494)
08-17-2017 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Phat
08-17-2017 5:56 PM


Re: The Problem Of Evil
Why isn't the Fall sufficient explanation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Phat, posted 08-17-2017 5:56 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Phat, posted 08-17-2017 9:22 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024