A Balanced Calvinism

[Luke2427]

Luke, perhaps the hot dog analogy was poor, because there remains an option, you could choose not to eat at all.

But if your fridge is empty, then you have no options and cannot make a choice.

And this is the case with your theology, a person cannot choose Christ unless he is regenerated. His spiritual refridgerator is empty. He cannot make this choice unless God enables him. Because he does not have this enabling that is necessary to make this choice, he cannot choose Christ.

In your system it is not that he will not choose Christ, it is that he CANNOT.

You preach this stuff all the time and do not understand what you are truly saying.

You don't know what you are talking about Winman.

And you won't respond to 90% of my posts.

It's like you are talking AT me rather than WITH me.

 

[glfredrick]

gl

I do so appreciate you tact. Thanks for it. I do so wish I could remember C.S. Lewis's argument to your last statement. I remember reading in Mere Christianity something about, if there were another race of "people' in the universe, they would not necessarily have fallen. Perhaps you have read it and may remember.

I do. And I will grant that there is one further possibility that I did not share -- that we humans live perfectly according to God's Word (pre-law, and no need for law if we live perfectly according to His Word) and never, ever, miss a single thing.

But we already know that that opportunity is lost forever, and if not by Adam, then by me.

 

[glfredrick]

God could save everyone, period. Of course we haven't seen universal salvation because God clearly has not chosen to take this course. However, he could have done so, had he chosen.

Also, God is making a race of people who will not sin. That's exactly what is he doing by eventually glorifying the redeemed.

That is true. But at what cost!

 

[glfredrick]

I think this position is indefensible.

This idea that love cannot be love without free will, meaning, I assume to ability to choose to love or not to love- is not biblical or logical.

The love that Jesus has for the Father is real love- the highest and greatest of loves.

But Jesus does not have the power of contrary choice. He MUST love the father. His perfect and divine nature will not allow otherwise.

My love for my children is real love. I do not have the power of contrary choice. I MUST love them. Love for them has overtaken my will.

This is real love.

The BEST loves in the universe are indeed those that are so great that the will is done away with by them.

Luke, respectfully, I don't agree with you here. In your zeal to present a sovereign God, I believe that you have overstepped the bounds of Scripture in a place or two, and no matter how we wish to argue a Reformed position logically, we can only argue it "Scripturally" and remain faithful to God at His Word.

Jesus does not have to love the Father. He can imagine nothing else, and because He is holy, can do nothing else. There is no coercion in the love of the Son for the Father -- such was the case for eternity past and into eternity future (if we dare use time to describe eternity).

I do agree somewhat that the best love transcends the will, but it also bends the will, which is perhaps what you are actually trying to say.

About your children, of course you can take a contrary position. Sadly, the curse of sin has caused many a father to dismiss his own children instead of loving them. But we cannot personify the love of God in human terms. God is not man, and man is not God! God's love is innate to His person-hood, ours is not.

 

[glfredrick]

If it wasn't for Calvin and Spurgeon, you guys wouldn't have anything to read! :laugh:

Robert, really... I have over 3000 books on the shelves in my personal study, and another 1500 on my computer hard drive, from all sorts of authors with all sorts of theological vantage points, both those I agree with and those I disagree with. Such is the nature of study. I highly commend it, and heartily recommend that you try it!

You could even blame the Scriptures for the reason you are reading when the others in your church get after you for opening something other than your KJV Bible. :laugh:


The Apostle Paul, while in prison in Rome, could have asked for anything, but he took time to ask for his books!

11 Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry. 12 And Tychicus have I sent to Ephesus. 13 The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments.
2 Tim 4:11-13 (KJV)

 

[charles_creech78]

I think this position is indefensible.

This idea that love cannot be love without free will, meaning, I assume to ability to choose to love or not to love- is not biblical or logical.

The love that Jesus has for the Father is real love- the highest and greatest of loves.

But Jesus does not have the power of contrary choice. He MUST love the father. His perfect and divine nature will not allow otherwise.

My love for my children is real love. I do not have the power of contrary choice. I MUST love them. Love for them has overtaken my will.

This is real love.

The BEST loves in the universe are indeed those that are so great that the will is done away with by them.

Joh 15:12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.
Joh 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
Joh 15:14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.

 

[glfredrick]

I believe in the moral free agency of man, a moral being created in God's image but affected by the fall. I don't even care for "free will" that much as the confusion of libertarian free will can creep in, as it did here.

I am not sure that the semantical swap will actually help your position very much. I do agree that "free will" is fraught with problems, the largest that we really don't have it. Not in the sense that many use the term here on the board, at least.

As in sports, free agency has it's rules and requirements even though the player is free to choose which team he wants to play for.

Really? I thought that the team made the decision whether to bring on a new player, not the player! The player is "free" to be available, but it is the team that chooses. In this case, I do think that your illustration of free agency can work to describe what is found in the Scriptures, i.e., we have the free agency to chose the depths of our sin -- we can sin less if we try -- but we still are not on "God's team" until God says so. We can never become something other than a sinner, though we lessen our sin, for "sinner" is the position we play until that position is changed by a supernatural act of the Capitan of the new team, God.

You say the last thing you want to do is misrepresent one's position...yet do that again here. Who said God "has to respond" to our will? If God desires to do that hasn't HE set the rules? I believe a choice is a choice, and how it is defined. I believe there are ramifications for our choices, since this is what Scripture teaches. I believe in accountability and responsibility, as defined....ability included.

How do you know that God has set that rule? You are correct when you say, "Who said God "has to respond" to our will?" No one can say that, and God hasn't said that. That concept, at best, is a theological construct designed to allow man a "choice" (and stated as such in the Arminian articles) so as to have some means to respond to the moral culpability of our sin.

When you say, "A choice is a choice... there are ramifications for our choices..." you seem to be suggesting that if we never made a choice to sin that we would be okay with God. That, in all sincerity, is false, and every doctrine apart from full on Pelagianism says so, as do the Scriptures, plainly.

And, no, I am plainly not trying to mis-represent your position, but I continue to find your position one that doesn't really compute on a lot of levels. You "seem" to want to have absolute and utter free will, but at the same time disavow utter and absolute free will by merely re-defining the terms. You want "choice" and wish for God to react to our choice by making our choice God's choice -- a circular argument that also begs the question of choice. What you cannot explain is how we can be seen as "neutral" or better when in fact the Bible says that we have "all" sinned and fall short of the glory of God, something we know both from revelation and observation.

 

[glfredrick]

Really? Let's see:

2 Corinthians 5:17-21

"Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us hte ministry of reconciliation; to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."

Notice that Paul states that God hath reconciled (past tense) us to Himself by Jesus Christ. In Romans 5 Paul would say that God did this by the death of His Son. He didn't make us reconcilable, He did reconcile us, it is a done deal. God was in Christ reconciling us to Himself, not imputing our trespasses to us. That's because He imputed them to Christ. On this basis he tells us to be reconciled to God. Our being reconciled to God through the gospel (the word of reconciliation) is based on the reality that God already reconciled us to Himself at the cross. The gospel deals with our perception of the reality of salvation.

It is as I said... We are given the ministry of reconciliation, not reconciled twice. The ministry of reconciliation is essentially sharing the good news so that others may come into the once and for all reconciliation of God, yes, imputed to us by the atoning work of Christ. We "are" reconciled to Christ. We do not need to be further reconciled. That is for persons who are yet lost, and who have not received their reconciliation because they have yet to be re-born from above.

 

[Luke2427]

Luke, respectfully, I don't agree with you here. In your zeal to present a sovereign God, I believe that you have overstepped the bounds of Scripture in a place or two, and no matter how we wish to argue a Reformed position logically, we can only argue it "Scripturally" and remain faithful to God at His Word.

I too desire to be respectful here but I think in your desire to reconcile reformed theology with opposing viewpoints causes you overstep the bounds of Scripture.

Logic is God given. Scripture is logical.

Jesus does not have to love the Father.

You see he doesn't here and then admit he does in your explanation below.

He can imagine nothing else, and because He is holy, can do nothing else. There is no coercion in the love of the Son for the Father -- such was the case for eternity past and into eternity future (if we dare use time to describe eternity).

I do agree somewhat that the best love transcends the will, but it also bends the will, which is perhaps what you are actually trying to say.

It overwhelms the will and constrains it. Paul said, "The love of Christ constraineth us..."

 

[glfredrick]

I too desire to be respectful here but I think in your desire to reconcile reformed theology with opposing viewpoints causes you overstep the bounds of Scripture.

Logic is God given. Scripture is logical.

To a point... But I think that you might agree that the "logical" extension of Calvinism is hyper-Calvinism, and we don't go there because the Scriptures pull up short of going there, even if logic dictates (as SO many say SO often here on the board) that we go all the way to a deterministic God.

 

[Robert Snow]

Robert, really... I have over 3000 books on the shelves in my personal study, and another 1500 on my computer hard drive, from all sorts of authors with all sorts of theological vantage points, both those I agree with and those I disagree with. Such is the nature of study. I highly commend it, and heartily recommend that you try it!

Just because I don't have 4500 books, like you say you have, doesn't mean I don't read. I really don't appreciate your condescending tone.

You could even blame the Scriptures for the reason you are reading when the others in your church get after you for opening something other than your KJV Bible. :laugh:

I don't know where you got the idea that I attended a KJVO or even a KJVP church. I don't. Our new pastor hasn't used the KJV yet in any sermon I have heard. He generally uses the NIV, but often quotes out of other versions as well. Get your facts straight, don't assume (you know what assuming makes you, right).

The Apostle Paul, while in prison in Rome, could have asked for anything, but he took time to ask for his books!

11 Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry. 12 And Tychicus have I sent to Ephesus. 13 The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments.
2 Tim 4:11-13 (KJV)

Well, one thing for sure. The Apostle Paul wasn't referring to any books written by Calvin or Spurgeon!

 

[quantumfaith]

I do. And I will grant that there is one further possibility that I did not share -- that we humans live perfectly according to God's Word (pre-law, and no need for law if we live perfectly according to His Word) and never, ever, miss a single thing.

But we already know that that opportunity is lost forever, and if not by Adam, then by me.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[glfredrick]

Just because I don't have 4500 books, like you say you have, doesn't mean I don't read. I really don't appreciate your condescending tone.

Robert... Didn't you start that by saying that we Calvinists only read Spurgeon and Calvin? Just checing...

I also wondered what you read, but you filled in the blanks when you shared some of your favorite authors. Thanks. Helps me to know where you stand in your general theology, which is (from my vantage point) rather a cafeteria assortment sort of deal, but that is your business.

Have you ever considered bouncing your favorite fundamentalist writers off of other theologians? Might be informative, as some of their positions only test well when not compared to anyone else (or the Scriptures in context).

I don't know where you got the idea that I attended a KJVO or even a KJVP church. I don't. Our new pastor hasn't used the KJV yet in any sermon I have heard. He generally uses the NIV, but often quotes out of other versions as well. Get your facts straight, don't assume (you know what assuming makes you, right).

Thanks for correcting me. I actually appreciate it. I began to paint a picture of you based on your posts and I was wrong. I am always willing to be corrected by truth.

Well, one thing for sure. The Apostle Paul wasn't referring to any books written by Calvin or Spurgeon!

Duh... Who on earth said he did? It is when you say things like this that I go right back to wondering about you. And, I'm not attacking or saying anything bad here, just very plainly in the common sense of the word, "wondering" about you, your belief structure, your church's teachings, all of it.

 

[webdog]

I am not sure that the semantical swap will actually help your position very much. I do agree that "free will" is fraught with problems, the largest that we really don't have it. Not in the sense that many use the term here on the board, at least.

I'm sorry you don't see the difference. I cannot flap my arms and fly, but if I desire to fly and someone gives me a plane, I have that option.

Really? I thought that the team made the decision whether to bring on a new player, not the player! The player is "free" to be available, but it is the team that chooses.

You don't understand free agency too well. While the team desires the player's service, if the player has met the league requirements of free agency, it is the player that has the option which team to play for...but the team also must be able to fit the player into their system and salary cap. Did you follow the LeBron debacle this summer? There were 6 teams that could fit him into their salary cap giving him the freedom to choose from any of the 6 teams. All 6 teams desired him.

How do you know that God has set that rule?

Scrptire. Believe and be saved, believe not and perish.

When you say, "A choice is a choice... there are ramifications for our choices..." you seem to be suggesting that if we never made a choice to sin that we would be okay with God. That, in all sincerity, is false, and every doctrine apart from full on Pelagianism says so, as do the Scriptures, plainly.

Again, not remotely what I said or implied. SINNERS are given the choice to accept or reject.

And, no, I am plainly not trying to mis-represent your position, but I continue to find your position one that doesn't really compute on a lot of levels.

Is that a surprise coming from someone holding to the contrary position? Honestly, I can say the same about your doctrine.

You "seem" to want to have absolute and utter free will, but at the same time disavow utter and absolute free will by merely re-defining the terms. You want "choice" and wish for God to react to our choice by making our choice God's choice -- a circular argument that also begs the question of choice.

This is the reason for my frustration on here. Not only do I "seem" to desire what you state, I in no way even suggested what you put forth. In your zeal to defend your own faith, you erect strawman after strawman and then argue these made up points. This makes any extended dialogue fruitless since you take what is said and twist it to conform to what you want to hear.

 

[RAdam]

It is as I said... We are given the ministry of reconciliation, not reconciled twice. The ministry of reconciliation is essentially sharing the good news so that others may come into the once and for all reconciliation of God, yes, imputed to us by the atoning work of Christ. We "are" reconciled to Christ. We do not need to be further reconciled. That is for persons who are yet lost, and who have not received their reconciliation because they have yet to be re-born from above.

You aren't reconciled when you are born again. Paul said we were reconciled by the death of Jesus Christ. It is a done deal, a completed work. The entire family of God was reconciled at the cross.

Why then, you may ask, does Paul want born again believers to be reconciled to God if they already are reconciled to God? Because there is a difference between the reality and my perception of it. This is where the gospel comes in. Paul tells me I really was saved when Christ died on the cross. I was reconciled to God, justified by His blood, and my sins were paid for. What the gospel does is bring this to light. The gospel is good news, it tells me what Jesus did for me. It declares His finished work.

 

[glfredrick]

I'm sorry you don't see the difference. I cannot flap my arms and fly, but if I desire to fly and someone gives me a plane, I have that option.

You fail to see that "someone" must provide the plane...
Without the plane -- or God, in the case of salvation -- no matter how much you flap your wings, desire to fly, desire salvation, etc., you cannot have it.

You don't understand free agency too well.

Actually, I understand it very well. Like the "plane" above, the free agent needs a "team" to adopt him or her. Having multiple teams does not negate the need for at least one team, and without the team, the player is what, just a player with a desire.

How do you know that God has set that rule?

Scrptire. Believe and be saved, believe not and perish.

That quip does not adequately describe the rule you set down for God (i.e., that God exerts His sovereignty by allowing His creatures free will). I'm asking for a sound biblical exposition that builds a case for your theology and I believe that you cannot build that case. I believe that because so far in history no one who remains faithful to the context of Scripture has been able to build that case.

When you say, "A choice is a choice... there are ramifications for our choices..." you seem to be suggesting that if we never made a choice to sin that we would be okay with God. That, in all sincerity, is false, and every doctrine apart from full on Pelagianism says so, as do the Scriptures, plainly.

Again, not remotely what I said or implied. SINNERS are given the choice to accept or reject.

Okay... I will stand corrected on what it is that you hold. As I have said, I am trying to represent the theology of everyone in the way they hold it.

You suggest that "Sinners are given a chance to accept or reject." Accept or reject what? "Sinners" by their very nature are already "rejected." It is Christ who "accepts" sinners when He issues the effectual call to salvation.

Is that a surprise coming from someone holding to the contrary position?

See above... And, no, I'm not sure I hold a "contrary" position from yours. I believe that I hold a position that is obviously different than yours in several places. Contrary seems to indicate "opposite" and we are not, at the end of the day, "opposite" each other. I am not a Satan worshiper, nor an atheist, so we are both arguing through a minutiae of details concerning the same salvation that is carried in Christ's gospel. Tossing about this sort of rhetoric is not all that conducive to solving the issues before us. You cannot escape the debate by nailing the debater to the wall because of his or her position. In any formal arena, that would be disallowed by moderators.

Honestly, I can say the same about your doctrine.
This is the reason for my frustration on here. Not only do I "seem" to desire what you state, I in no way even suggested what you put forth. In your zeal to defend your own faith, you erect strawman after strawman and then argue these made up points. This makes any extended dialog fruitless since you take what is said and twist it to conform to what you want to hear.

I assure you, I am not erecting any strawman. I am arguing very well covered theological points and I can and do use well-sourced background material that has been used in the church since its inception.

I would like it very much if you (and others) could dispense with the entire concept of "labels" and just deal with the points made in posts. It seems, at times, that even well-made points are dismissed out of hand because a "Cal" made them. Like I said above and in other posts, let's deal with issues, not where a person stands. As long as we allow the "label" of a person to color everything they say after, there can be no discussion and we end up in fundamentalistic hell where there is no possible learning, no possible solution, nor will persons of this mindset even allow God's Word to inform their positions. I certainly do not wish to be in that sort of camp, and I suspect that you do not either.

On to new material...

In order for free will to work as you have laid out above, there must be synergism between God and man. Synergism has been well-discussed in the theological realm, and it is indeed the dividing point between Amyraldian/Arminian and Infralapsarian/Supralapsarian positions. Synergism is what I asked you to deal with above, but I did not use the term. I choose to use your words, "free will" instead.

I asked you to defend "synergism" from a biblical standpoint and you said, "Scrptire. Believe and be saved, believe not and perish."

Here is what one Wesleyan theologian said about the biblical roots of synergism:

We must be honest enough to admit at the outset that Scripture does not directly address the issue of synergism in ministry...

The paragraphs before the quote directly above are as follows (for context):

The idea of synergism, God cooperating with human beings, has sparked considerable theological debate in the history of the Church. Those in the Calvinist tradition have soundly rejected the idea because of various assumptions within their system that focus on the sovereignty of God and the incapability of human beings. From that perspective, synergism has usually been seen narrowly in the context of soteriology: the establishment of relationship with God.

The traditional position, with which Wesley himself would agree, is that human beings cannot initiate relationship with God. Wesley addresses this issue differently than the Calvinists, however. Rather than arguing for a monergism because of the total incapability of humans, Wesley responded with the doctrine of prevenient grace. This doctrine preserves God as the initiator of relationship while still allowing real human freedom, and some measure of human control, in response. While the idea of prevenient grace is rooted in soteriology and the work of God in redemption and reconciliation, it has broad consequences in all other areas.

The following discussion of synergism will be from this context of the Wesleyan idea of prevenient grace. Synergism, then, will be viewed as the outworking of God's grace in the life of human beings in such a way that they have the capability (Wesley's "can") and responsibility (Wesley's "must") of response to God. In particular, it will follow the Wesleyan perspective that God, through the working of the Holy Spirit, interacts with and enables human beings in all aspects of human existence as they respond to the working of God's grace. As I hope to show, this has particular bearing on the topic of ministry in the Church.

Of course, the author of the article above hasn't explained where the doctrine of previnient grace stems either, but it has the same issues as synergism. It cannot be derived directly from Scripture like God's election and pre-destination can.

Another theological article on synergism says this:

Theologically, Synergism is fatal to any sound Christian soteriology, for it is a denial of man's total bondage in sin and a claim to some remaining will to absolute good. By and large, the Greek Fathers were always content to place the grace of God and the free will of man side by side, and as a consequence, the Greek Catholic Church early assumed a synergistic position. The Roman Catholic Church followed suit--though somewhat more slowly. Since the Council of Trent it has held dogmatically that man prepares himself and disposes his own heart to receive the grace of justification. (1)

The Reformation was a total break with this almost universal teaching, a recovery of a truly monergistic doctrine of salvation, a Solus Deus position. But like all other revivals of the truth of the Gospel, it soon began to be plagued by those who demanded that allowance be made for man's autonomy if he was not to be a mere puppet, some tiny admission of spiritual competence, some small part which man might be called upon to play, as a sound basis for exhortation in preaching the Gospel and as an incentive to those striving after holiness.

Luther himself was wholly committed to a God-only position. Unregenerate man is spiritually dead, not perfectly well as Pelagius held, nor merely sick as Arminius held, but completely dead as Calvin held. We have already traced briefly the gradual leavening of Luther's position by the synergistic tendencies of those who followed him (Chapter 4). This fatal return to the heresy of all ages was, in Germany, largely the result of one man, Melancthon (1497-1560).

So, we find that synergism was an "introduction" to the classical understanding of God from the Scriptures, i.e., that God is sovereign in all things. We find that synergism was first promoted by the Greek Orthodox Church and later adopted by the Roman Catholic Church. It was overturned in favor of the scriptural view by the early Reformers, and again picked up and adopted by Arminius, and later Wesley (and of course, both Catholic and Orthodox still hold it as well). We find that synergism cannot be "directly" found in the Scriptures (and every synergistic theologian says the same) but must be "derived" by reading between the lines, so to speak.

I find that we cannot sustain a SCRIPTURAL argument that supports synergism, and any claim that refutes God's utter sovereignty. That is not argued from a "Cal" position, but based on my understanding of the texts of Scripture.

 

[preacher4truth]

The more I look at synergistic free-willers, the more I realize that the proponents thereof, such as webdog, feel that they just aren't such bad people at all.

Just a tad bit sinful seemingly, with lot's of power and will and perfectly capable then of approaching God.

One more time: Kenneth Copeland theology is at least bold enough to come out all the way and tell it how it really is in a synergistic free will model, that is; That God needs us to invite Him by our choice to do so or He is powerless to accomplish anything. We must allow Him by our choice.

That is plain fact of what it teaches.

How sad and what a blatant lie.

 

[webdog]

You fail to see that "someone" must provide the plane...
Without the plane -- or God, in the case of salvation -- no matter how much you flap your wings, desire to fly, desire salvation, etc., you cannot have it.

I didn't fail to see that at all. God has provided the plane (sic) so to speak.

That quip does not adequately describe the rule you set down for God (i.e., that God exerts His sovereignty by allowing His creatures free will). I'm asking for a sound biblical exposition that builds a case for your theology and I believe that you cannot build that case. I believe that because so far in history no one who remains faithful to the context of Scripture has been able to build that case.

God allowing anything exerts His sovereignty. If He has allowed every person to accept or reject a gift, that is being sovereign. It's a matter of perception.

You suggest that "Sinners are given a chance to accept or reject." Accept or reject what? "Sinners" by their very nature are already "rejected." It is Christ who "accepts" sinners when He issues the effectual call to salvation.

His gift. If all sinners are already rejected, there is no salvation for anyone as that includes us all. John 3:18.

See above... And, no, I'm not sure I hold a "contrary" position from yours. I believe that I hold a position that is obviously different than yours in several places. Contrary seems to indicate "opposite" and we are not, at the end of the day, "opposite" each other. I am not a Satan worshiper, nor an atheist, so we are both arguing through a minutiae of details concerning the same salvation that is carried in Christ's gospel. Tossing about this sort of rhetoric is not all that conducive to solving the issues before us. You cannot escape the debate by nailing the debater to the wall because of his or her position. In any formal arena, that would be disallowed by moderators.

While contrary can mean opposite, I didn't mean that in how I used it. I was referring to logically. We can focus on the semantics, or the topic.

I assure you, I am not erecting any strawman. I am arguing very well covered theological points and I can and do use well-sourced background material that has been used in the church since its inception.

When you insert "it seems" in every reply and then reply to what you "seem" to think is said, you are doing just that.

I would like it very much if you (and others) could dispense with the entire concept of "labels" and just deal with the points made in posts. It seems, at times, that even well-made points are dismissed out of hand because a "Cal" made them. Like I said above and in other posts, let's deal with issues, not where a person stands. As long as we allow the "label" of a person to color everything they say after, there can be no discussion and we end up in fundamentalistic hell where there is no possible learning, no possible solution, nor will persons of this mindset even allow God's Word to inform their positions. I certainly do not wish to be in that sort of camp, and I suspect that you do not either.

I didn't bring up any label...no idea what you are talking about here.

In order for free will to work as you have laid out above, there must be synergism between God and man. Synergism has been well-discussed in the theological realm, and it is indeed the dividing point between Amyraldian/Arminian and Infralapsarian/Supralapsarian positions. Synergism is what I asked you to deal with above, but I did not use the term. I choose to use your words, "free will" instead.

I asked you to defend "synergism" from a biblical standpoint and you said, "Scrptire. Believe and be saved, believe not and perish."

The very act of believing requires choice, which is contrary to monergism. The proof is so simple, yet you fail to grasp it.

 

[webdog]

t

The more I look at synergistic free-willers, the more I realize that the proponents thereof, such as webdog, feel that they just aren't such bad people at all.

Just a tad sinful seemingly, with lot's of power and will and perfectly capable then of approaching God.

One more time. Kenneth Copeland theology is at least bold enough to come out all the way and tell it how it really is in a synergistic free will model, that is, that God needs us to invite Him by our choice to do so or He is powerless to accomplish anything. We must allow Him by our choice. That is plain fact of what it teaches.

How sad and what a blatant lie.

You got one thing right...blatant lie would be correct.

One more time. Kenneth Copeland is NOT the spokesperson for non reformed theology. I would have thought in your new-found expertise on sotoeriology you might have learned that. Guess not.

To say it is the "plain fact of what it teaches" shows pure ignorance. Please learn your own view before trying to teach us about ours.

Interact with me publicly, not through PM. Let the forum see you for what you really are...unless you only have "PM keyboard boldness", tough guy

 

[preacher4truth]

tYou got one thing right...blatant lie would be correct.

One more time. Kenneth Copeland is NOT the spokesperson for non reformed theology. I would have thought in your new-found expertise on sotoeriology you might have learned that. Guess not.

To say it is the "plain fact of what it teaches" shows pure ignorance. Please learn your own view before trying to teach us about ours.

Yep, synergism is a blatant lie. I am glad you are coming along.

He doesn't have to be THE spokesperson. He shares your sentiments. That's more than enough.

He's flying the flagship for you, and brings your thoughts to their logical conclusion: that you feel you are in charge of your destiny, and must choose to let God act.

Expertise? Uh, naw, that's your self given title. You alone are the self proclaimed expert. No one can teach you a thing.


Sad, really.