Featured I don't see how I could go wrong, do you?

OPTION 1: If I, as a non-Calvinistic believer, am wrong about my soteriology, then I could only be wrong because God so decreed it, right? God must have decided, for His own secret self-glorifying purposes, not to grant me enough grace to see my error and adopt Calvinism. So, if I am in error then I'm in error by God's unchanging divine decree and it ultimately must be a decision God made for his highest glory. Right so far? Or not? If not, then do you affirm the contra-causal free choice of believers?

OPTION 2: If, however, I am right and Calvinism is false, then I have judged the Word of God correctly as a 'response-able' free moral agent and I would be defending the truth of God's glory against false Calvinistic teaching. And the Calvinists, also as free moral agents, would be held responsible for their errors.

CONCLUSION: So, my conclusion is that non-Calvinism is the best position to hold, because you really can't go wrong either way given that in either option I'm fulfilling the highest purpose of bringing God the greatest amount of Glory. However, if you, as a Calvinist, are wrong; just consider the damage, disunity and potential consequences of your error in distracting from God's glory and His gracious provisions for the entire world.

Is that conclusion logically incorrect? If so, how so? Be specific.

 

........wow, try to get some honest feedback on a recent point brought up in a discussion (which certainly seems valid if contra-causal freedom is in question) and this is the level of banter you get in response? This is one of the most personally demeaning bullying type comments I've heard in a while.

Revealing and sad...

 

lol

...and that is the point! The very existence of forums like this only go to validate contra-causal free will.

 

1. As I've quoted before, Calvinists are seriously divided among themselves and always have been. There is Supralapsarianism vs. Sublapsarianism vs. Infralapsarianism. 'The Supralapsarians hold that God decreed the fall of Adam; the Sublapsarians, that he permitted it' (McClintock & Strong). The Calvinists at the Synod of Dort were divided on many issues, including lapsarianism. The Swiss Calvinists who wrote the Helvetic Consensus Formula in 1675 were in conflict with the French Calvinists of the School of Saumur. There are Strict Calvinists and Moderate Calvinists, Hyper and non-Hyper (differing especially on reprobation and the extent of the atonement and whether God loves all men), 5 pointers, 4 pointers, 3 pointers, 2 pointers. In America Calvinists were divided into Old School and the New School. As we have seen, the Calvinists of England were divided in the 19th century.

Whenever, therefore, one tries to state TULIP theology and then refute it, there are Calvinists who will argue with you that you are misrepresenting Calvinism. It is not so much that you are misrepresenting Calvinism, though. You might be quoting directly from various Calvinists or even from Calvin himself. The problem is that you are misrepresenting THEIR Calvinism! There are Calvin Calvinists and Thomas Fuller Calvinists and Arthur W. Pink Calvinists and Presbyterian Calvinists and Baptist Calvinists and many other sorts of Calvinists. Many Calvinists have never read Calvin’s Institutes of Christian Religion for themselves. They are merely following someone who follows someone who allegedly follows Calvin (who, by his own admission, followed Augustine).

Calvinists believe that they have the right to reject or modify some parts of or conclusions of Calvin. I agree with them 100%, and I say, further, that we also have the right to reject the entire thing if we are convinced that it is not supported by Scripture!

You are reading a nefarious intent into my posts because we happen to disagree soteriologically. The fact is that my best friend is Calvinistic and so is my older brother, along with many other close friends I work with on a regular basis. We get along quite well. Maybe you missed it, but this is a DEBATE forum created for the purpose of DEBATING these issues.

How about you stick to the purpose and not make this personal as that is against the rules, and thus sinning, while I'm acting in accordance with the purposes and rules. So, who needs the rebuke here?

 

I'm not blaming God for being the author of sin, I'm blaming a SYSTEM for teaching things that lead to that erroneous conclusion. I understand that Calvinists would never say God is the author of sin, but in the same breath some would say he decrees the sinful desires of men (i.e. 'He decrees whatsoever comes to pass'), so what else are we to conclude? Authoring sin seems mild in comparison to unchangeably decreeing the sinful desires and thus choices and actions of men.

I also realize different Calvinists approach this at different degrees. Luke is a hard determinist, for example, where as you seem more mainstream and balanced in your approach.

Not all Calvinists actually believe that God merely permits evil as evidence on this very forum several times.

Nevertheless, how does that work exactly in your worldview? Does man originate the evil desire and then God comes to know of it after man originates it? Or did God know it prior to man originating it, thus meaning it actually began or originated in the mind of God rather than man?

I have my 'theories' about this (which is basically an appeal to mystery), but I'm curious as to your approach as compared to some others I've discussed this with over the years.

So, in the case of my rejection of Calvinism. Is God merely permitting me to remain in my 'ignorance' or 'stubbornness' and choosing to withhold from me some measure of grace given to you and the other enlightened children?

How are you supposing this works and how has what I've stated misrepresented what you really believe has happened?

 

Now, if only Calvinists could be so gracious. :smilewinkgrin: