The 5 Points that lead me out of Calvinism

[Skandelon]

Sorry I've been missing in action guys, but have been busy with my studies, family, work etc....

I did have a article picked up by SBCToday if anyone is interested in it.... www.sbctoday.com

It is my story...

Blessings!

Here is a link directly to the article: http://sbctoday.com/the-five-points-that-lead-me-out-of-calvinism-part-one/

 

[The Archangel]

In "Point #5" on the "soteriology101.com" site, it is said:

What the Calvinist fails to see is that sovereignty is not an eternal attribute of God. Sovereignty means “complete rule or dominion over creation.” For God to be in control over creation there has to be something created in which to control. He cannot display His power over creatures unless the creatures exist. Therefore, before creation the concept of sovereignty was not an attribute that could be used to describe God. An eternal attribute is something God possesses that is not contingent upon something else. (emphasis mine)
​

While I would encourage the reading of "Point #5" to a much fuller degree than this excerpt, the highlighted statement is deeply troubling.

The Archangel

 

[InTheLight]

In "Point #5" on the "soteriology101.com" site, it is said:

What the Calvinist fails to see is that sovereignty is not an eternal attribute of God. Sovereignty means “complete rule or dominion over creation.” For God to be in control over creation there has to be something created in which to control. He cannot display His power over creatures unless the creatures exist. Therefore, before creation the concept of sovereignty was not an attribute that could be used to describe God. An eternal attribute is something God possesses that is not contingent upon something else. (emphasis mine)
​

While I would encourage the reading of "Point #5" to a much fuller degree than this excerpt, the highlighted statement is deeply troubling.

The Archangel

Why is it troubling?

Before creation was God omnipresent? If you say yes, where/what else was there besides Him? How could He be everywhere at once if there was no "where"?

 

[OldRegular]

In "Point #5" on the "soteriology101.com" site, it is said:

What the Calvinist fails to see is that sovereignty is not an eternal attribute of God. Sovereignty means “complete rule or dominion over creation.” For God to be in control over creation there has to be something created in which to control. He cannot display His power over creatures unless the creatures exist. Therefore, before creation the concept of sovereignty was not an attribute that could be used to describe God. An eternal attribute is something God possesses that is not contingent upon something else. (emphasis mine)
​

While I would encourage the reading of "Point #5" to a much fuller degree than this excerpt, the highlighted statement is deeply troubling.

The Archangel

I disagree with the statement: sovereignty is not an eternal attribute of God. attributed to you by Archangel. It is contrary to Scripture!

Malachi 3:6. For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

Note: Finally found the statement referenced above. My apologies to Archangel for any confusion I may have caused by referencing hos post!

 

[The Archangel]

Why is it troubling?

Before creation was God omnipresent? If you say yes, where/what else was there besides Him? How could He be everywhere at once if there was no "where"?

Why is it troubling? Because it's more a philosophical conclusion that is born from the presupposition that a synergistic soteriology is biblical.

The Bible always presents God as sovereign. What was said by Skandelon isn't biblical theology; it's philosophy devoid of biblical support.

Calvinists and non-Calvinists can (and do) go down the philosophical road. On the Calvinist side, some philosophize that all the elect will be saved whether they hear and respond to the Gospel or not. The conclusion is a false conclusion of philosophy because the philosophy ignores the biblical text--in this case Romans 10. Non-Calvinists retreat from a fully biblical view of God's sovereignty, leading some, for example, into open theism.

To say that God is not inherently sovereign is to de-God God by any biblical measure. To argue what Skandelon has argued is to bring "facts" not-in-evidence into a biblical discussion. It is a philosophy, not a theology.

The Archangel

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Sorry I've been missing in action guys, but have been busy with my studies, family, work etc....

I did have a article picked up by SBCToday if anyone is interested in it.... www.sbctoday.com

It is my story...

Blessings!

Here is a link directly to the article: http://sbctoday.com/the-five-points-that-lead-me-out-of-calvinism-part-one/

I read it on CARM. Seemed like it was written by someone who has no clue what Reformed theology teaches.

Two things I noticed about the thread on CARM.

The first is that, while you responded to other posters, you never managed to find the courage to step into the ring with Theo1689. I don't blame you. He gave you a pretty good whuppin' in that thread.

The second is that, when responding to a point someone made about people who go the opposite direction, people like me, who go from Arminian to Reformed, you responded with the Roman Catholic argument that they weren't really Arminian, but were just too dumb to know what they were in the first place.

Not only was it not compelling, it was just more of the typical Arminian ignorance and arrogance.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Not only was it not compelling, it was just more of the typical Arminian ignorance and arrogance.

One could just as easily substitute CALVINIST here for the bolded above, base on my experience I've had over the years discussing this issue with internet Calvinistas.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

One could just as easily substitute CALVINIST here for the bolded above, base on my experience I've had over the years discussing this issue with internet Calvinistas.

Ah, yes. The "I know you are but what am I" defense. I see the Finneyists have their "A" squad on duty today.

 

[InTheLight]

Why is it troubling? Because it's more a philosophical conclusion that is born from the presupposition that a synergistic soteriology is biblical.

...it's philosophy devoid of biblical support.

It is a philosophy, not a theology.

Yes, and as you said believers go down the philosophical road, I daresay that theologians go down the same road. Much theology can be found on this road.

You have identified the process, but haven't convinced me why it is troubling.

 

[Revmitchell]

I read it on CARM. Seemed like it was written by someone who has no clue what Reformed theology teaches.

Two things I noticed about the thread on CARM.

The first is that, while you responded to other posters, you never managed to find the courage to step into the ring with Theo1689. I don't blame you. He gave you a pretty good whuppin' in that thread.

The second is that, when responding to a point someone made about people who go the opposite direction, people like me, who go from Arminian to Reformed, you responded with the Roman Catholic argument that they weren't really Arminian, but were just too dumb to know what they were in the first place.

Not only was it not compelling, it was just more of the typical Arminian ignorance and arrogance.

There is nothing intelligent in this post. It is pure personal attack from beginning to end. It has no value, it supports no legitimate perspective, it fails to glorify God, and it is lacking in any substance. Maybe you should deal with him yourself instead of poorly characterizing the courage someone else has displayed that you yourself have not.

It appears you are just wanting to poke your finger in his eye, attack him personally because you do not like his theology, but never actually address his position with scripture and reason.

I dare you to make an attempt to address his position with scripture and reason without the use of characterizations, Finney, Arminianism, or Catholicism. Quite frankly I do not think you have it in you. Go ahead, give it a try.

 

[Revmitchell]

I disagree that we can claim that the Sovereignty of God is not an eternal attribute.

While there is reason used to come to that conclusion, such an idea is reason based on assumptions that we cannot actually know.


We cannot know what "In the beginning"(Genesis 1:1) encompasses. We do know it includes what was not in existence until that time. We do not know what or how much was in existence prior to that time.

Also, who said that the only way God can be Sovereign is if there is creation? Who determined that? Such a definition assumes we fully understand the perimeters of God's Sovereignty.

I would suggest that God's Sovereignty exists eternally because He is Sovereign over Himself, He is Sovereign over the process of creating something out of nothing.

I also agree with the passage quoted already that God does not change. (Malachi 3:6)

The position that the Sovereignty of God is not eternal is weak at best and cannot be supported by much reason nor can it be supported by any scripture.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Ah, yes. The "I know you are but what am I" defense. I see the Finneyists have their "A" squad on duty today.

Wow...what a profound response. I was merely pointing out that your accusations of "typical Arminian arrogance and ignorance" can be easily made towards many of the Calvinists I've encountered on the internet. Also, your labelling me (and presumably anyone who disagrees with 5 point Calvinism) as "Finneyist" simply proves my point.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

There is nothing intelligent in this post. It is pure personal attack from beginning to end. It has no value, it supports no legitimate perspective, it fails to glorify God, and it is lacking in any substance. Maybe you should deal with him yourself instead of poorly characterizing the courage someone else has displayed that you yourself have not.

It appears you are just wanting to poke your finger in his eye, attack him personally because you do not like his theology, but never actually address his position with scripture and reason.

I dare you to make an attempt to address his position with scripture and reason without the use of characterizations, Finney, Arminianism, or Catholicism. Quite frankly I do not think you have it in you. Go ahead, give it a try.

Your personal attacks are duly noted and about par for the course when dealing with Finneyists.

There has been no personal attack except from you. There also has been no reason or scripture from you. What we all have received from you is labeling in an attempt to dismiss those who disagree with you. You do not appear to have the ability to engage the issues without characterizations and labeling.

Well I'm sure I'm no match for the brilliant, scripture based refutation of Reformed theology that you've given here so many times.

Oh, wait...

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

To tell you the truth, I don't see anyone who is avout DOG Theology Believer being moved by this article....its tad amount to a Atheist who says, "I used to be a Christian Pastor & now I'm an Atheist." It doesn't fly---no credibility to the claim. Either you are a believer who sees it in scripture or you do not. Then there is the part of application that has to be displayed. You say your a new creature in Christ, now show it.

No DOG Theology believer is going to care about this guys move away from what they consider solid theology....actually they wonder what is wrong with the guy & why is he acting out?

 

[JohnDeereFan]

To tell you the truth, I don't see anyone who is avout DOG Theology Believer being moved by this article....its tad amount to a Atheist who says, "I used to be a Christian Pastor & now I'm an Atheist." It doesn't fly---no credibility to the claim. Either you are a believer who sees it in scripture or you do not. Then there is the part of application that has to be displayed. You say your a new creature in Christ, now show it.

No DOG Theology believer is going to care about this guys move away from what they consider solid theology....actually they wonder what is wrong with the guy & why is he acting out?

Nor do I. There's nothing compelling about his account. If he doesn't want to follow reformed theology, then that's fine. You can be an Arminian and a Finneyist and still be well within the bounds of orthodoxy.

I just don't see why the fact that he doesn't believe it means I shouldn't believe it.

 

[Revmitchell]

Your personal attacks are duly noted and about par for the course when dealing with Finneyists.

There has been no personal attack except from you. There also has been no reason or scripture from you. What we all have received from you is labeling in an attempt to dismiss those who disagree with you. You do not appear to have the ability to engage the issues without characterizations and labeling.


Once again I dare you to give it a try. Try to address issues and not people. Try to produce scriptural support for your position rather than derision and dismissal.

 

[InTheLight]

I disagree that we can claim that the Sovereignty of God is not an eternal attribute.

I would suggest that God's Sovereignty exists eternally because He is Sovereign over Himself, He is Sovereign over the process of creating something out of nothing.

Good point. Here is where the argument breaks:

Sovereignty means “complete rule or dominion over creation.” For God to be in control over creation there has to be something created in which to control. He cannot display His power over creatures unless the creatures exist.

Before creating anything God has control to create, or not to create. What to create. etc. In that sense He is sovereign.

The definition of sovereignty should probably read, "complete rule or dominion".

The position that the Sovereignty of God is not eternal is weak at best and cannot be supported by much reason nor can it be supported by any scripture.

Agreed. But I don't see the concept as "troubling".

 

[OldRegular]

Yes, and as you said believers go down the philosophical road, I daresay that theologians go down the same road. Much theology can be found on this road.

You have identified the process, but haven't convinced me why it is troubling.

Can you be convinced by Scripture?

Malachi 3:6. For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

Scripture is clear. If "sovereignty is not an eternal attribute of God" then God is not sovereign now and never has been because the above Scripture clearly states to all who believe: For I am the LORD, I change not.

Furthermore, if God is not Sovereign then He is not God. But it is a Biblical fact that God is sovereign eternally. Believe it or not!

 

[OldRegular]

To tell you the truth, I don't see anyone who is avout DOG Theology Believer being moved by this article....its tad amount to a Atheist who says, "I used to be a Christian Pastor & now I'm an Atheist." It doesn't fly---no credibility to the claim. Either you are a believer who sees it in scripture or you do not. Then there is the part of application that has to be displayed. You say your a new creature in Christ, now show it.

No DOG Theology believer is going to care about this guys move away from what they consider solid theology....actually they wonder what is wrong with the guy & why is he acting out?

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[BobRyan]

God "Sovereignly chose" free will.

Calvinism argues that God does not have the sovereign ability/right to do so even though His Word claims it "He came to His own - and His OWN received Him not" John 1:11

It is the gospel to "whosoever will" such that "I STAND at the door and knock if ANYONE hears my voice AND opens the door - I WILL come in" Rev 3.

He does not say "I arbitrarily select out the FEW doors of Matt 7 and not the MANY doors of Matt 7 - I burst down the door and let myself in - ".

As for the OP - I like it. But one thing about that article is that "it is impossible to be 100% certain that God makes any choice/statement in full ignorance of any certain knowledge that He has about the future" - to claim to have such certainty is not at all compelling.

in Christ,

Bob