The Cure for Calvinism

I agree he is responding. The problem is that his arguments are heavy on quoted scripture, not scripture engaged. That is what is missing here.

I was a Calvinist for years. Most are well versed in their theology and most are not as antagonistic as seen with icon. What he should have done was concentrate on doctrine and ignore the rest. Good debates focus on doctrine. I think that he has adopted more than he is able to defend (he looks for an echo chamber).

 

"Is this a dagger which I see before me, The handle toward my hand?"

Or is it weird to think of Icon as Lady Macbeth?

 

Yes. Although I still like the MiraLax solution, I think that most would hold that the Bible is the cure.

 

The point is that Calvinism does not need to be "cured". People understand the gospel and scripture in different ways. None of these theologies are prescribed by Scripture although we all believe ours is correct (which is why we hold them).

Systematic theology incorporates Scripture, observation, and human reasoning. Only the first is perfect. These threads should be places where Christians can discuss their differences, learn of the other's views, and reexamine their own view. It is not a place to try to indoctrinate others to one's own way of thinking.

I would rather a person be a Calvinist, an Arminianian, a Pentecostal, a Methodist, a Presbyterian, or a Democrat ( ) and be a Christian than abandon any of those only to find themselves in a crisis of faith in Christ.

Human understanding will always be flawed. The Gospel is never flawed. Our faith has to be in Christ, not in our understanding.

 

I think it reasonable to believe that MacArthur is worth several million (a few past 990's are out there for GTY). But think about it. He is a well selling author (his Bible is one of the best selling Bibles). He is a senior president. He is the president of Master's University. If I recall, he has a radio program as well.

I like it that he provides his sermons and resources free of charge on the grace to you website. John Piper often does this as well (many of his books are there for purchase or download).

 

I agree. But then Calvinism would never have existed.

The issue is Calvinism is a product of systematic theology. Systematic theology bases itself on Scripture but uses other things (like nature, cultural influences, and human reasoning). These theologies seek to answer what is not actually provided in the text of Scripture (it seeks to know what it comes to see as implied).

We understand Scripture via a human mind. As Spurgeon noted, that is at once a flaw in our theology and a tool as we deal with opposing views.

Scripture can mean that Christ died to save only the elect (which I believe). But the text itself can also mean the elect corporately (which I believe implies individual election as well, but that is not actually in Scripture). And Scripture can also be used to apply the term "elect" post-salvation (the word "elect" is never used of a person who is not already saved).

So which is true? It does not depend on Scripture but on interpretation and reasoning.

Take it a bit further - if the Calvinist is wrong about the mode of divine justice (the type or category of justice that God uses), or if wrong about the extent to which redemption is based on divine justice, then everything that follows falls apart. Guess what Scripture does not tell us in the text. That is where reasoning comes in (and why I left Calvinism).

Our understandings are vital because it is how Scripture translates to us. BUT our understanding is human. We are guided by the Spirit, but come to different places because we reason out and interpret things differently.

 

It does not have to equal 4. Suppose we are talking about two 3's. Then the sum is 6.

Edit: or 12....