Provisionalism vs Calvinism

I don't think you even realize you're doing eisegesis. You're view only stands with you're systems esiegetical understanding. Which is not arrived at by simply reading the text, which is a translation. How do translations work? The scholars translating the text don't use hidden meanings taught for specific words and phrases.

They use normal defined meanings from the dictionary to convey the meaning of the original language being translated. Not some special hidden definition. The provisional interpretation can easily be arrived at by simply reading the text as translated in any normal main stream translation, where has Calvinism must teach it's understanding of specific phrases and words.

This and the problem of double predestination is why I left Calvanism and reverted back to my original understanding of a traditional/provisional understanding which doesn't paint God in such a way as to lay the fault of sin at God's feet, but at the person committing the sin. Yes I know you punt to mystery which is a poor cop out. Just own it.

Yes both views "punt" to mystery at some point but the point and way are night and day different. You think you're minimizing man and magnifying the Lord, but from my vantage point you're sullying His name to paint man as less guiltless.

 

I read it, I understand it. I understand what "real" (5 point) Calvanists believe. I was discipled under a hardcore OPC Calvinist pastor for two years, we sat down once sometimes twice a week for hours discussing these sorts of things.

I don't think you grasp my point of view though because you're likely to busy being dismissive to.

You can't ignore the problem of double predestination, you can't ignore the esiegetical readings required to achieve a Calvinistic understanding. And appealing to, two nature's is just ridiculous. He's multi personal, not of multiple natures.

Okay well, you can ignore these problems, but you shouldn't! Challenge your presuppositions and biases. Honestly look at scripture from both views and examine which actually harmonizes with scripture better. Worst case scenario, you become more convinced.

I assert the traditional view doesn't have to dance around so many conflicting scriptures. I'll end there though, I'm not going to keep going back and forth. But God isn't the author of men doing wicked things, there's no evil within His nature he can't do that. If he were, He would be culpable.

 

1 Timothy 2:1-4
First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, 2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. 3This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of yGod our Savior, 4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to b the knowledge of the truth.

So, does all mean all? Or only the elect? It doesn't read only the chosen since before creation. It says all. His desire is for ALL men (humans) to come to Him, from kings to peasants. And don't give me that "all types or categories " it doesn't say that either. Or that God has two wills. He doesn't argue with himself, or have a mental illness. Besides if one will wishes all could have been, why didn't he design things that way? Was he not capable? It reads, "Who desires ALL people to be saved" because He does.

So then the Calvinist argues so what can God not have what he desires? And begins an argument of sovereignty because they're arguing on a defensive to support their Calvinism and not look for truth. What if God's sovereignty reflects a kings, is he not sovereign over what is his? But does he micromanage every decision everyone makes? Or does he give orders, commands, decrees, laws etc? What if God wants people to choose Him... wait aren't there scriptures that say that much?

Inserting presuppositions into the meanings of death so that one can't choose. And thus the argument turns to absurd accusations that one's not accountable of their choices. It's tiresome and irrational. Anyone that hasn't intensely hardened their heart beyond the point of seeking can choose. And God wants them to choose life and truth as His ways are far beyond ours and superior on perhaps countless levels. He wants what's best for us like any good father.

The difference is choice/free will/free agency. Sufficiency of atonement does not mean it's applied to everyone. It's only applied to those who believe Yeshua/Jesus was who he claimed to be, what He said was/is true and that his atoning blood is sufficient.

I really wish Calvinist would take up the challenge of trying to read the scriptures for what it actually say, which given their presuppositions and programming is quite a challenge. I know because just two years of Calvinistic discipleship required several months of intense struggling with just reading the scriptures for what they actually said. And I tell you a Infinitely greater character/representation of God is revealed.

Choice is real, so is accountability for our choices, God really does want us all to choose him. I don't believe he made any human being as a vessel for destruction. Though, he will allow them to reject Him and suffer the consequences. Why else does The Word testify? Why spread the Gospel? Why does God's word plead to the reader/hearer to turn and choose if there is no choice? It only makes sense that there is a real choice.

So why do some choose to believe and others don't I have been asked. There's a million possibilities from ones life experiences, I can't answer such a question anymore than you can answer the question of how many square miles creation is. But that doesn't mean your view is accurate because you asked a impossible question Calvinism has crafted an answer too. (Yes I'm aware of the Calvinistic answer) indeed, it is a gift from God. But I think the Calvinist twists that statement. It is a gift in the same way God's grace of not just condemning all of man kind which He can has every justification in doing if He chose it is a gift from God. He says over and over in scripture "your faith", "believe" etc. Not, hold on, here take this rejuvenation so that you can believe. Everyone is born capable of believing, creation, His word, and the testimony of His children testify. Some harden their hearts, some sear their souls, some don't. The reasons why are as many as there are stars, but choices were/are made by man, wither to accept or reject God. And from the natural conclusions drawn from the wording of the text (not presuppositions inserted) that is exactly how God designed it to be, a choice.

God, who can do no evil, he is not culpable for our choices, it's part of the reason the Lord atoning blood had to be shed, because guilt lies at our feet, because they are OUR choices, our sins. (And obviously a filthy rag can't clean it's self with itself) Double predestination is not a problem for the traditional view. It places a higher view of God and a lower view of man. Which Calvinism purports to do, but in actuality paints God as the cause but somehow not culpable, it's irrational nonsensical and there's a better understanding that's more harmonious with all of scripture, oh and it's not illogical.

 

Thank you for taking the time for that lengthy reply, but from where I'm standing that's not the refutation you probably think it is. You stood on Calvinism, I already understand what it purports and reject it.

But can you begin to even see my perspective? Or do you just dismiss it and default to what you were taught the scriptures mean rather than examining what they say. Btw, I'm not claiming to perfectly understand all scripture I most certainly don't and I'd be extremely suspicious of anyone who did.

Perhaps the reason some believe and others don't is under our noses in scripture with the parable of the sower.

But if you think any young child that dies goes to Him, (duno if you do, I do) then that would seem to suggest to me anyway we all start as "good" soil able to recieve the word and believe. (I did not mean that good as in worthy or anything like that so please don't go down that road, I simply meant like in context to the parable)

Also as for the Kings/ authority comment maybe I just suck at English but I read that and to me it seems to stress it as if to say "even kings".