I fully expect this to go over your head, but these passages affirm the truth of Total Depravity while revealing why 'our faith' is never mentioned in any of the numerous final judgement passages, which is all about 'works'.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Non-Calvinist Help- Questions
- Thread starter zrs6v4
- Start date
- Status
I fully expect this to go over your head, but these passages affirm the truth of Total Depravity while revealing why 'our faith' is never mentioned in any of the numerous final judgement passages, which is all about 'works'.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
The TULIP is a disgrace to the love and character of God, if you can not wrap your head around that then you will never see the truth of scripture.
1. How do you define God's Sovereignty?
I define sovereignty as the relationship between God and Creation (sovereignty over creation). All things have been created through and for Jesus. He is before all things and in Him all things hold together.
2. How do you view the application of God's sovereignty?
I leave that up to God.
3. What are your concerns with a Calvinistic view of God's sovereignty and why do you believe it is flawed?
I have several, but one of my primary concerns is basing salvation itself on the sovereignty of the Father. This is problematic for many readons, two being the primacy of divine sovereignty in salvation over other divine aspects and a focus of the sovereignty of the Father ("going around the cross").
4. What are the weaknesses in your view of Sovereignty and what are the weaknesses of a Calvinist view of sovereignty?
I see no weakness in sovereignty itself.
The weakness of Calvinism is not in its view of sovereignty (except perhaps as already mentioned). The weakness of Calvinism is its view of Atonement and justice.
The weakest point of Calvinism on this board has historically been a lack of interest in Calvinists defending its presuppositions. It would be interesting to see a thread discussing and defending the basic assumptions of Calvinism, but I believe most are more content in arguing far beyond the central differences.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
No doubt we see this differently.
I assume this is a response to my 8 points I made about Genesis 3 and how I see that working similarly in Salvation? If so it would help me understand you better if you interacted with the points that you disagree with. Take these statements I made for example, is what I said unbiblical in some way here:
"2. In regard to God's character, he did not desire for this or tempt Adam or Eve. He did not collaborate with the serpent either.
3. His hidden/secret/ultimate will was for mankind to fall and bring Christ to save sinners.
4. God had the power to prevent the fall. Example: He could have destroyed the serpent in advance yet chose not to.
5. God could have provided grace to effectually lead Adam and Eve to NOT sin similarly to that which is provided to heavenly beings. Yet God chose to give His grace after the fall."
Thank you,
Zach
Actually KY asked me to respond so I did. I had read through your posts but had not done anything with them.
"2. In regard to God's character, he did not desire for this or tempt Adam or Eve. He did not collaborate with the serpent either. TRUE
3. His hidden/secret/ultimate will was for mankind to fall and bring Christ to save sinners. CONTRADICTS POINT #2
4. God had the power to prevent the fall. Example: He could have destroyed the serpent in advance yet chose not to. TRUE
5. God could have provided grace to effectually lead Adam and Eve to NOT sin similarly to that which is provided to heavenly beings. Yet God chose to give His grace after the fall."NOT SURE WHAT YOU ARE GETTING AT HERE?
IT SEEMS YOU ARE SAYING THAT GOD DETERMINED THEIR FREE WILL WHICH WOULD BE AN OXYMORON.
If TULIP is so offensive to you, I'll rephrase:
"My point is simply that the scriptures in many instances show 'heart change' from God, the birth from above, occurring long before 'hearing' the gospel. But again, if you're unable to wrap your mind around the 'complete helplessness' of the natural man to come to God on his own, you'll never see it."
Last edited:
1 John 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.
8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.
10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.
Don't mind me kyredneck, I'm just adding to what you said... Question... Scripture says GOD IS LOVE!... Where did you get it?... Brother Glen
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
KY you just continue to show your true colors. You are just a mean spirited person. You just can not accept the fact that not all will swallow the line that calvinism puts out there.
There you go again Silv, showing your true colors. What caused this 'sickness' that you have Silv? Did a 'Calvinist' do something bad to you when you were a kid? Wife or girlfriend run off with one? I'd love to know the root cause of your CDS.
I believe Satan also 'fell' in The Garden when he instigated The Fall. I believe he was 'provoked to jealousy' when God inserted Adam in Eden, God knowing beforehand this would happen.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
Root cause of my disdain for calvinism. The fact that the root of calvinism is pagan. That calvinism distorts the character of God.
That you still trumpet calvinism shows that you have never taken the time to look into the foundations of that man-made philosophy. Augustine brought pagan philosophy into the church and Calvin just carried it forward.
While I believe that many of those that follow that philosophy are saved I do believe they are mislead as to why they are saved.
Last edited:
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
Seems you missed that part of scripture where it says God made man in His image. Since that would not be His physical image it would logically be His spiritual image. You know that ability to think and make real choices.
Now under your deterministic view man is just too controlled to be able to do that but the bible paints a picture where man actually can and is expected to made choices and will be held accountable for those choices.
So we do see heart change in the bible prior to the gospel message being presented. We see this a number of time in the OT{see Heb 11}. God obviously does not think man is helpless in regard to coming to Him as He tells them to seek Him and holds them responsible for not doing so.
You just can not wrap your head around the idea that God actually gave man a free will.
No it isn't. In a nutshell your disdain is for any scripture that depicts Sovereign Grace (which didn't originate from Calvinism), and then you blame your rejection of scripture on those paganistic Calvinists, from which you derive great satisfaction. Those horrible mean ol' Calvinists.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
Typical calvinst response. I tell you why I disdain the calvinist view and you say you know me better than I know myself. The arrogance you show is amazing.
It must really bug you that I will not follow down your rabbit trail of twisted logic. Anyone that follows what you call the DoG is following a man-made path that distorts the truth of God.
The real difference between you and I is that I agree with scripture that says God desires all to be saved and you say the Holy Spirit got it wrong. That's why the Father sent the Son, not to condemn the world but that the world might be saved through Him.
1) God causes or allows whatsoever comes to pass.
2) God causes what He want to accomplish His purpose. Thus if He wants people to chose to put their trust in Christ, He allows us to make the choice, rather than compels some of us to believe in Christ.
3) The Calvinist view, found in published statements of doctrine, but not held by other Calvinists such as R.C.Sproul, is that God "ordains" (meaning predestines) whatsoever comes to pass. Then, in a display of cognitive dissonance, say this does not make God the author (cause) of sin.
4) There are no weaknesses in the view that God either causes or allows whatsoever comes to pass. The weakness in the published "exhaustive determinism" view is that the Bible clearly says God gives humans a choice. If that "choice" has been foreordained, then it is not a choice. Thus the view is unbiblical.
I see another point of contention has been raised, that of God's granting and drawing?
When we see God grants repentant, that means God allows the person to "come to their senses" and choose to turn to God and His Christ. Otherwise, God would "harden" or allow to be hardened the hearts of some to fulfill His purpose. For example, He hardened for a time, Jews to facilitate the spread of the gospel among the Gentiles.
Drawing refers to being attracted by God's lovingkindness. For example when we behold Christ "high and lifted up" dying for us on the cross, we are attracted to Him because He first loved us, while we were yet sinners. "Drawing" does not cause people to believe, it is not "irresistible grace."
When we see God grants repentant, that means God allows the person to "come to their senses" and choose to turn to God and His Christ. Otherwise, God would "harden" or allow to be hardened the hearts of some to fulfill His purpose. For example, He hardened for a time, Jews to facilitate the spread of the gospel among the Gentiles.
Drawing refers to being attracted by God's lovingkindness. For example when we behold Christ "high and lifted up" dying for us on the cross, we are attracted to Him because He first loved us, while we were yet sinners. "Drawing" does not cause people to believe, it is not "irresistible grace."
Another issue is "unconditional grace".
Calvinists typically mean unmerited grace (grace not conditioned on man).
But many non-Calvinists (to include Arminianism) agree.
There are conditions of grace, but God meets these conditions.
And we agree that man can merit condemnation.
The crux is whether man can remain focused on the flesh and refuse the grace offered.
Calvinists typically mean unmerited grace (grace not conditioned on man).
But many non-Calvinists (to include Arminianism) agree.
There are conditions of grace, but God meets these conditions.
And we agree that man can merit condemnation.
The crux is whether man can remain focused on the flesh and refuse the grace offered.
Well, first Kentucky told you he isn’t a Calvinist but a Monergist. Second, I don’t see him as mean spirited but rather a person who has gone round & round religion until he found his belief system that best represents scripture. I will tell you that that endeavor takes allot of study & commitment to scripture and one he still pursues daily, so I would not be so keen to just judge & dismiss him.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
I have noticed that a number of people on this board that hold to what they call the "DoG" / "Sovereign Grace" do not like to be referred to as calvinist's. Why is that?
As for his belief system, if he holds views that do not reflect the God of scripture then he is still wrong.
DaveXR650
Well-Known Member
Because every theological system will come into difficulties when taken to it's conclusion. If God's help is decisive in any way, in conviction, enlightening, awakening, drawing - then you open the door for election and predestination. If it's not decisive, then you are indeed sovereign, at least your final acceptance is the issue and there is no logical reason why you shouldn't be proud of your wise decision.
So you have the great Calvinists like John Owen warning us not to trifle with God's call lest we be responsible for a withdrawn offer. And we have Wesley and the Arminians saying that you simply are not able to come to Christ without the Holy Spirit.
Both ends are more logically correct. The extreme Calvinist or PB saying the elect just find themselves saved; and the Pelagians who say God did what he did and now the rest is up to you to meet the new conditions - are happy in that their practice fits the logic of their systems. But too many scriptures refute both views. In practice, there is a lot of overlap, and peace too, if one is willing to admit that their system is not perfect. That's why I am happy in Baptist church that does not call itself "reformed" but yet I know for sure the pastors have some degree of sympathy for reformed doctrines and freely quote teachers from both camps when needed.
I’m wondering if it would not be better for many to convert to Catholism and work thru the 7 sacraments so you can keep score where you are in the salvation system vs to rely on the Almighty God to help a person gain entrance into heaven. At least the Catholic believes in original sin to keep him from becoming arrogant…. All he need do is step the sacraments & keep score. There and again, these sacraments can be circumvented by an act (any act or utterance) of contrition.
well you first need to understand Calvinism before you make those claims. In the extreme there are the Hyper Calvinists, I would call them Absoluters ( absolute predestination believers) note that Kentucky has denied that distinction and so do I. Next, the true Calvinists are Presbyterians and Congregational churches…Puritan. They are definitely not Baptists. They also have sacraments they abide by and they in the past would not have any problem with executing those who do not conform… Servitus was burned as a heretic & the whole Salem witch hunt was Puritan. In other words, they didn’t operate in a loving, merciful mode. They would be Calvinists… in short they were severe legalists.Calvinists follow strict Calvinistic teachings and they never waver from it.
- Status