Featured Sovereign Grace as it should be!

That was just an illustration. I have never even worn a kilt. But....hypothetically, mind you.... if I were wearing a Hillary Clinton pant suit I would probably head for the men's. Laugh

 

It has nothing to do with "new age" thinking, brother. I am saying that our theologies are not divine revelation. Our theologies are not objective truth. I am saying that Paul was right in 1 Corinthians 13. I am saying what Spurgeon said in his sermon "God's Will and Man's Will". I am saying what scholars, even Reformed ones, have said for centuries. We have to rely on the Word of God and not our theologies. There is a difference.

What I am saying is that it appears you, and a few more on this forum, do not understand what exactly theology is. It is our study of God's Word.

It would be idiotic to state, for example, that I am pushing an anti-Calvinistic agenda based on my insistence that Calvinism is a systematic theology that carries the potential for human error as Calvinism is a systematic theology and by definition theologies have the potential for human error. That is my point, not that you are wrong on an interpretation but that you need to understand what is interpretation.

It is not that I am "between two opinions". It is that I refuse to even elevate my own opinion to the level of Scripture. It is about God and not man. We argue our positions, defend our understandings, stand firmly on what we believe....but in the end we have to realize the difference between our understanding - our theology - and the Word of God.

 

Yet you have once again failed to offer an example. Makes one wonder if you have an anti-Calvinistic agenda of your own....it seems that you advocate accepting a system of theology while strongly opposing actual understanding (indoctrination without understanding).

Such elevation of doctrine to the level of Scripture is a cancer, not only within Reformed faith but in Christianity as a whole. Too many people hold a beliefs that they have been taught but they hold them without understanding. But that appears your agenda, and make no mistake - it is anti-Calvinistic.

What I am arguing against is not Calvinism, but a Gnostic-type of way of holding Calvinistic doctrine. On this thread I have not been saying that you, Icon, or your sidekick are wrong in your doctrine - but I can't help but wonder if you have a cult-like apprehension of that doctrine.

So once again, rather than gossip why don't you provide proof of your accusations? You are aware of the sinfulness of gossip, aren't you? Back up your statements....as the saying goes....."put up or shut up."

 

Careful here, brother. That has been my point on several threads. You are risking the accusation of pushing an anti-Calvinistic agenda as what you say smacks of the truth that our theologies are not the infallible Word of God.

(Unless you really mean that God gifted the Church Calvinistic teachers and gave them special revelation by the Holy Spirit in such a way as to make Calvinistic theology objective truth not subject to human error or reasoning. If so, then never mind.).

 

I know...that's my point. Yet repeatedly I'm accused of holding an "anti-Calvinistic agenda". So yea...it is a stupid accusation. But it keeps coming up from the two of you.

No, I've been saying that theology itself contains the flaw of human reasoning and is not objective truth. I agree that my own theology falls into this category. That is why it is theology and not Scripture.

What an asinine retort. My understanding came from prayer and studying Scripture. I have been influenced by the interpretations and explanations of F.F. Bruce, J.I. Packer, Douglas Moo, D.A. Carson, Gordon Fee and John Piper. In terms of influential pastors and sermons, I have been influenced by reading the sermons of Spurgeon, but also of Tim Keller and John MacArthur (and Piper would go here as well). In terms of ODT's, I have been influenced to a great degree by John Owen and Calvin. As you know, I also enjoy Eusebius and older writings. Insofar as poetry...just in case you were wondering...my favorite is T.S. Elliot.

This post is proof of what I did actually say (if you recall, I never called you or anyone else names...but the post and accusations that you presented was certainly idiotic). You have claimed that I have an anti-Calvinistic agenda because I have insisted that Calvinism is a systematic theology which is by nature not above human error. Yet that belief itself is not contrary to Calvinism (Spurgeon stated the same thing in his sermon "Man's Will and God's Will"). But my statement there has somehow made me "anti-Cal" in your estimation. And that without even discussing one doctrine that I have refuted of that position. Another proof is SovereignGrace's accusation that I have an anti-Calvinistic agenda based, from what I can tell, on my disagreement with his insistence that God separated from Jesus on the Cross (which is not, BTW, a Calvinistic distinctive). One disagreement equates to him as an attack against an entire system of theology. That is, in my view, a cult-like way to hold doctrine - you attack anything that you think may make your position look weak to some people regardless as to the validity of the comment.

If you object to "cult-like" then perhaps "holding truth in ignorance" may be more acceptable. I was not referring to your doctrine (and I apologize if you thought I was) but how it is held.

I was also objecting to the accusation that I held some kind of anti-Calvinistic agenda (by you and both SG) yet no evidence of such a thing. In truth, I believe you both have an agenda to belittle and attack any view that you don't agree with.

 

I believe this does apply. Scripture is not written in order that we may understand the "order" that God decided things, or the extent to which (if any) God concerned Himself with those who would not believe on the Cross, or whether one can be assured of salvation based on a previous decision, etc. Scripture was not written so that man may know about the gospel of Christ, it was written so that people may know Christ and through Him reconciliation.

Theology is important, but it is not the objective truth of Scripture. I don't care so much that men are depraved and unable to come to God as I do that Christ died for me while I was lost in sin. I don't care so much that I could never merit salvation as I do that God saved me. I don't care as much about the implications of the Cross for those who won't believe as I do that I have been purchased by Christ's blood. I don't worry that I may have resisted God's grace as much as I rejoice that God prevails. And I don't concern myself about the "salvation" of those who have left the faith as I strive to keep my own eyes on the race, trusting that God can keep in Christ those He has placed there.

Theology can never become the cornerstone and the church remain the Body of Christ. Christ will not be second to our understanding, and the gospel itself will never be dependent upon our interpretations. Theology helps us understand and interpret our faith, but it does not define our faith.

 

That is also one of my favorites. I was about to quote verse 1 earlier.

When I read your post a song came to mind, and it took quite awhile to recall what it was (it's "He's Father to Me"). Sometimes I believe that people get sidetracked and miss the forest for the trees. We all want to know more about God, which is an admiral pursuit...as long as it does not replace growth in knowing God.
Here's the song, if you want to check it out:

 

Having taught at the seminary level, do you think that if we were to examine the Five articles of Remonstrance that they also would be replete with references to Scripture? It isn't the Scripture that makes the difference. Well...you get the idea....

Also, Calvinistic theology as expressed in the Canons of Dort are more than a list of passages:

"Moreover, the holy scripture herein chiefly manifests and commends unto us this eternal and free grace of our election, in that it further witnesseth, that not all men are elected, but some not elected, or passed over in God’s eternal election: whom doubtless God in his most free, most just, unreproachable and unchangeable good pleasure hath decreed to leave in the common misery (whereinto by their own fault they precipitated themselves, and not to bestow saving faith and the grace of conversion upon them; but, leaving them in their own ways, and under just judgment, at last to condemn and everlastingly punish them, not only for their unbelief, but also for their other sins, to the manifestation of his justice. And this is the decree of reprobation, which in no wise makes God the author of sin, (a thing blasphemous once to conceive,) but a fearful, unreproveable, and just judge and revenger."

It is interesting that you explained to me "double predestination" is not Calvinism but "hyper-Calvinism". The decree of reprobation, that God has decreed to leave some under judgement and condemnation for everlasting punishment is at least a little bit like double predestination.

And we are "in the dark" about many things our theologies address, simply because Scripture does not seek to answer all of the things that strikes our at our curiosity. But the gospel is plain (and it is plan across Christian theologies....or they wouldn't be "Christian" theologies).

For example and illustration - Wesley and Whitfield taught the same gospel.

 

I think that both your illustration of Calvinism and Arminianism go far in illustrating the human element of theology. Both accept the same Scripture (and here, agree to a great extent) but at the same time their theologies incorporate human reasoning.

For example, at Dort we are taught double predestination through the decree of reprobation. That God decrees both election and reprobation is a product of human reasoning through Scriptures (theological understanding) and is not infallable by nature. In the Articles it is even easier to view human reasoning in the development of theology as consensus could not be reached regarding eternal security.

 

So if God in his most free, most just and unchangeable good pleasure has decreed to leave in common misery, and not to bestow saving faith and the grace of conversion upon some people, but leaving them in their own ways and under just judgment at last to condemn and everlastingly punish them not only for their unbelief but also for their own sins, to the manifestation of his justice – and of course that this decree of reprobation does not make God the author of sin but a fearful and just judge and revenger….that would not be “double predestination” because…..you think it corporate instead of individual?

Do you think that the Potter makes one vessel for mercy but somehow mass produces those vessels of wrath without care?