While you state some things correctly, you fail here when you suggest that God does anything capriciously.
God has a plan and purpose that is Holy ,wise,and Just in all he does. To suggest otherwise is a theological third rail.
-
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!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Failure to Grasp the Doctrine of Union with Christ, leads to many Error's
- Thread starter Zaatar71
- Start date
God has a plan and purpose that is Holy ,wise,and Just in all he does. To suggest otherwise is a theological third rail.
Some Rando
Member
I don't believe God does anything capriciously.While you state some things correctly, you fail here when you suggest that God does anything capriciously.
God has a plan and purpose that is Holy ,wise,and Just in all he does. To suggest otherwise is a theological third rail.
That is one reason I am not a Calvinist.
If I believed Calvinist doctrine to be true. I would be forced to conclude that God is capricious and cruel.
Certainly, Calvinists don't generally consider God capricious either.
Some Rando
Member
It is both.Is this your position or are you saying it is the Calvinist position?
You neglected to include any scriptural references to support your statements.
Nothing I said required a Scripture reference.
If I had asserted that 2+2=4, I wouldn't cite Scripture either.
My friend, I am going to suggest to you, that you cannot accurately explain Calvinistic beliefs, without making a strawman. Your statement demonstrate this.I don't believe God does anything capriciously.
That is one reason I am not a Calvinist.
If I believed Calvinist doctrine to be true. I would be forced to conclude that God is capricious and cruel.
Certainly, Calvinists don't generally consider God capricious either.
Some Rando
Member
You would be wrong.My friend, I am going to suggest to you, that you cannot accurately explain Calvinistic beliefs, without making a strawman. Your statement demonstrate this.
I know Calvinistic beliefs backwards and forwards, and all the differences Supra vs infralapsarian Compatibilist and non-compatibilist etc.
I know it, and I can explain it.
I also know that on internet message debate forums, it is simply a Universal tactic to claim that non-Calvinist interlocutors who disagree with it simply "don't understand" or "can't explain" Calvinism.
I've seen it for decades.
I've seen it on numerous forums (including the CARM forums etc)
Calvinists say this about former Calvinists who used to be their strongest allies.
They used to do this to Leighton Flowers on this forum years ago.
If, you, my friend, ever changed your view of Calvinism:
Calvinists on message boards would begin accusing YOU of not being able to accurately explain Calvinist beliefs.
I guarantee it.
Last edited:
SR, Thanks for your reply.....if what you stated was true and accurate, you would never use the statement of our omniscient God doing anything random, or capricious in any way. If you are another who listens to the Pelagian Leighton Flowers false teaching. and anti cal ideas I see, why you would make such an unfortunate staement. I will tell you flat out, that no biblical Calvinists drift away, unless they are on the road to apostasy.You would be wrong.
I know Calvinistic beliefs backwards and forwards, and all the differences Supra vs infralapsarian Compatibilist and non-compatibilist etc.
I know it, and I can explain it.
I also know that on internet message debate forums, it is simply a Universal tactic to claim that non-Calvinist interlocutors who disagree with it simply "don't understand" or "can't explain" Calvinism.
I've seen it for decades.
I've seen it on numerous forums (including the CARM forums etc)
Calvinists say this about former Calvinists who used to be their strongest allies.
They used to do this to Leighton Flowers on this forum years ago.
If, you, my friend, ever changed your view of Calvinism:
Calvinists on message boards would begin accusing YOU of not being able to accurately explain Calvinist beliefs.
I guarantee it.
In a court of law Leighton would not be found guilty of being a Calvinist, neither would any of the other supposed form Calvinists. Their words give them away. You identify some of the terms, but that is a small part of it. Let me ask you to tell me how these verses fit with your false description of God;
9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,
10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
11 Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.
Explain your statement in light of this, thank you
Some Rando
Member
I never suggested God does anything randomly or capricious. I do not believe he does, and no Calvinist believes he does.SR, Thanks for your reply.....if what you stated was true and accurate, you would never use the statement of our omniscient God doing anything random, or capricious in any way
1.) He isn't a PelagianIf you are another who listens to the Pelagian Leighton Flowers false teaching.
2.) Pelagius wasn't a "Pelagian"
3.) The term "Pelagian" means nothing coming from the mouth of a Calvininst.
4.) You might as well have called him "fatty" or "stupid-head" for all he cares when a Calvinist hurls that random slur around.
5.) I don't "listen" to Flowers. I have before, not in years though, and I don't always agree with him. He used to post on this board. He used to debate Calvinists on this board. My only point about him is:
Say what you want about him, he ABSOLUTELY understands Calvinism thoroughly and used to be one.
It happens all the time.I will tell you flat out, that no biblical Calvinists drift away, unless they are on the road to apostasy
Christians of all stripes drift away from Soteriological views they once held. This is not an inherently bad thing.
Arminians become Calvinists, Calvinists become Arminians, etc. etc.
The only way to deny it is to utilize the "No true Scotsman" fallacy saying something like: "Then he was never a true Calvinist".
I suspect that's essentially what you were setting up for by saying a "biblical" Calvinist....it's essentially an opening to say that they were never "truly" Calvinist.
I understand the way Calvinists think very well.
He's not a Calvinist.In a court of law Leighton would not be found guilty of being a Calvinist
I did not say he is.
He does not say he is.
Here's the problem right off the bat:You identify some of the terms, but that is a small part of it. Let me ask you to tell me how these verses fit with your false description of God;
I have not, and you have never heard me give a "description of God".
The ONLY thing you know is that I'm not a Calvinist.
I have given no description of God, I have never told you what I believe soteriologically, Christologically or anything else. Any "description of God" I have made, was written by you, about me and exists in your head as an idea and set of presuppositions only.
The only descriptions of God I have given on this board is to say that God is NEITHER capricious or cruel nor evil, a proposition which yourself and I assume all believers on this board agree with.
Last edited:
you say you have listened to him in the past. Are you saying you never heard him say the Spirit is not necessary to have a man understand the scripture savingly? His pet phrase was men are response-able! If you used to listen you heard it!many times in fact.I never suggested God does anything randomly or capricious. I do not believe he does, and no Calvinist believes he does.
1.) He isn't a Pelagian
2.) Pelagius wasn't a "Pelagian"
3.) The term "Pelagian" means nothing coming from the mouth of a Calvininst.
4.) You might as well have called him "fatty" or "stupid-head" for all he cares when a Calvinist hurls that random slur around.
5.) I don't "listen" to Flowers. I have before, not in years though, and I don't always agree with him. He used to post on this board. He used to debate Calvinists on this board. My only point about him is:
Say what you want about him, he ABSOLUTELY understands Calvinism thoroughly and used to be one.
It happens all the time.
Christians of all stripes drift away from Soteriological views they once held. This is not an inherently bad thing.
Arminians become Calvinists, Calvinists become Arminians, etc. etc.
The only way to deny it is to utilize the "No true Scotsman" fallacy saying something like: "Then he was never a true Calvinist".
I suspect that's essentially what you were setting up for by saying a "biblical" Calvinist....it's essentially an opening to say that they were never "truly" Calvinist.
I understand the way Calvinists think very well.
He's not a Calvinist.
I did not say he is.
He does not say he is.
Here's the problem right off the bat:
I have not, and you have never heard me give a "description of God".
The ONLY thing you know is that I'm not a Calvinist.
I have given no description of God, I have never told you what I believe soteriologically, Christologically or anything else. Any "description of God" I have made, was written by you, about me and exists in your head as an idea and set of presuppositions only.
The only descriptions of God I have given on this board is to say that God is NEITHER capricious or cruel nor evil, a proposition which yourself and I assume all believers on this board agree with.
Some Rando
Member
I have heard him say things like that before, and yes, many times. Last I listened to him was probably 5 years ago or so. He has somewhat evolved in the way he thinks and describes his beliefs. All believers should, I believe. It implies growth. He used to be much more classically "Arminian". In fact, if I'm not mistaken, he used to belong to the Society of Evangelical Arminians. He wouldn't describe himself as "Arminian" any more however. He didn't always call himself a "Traditional Baptist" soteriologically, as I think he does now.you say you have listened to him in the past. Are you saying you never heard him say the Spirit is not necessary to have a man understand the scripture savingly? His pet phrase was men are response-able! If you used to listen you heard it!many times in fact.
He seems to absolutely LOVE that "response-able" line. I find it a little silly, but, it's an effective way to get his point across I guess.