4 Point Calvinism

[Iconoclast]

Thank you and be safe (I hope you are not literally "driving right now").

I use voice to text but it doesn't come out too good cuz the trucks too loud any extended post I have to get to a keyboard

 

[tyndale1946]

I am driving right now but in about 250 miles I'll be able to answer as you request

I believe there is a law about preaching and driving isn't there?... Or is that preaching, texting, driving?... I don't know!... Brother GlenUnsure

 

[Iconoclast]

I believe there is a law about preaching and driving isn't there?... Or is that preaching, texting, driving?... I don't know!... Brother GlenUnsure

Red lights along the back roads like now.

 

[JonC]

The Greek pronoun τουτο translated “this” in Eph. 2:8 is neuter in gender and the Greek noun translated “faith” in the same verse is feminine in gender. Some commentators have argued that the pronoun, therefore, cannot refer to faith but must refer to the process of salvation (the Greek noun for “salvation” is also feminine). Other commentators have argued that since και τουτο is an idiomatic expression, the gender of the pronoun is insignificant. The Church Fathers (Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Jerome in particular) interpreted the pronoun as referring to faith and so have many scholars and commentators including Erasmus, Beza, Crocius, Cocceius, Grotius, Estius, Bengel, Meier, Baumgarten-Crusius, Bisiping, and Hodge. Scholars and commentators that are more recent acknowledge that the pronoun may refer to the noun “grace,” the verb “saved,” the noun “faith,” or the process of salvation by grace.

I had commented sometime back on this topic, and offered what I had remembered of an example Mounce had used. I stumbled across it today:

Paul writes that For by grace (χάριτι) you have been saved through faith (πίστεως), and this (τοῦτο) is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; it is not of works, so that no one may boast (Eph 2:8-9).

This is one of the main passages used to show that salvation is not based on what we do but; rather, salvation is an unearned gift. Among other things, this means that no one can boast about deserving to be saved. More specifically, it is often used to emphasize that even our faith itself is not something we posses but rather is given to us: faith ... this not of yourselves ... the gift of God.

The problem with that exegesis of the verse is that this is a neuter pronoun and faith is a feminine noun. While a pronoun's case is determined by its function in the sentence, it gender and number are determined by its antecedent. Therefore, this cannot be referring back to faith. But grace also is feminine, so it cannot be the antecedent of τοῦτο. So what is?

If you looks backwards for an antecedent, you will look in vain. There are neuter nouns, but they make no sense as an antecedent.

The answer is to know a little Greek! When Greek wants to refer back to a general thought, perhaps a phrase, the pronoun can be in the neuter. This is not of yourselves does not refer specifically to πίστεως but rather to the entire salvific process, of which faith obviously is a part. It is the entire salvific process that is God's gracious gift and is not part of our own doing. It is a gift.

We often talk about trusting god, that salvation is by faith, but I have often wondered how much people are really able to understand these words. I got to hear my nephew preach this morning, and he did a great job of explaining Eph 2:8-9 (although he never referenced it) using Isa 6. God reveals himself as a holy God. Isaiah's appropriate response was to see the great chasm between himself and God and cry out, Woe is me. Isaiah is forgiven by merely receiving God's atoning gift of the burning goals. Salvation, Dave preached, has to do with seeing God for who he is, with seeing myself for who I am, realizing that there is nothing I can do to move from being a sinner to being holy, and yet also believing that the holy God has done what only he can do in reaching out and offering forgiveness to us. Faith is believing that God has extended the fires of forgiveness.

Isaiah clearly saw that the entire process was a gracious gift received by the faith that believes God has bridged the gap and has forgiven our sins

https://billmounce.com/blog/antecedents-and-faith-eph-2-8-9

 

[tyndale1946]

Red lights along the back roads like now.

Well if you hit a RR Crossing you could probably get a good sermon in waiting for the train to pass... Some of those trains are mighty loooooong... I think some of those Baptist Preacher I heard the looooong winded ones were waiting for a train to pass... I've seen some of them the Holy Spirit gets a hold of them and they have to ride that train of thought to the end of the line!... What ya think?... Brother GlenWhistling

 

[JonC]

Well if you hit a RR Crossing you could probably get a good sermon in waiting for the train to pass... Some of those trains are mighty loooooong... I think some of those Baptist Preacher I heard the looooong winded ones were waiting for a train to pass... I've seen some of them the Holy Spirit gets a hold of them and they have to ride that train of thought to the end of the line!... What ya think?... Brother GlenWhistling

Don't go riding on that long black train!!!! Laugh

 

[tyndale1946]

Don't go riding on that long black train!!!! Laugh

If you are a preacher only ride that train if the Lord is the engineer!... If not get off that train you might embarrass yourself!... Brother Glen

 

[Iconoclast]

JonC

Brother Icon, if you would be so kind as to identify which of those you find objectionable so that I can know where we disagree regarding this thread, it would be appreciated. I'm sure, as you took the time to consider my post and disagree, that this was merely an oversight.

and could not answer in detail

No it was not an oversight.....I was driving and could not answer in detail. I can click on the button though.

Given the diversity of Reformed thought and the legitimacy of other theological persuasions, I never really understood why so many use Calvinism as their measuring stick...except perhaps for the preciseness of "TULIP". I think it would be far better if people would speak plainly what they believe and go forward from there.

I count six points:

1. There is a diversity of Reformed thought
2. There are reasons behind this diversity.
3. I don't understand why so many use Calvinism as their measuring stick.
4. "TULIP" has a degree of preciseness to it.
5. It would be better if people would speak plainly what they believe.
6. Discussion would be better going from this point (of speaking plainly what one believes).

.

Thanks

.[/QUOTE]

Given the diversity of Reformed thought and the legitimacy of other theological persuasions,

In the original posting RT answered you in post 15....

As posted I disagree with your phrase....."the legitimacy of other theological persuasions"
You assume everyone is "onboard" with this statement as if it is the only way to frame the discussion.

Maybe I misunderstand you....what do you mean by other legitimate theological persuasions? Are you suggesting that Arminianism is legitimate?

I never really understood why so many use Calvinism as their measuring stick...except perhaps for the preciseness of "TULIP".

JONC.....you are free of course to think what you think, and think as you want as all of us are. When I read your statement it seems as if you make light of the fact that virtually all the respected confessions are Calvinist confessions.

were there others...Anabaptists and such....yes....from what I can see....they were sincere but the level of biblical understanding was lacking big time....

I do not get into the back and forth on the historic data and get lost in that maze....
at this point the best arguments have come and gone.

When the teaching of Jesus and the apostles is laid out, the 5 pts are there.
not 4, not 3.5 or anything else.

When people spoke of 4 pointers it was to say that some confusion was found in that person, some inconsistency.....so you have Richard Baxter, JC Ryle etc.
then the term was....they were "calvinistic" which meant they did not see one or more of the points clearly.

So I am not sure where you want to go with your idea, but I will pass on it.

1. There is a diversity of Reformed thought
2. There are reasons behind this diversity

While that is true.....it is a multi faceted reason that it is so....
God does not give any person all truth
The overall teaching of the 5 pts stands.....each time a "new idea" is offered does not mean it is legitimate.
Some men have different strengths but sometimes are not given truth on some points of theology for Gods reasons.

4. "TULIP" has a degree of preciseness to it.
5. It would be better if people would speak plainly what they believe.
6. Discussion would be better going from this point (of speaking plainly what one believes).

JONC......what if it is very simple.....?
what if the biblical teaching is the 5 pts plain and simple?
what if any and every deviation is a theological defect?
what if all believers are 5 pointers , or on their way to becoming one?
what is those who oppose the teaching, oppose Jesus Himself?

I am not speaking of new believers, or those with actual questions or sincere struggling...I am speaking of those who set themselves directly opposed to it. If indeed it is the God given truth, those who oppose, oppose God and His people.

 

[JonC]

JonC

and could not answer in detail
No it was not an oversight.....I was driving and could not answer in detail. I can click on the button though.

In the original posting RT answered you in post 15....

As posted I disagree with your phrase....."the legitimacy of other theological persuasions"
You assume everyone is "onboard" with this statement as if it is the only way to frame the discussion.

Maybe I misunderstand you....what do you mean by other legitimate theological persuasions? Are you suggesting that Arminianism is legitimate?

JONC.....you are free of course to think what you think, and think as you want as all of us are. When I read your statement it seems as if you make light of the fact that virtually all the respected confessions are Calvinist confessions.

were there others...Anabaptists and such....yes....from what I can see....they were sincere but the level of biblical understanding was lacking big time....

I do not get into the back and forth on the historic data and get lost in that maze....
at this point the best arguments have come and gone.

When the teaching of Jesus and the apostles is laid out, the 5 pts are there.
not 4, not 3.5 or anything else.

When people spoke of 4 pointers it was to say that some confusion was found in that person, some inconsistency.....so you have Richard Baxter, JC Ryle etc.
then the term was....they were "calvinistic" which meant they did not see one or more of the points clearly.

So I am not sure where you want to go with your idea, but I will pass on it.

While that is true.....it is a multi faceted reason that it is so....
God does not give any person all truth
The overall teaching of the 5 pts stands.....each time a "new idea" is offered does not mean it is legitimate.
Some men have different strengths but sometimes are not given truth on some points of theology for Gods reasons.

Hey Icon,

Thanks for getting back with me.

Obviously I don’t care that we do disagree, and I think we are on equal ground here. We’ve discussed this topic over the years enough to know where we stand. I respect that. I just didn’t understand your disagreement on this particular post.

Post #15 has nothing to do with my comment. I never fault one for holding strongly to their beliefs (even if they are wrong). We should believe what we believe or find something else to believe. But what I specifically stated was that Reformed thought is diverse, and it is. Within the Reformed you have Presbyterians, Methodists, Anglicans, Lutherans, Baptists, Episcopalians….it’s diverse plain and simple.

What I mean by the legitimacy of other theological persuasions is that there are genuine arguments and views that are not necessarily your own. Some here believe their understanding to be the only understanding that could possibly be correct. This is what Scripture calls “leaning on your own understanding.” We do not have all of the answers. Theology by definition incorporates human reasoning, and is therefore able to be flawed. It is imperfect because we are imperfect. There are legitimate differences within Reformed thought. And yes, even Arminianism was a legitimate disagreement (they came to a wrong conclusion, but the "problem of evil" has historically been a significant theological issue).

I was not thinking, brother, of confessions when I spoke of people using Calvinism as their measuring stick. I was thinking of people like Geisler who, instead of saying I believe such and such reverts back to Calvinism and calls himself a 4 point Calvinist. For centuries Calvinists have affirmed that Jesus died to make salvation possible for all men (this is the only reason I mentioned those around during Dort…..to show that Calvinism remained diverse even when they rejected Arminianism). At the same time, other Calvinists have denied that view. Neither group considered themselves less Calvinistic or hyper Calvinistic.

What we end up with is some people who think that their understand is and always has been Calvinism. The irony comes, and the blinders come on, when these people happen to be Baptist. But no, Reformed thought (just like with the New Testament church) has never been without internal differences. And no, your particular understanding has been denounced throughout Church history (which does not make you wrong, it just means that your view is not the only view within orthodox Christianity). When we fail to see theory in our theology then have devolved into idolatry (with our theories as the idols).

There is no need to go into those historical disagreements. That was not my intent at all. You have acknowledged the truth I was speaking of. There never has been a time in history when Calvinism was united as one in all of its doctrine. There never has been a time in history when Calvinists as a whole accepted Baptistic belief. There never has been at time in history when the Reformed church was unified under one theology. (BTW….do you know where the term "Calvinism" originated?).

Anyway, I still do not see where we disagree, except perhaps that you may not understand how all of those other interpretations could possibly have a legitimate cause.

 

[Iconoclast]

"JonC

Obviously I don’t care that we do disagree, and I think we are on equal ground here. We’ve discussed this topic over the years enough to know where we stand. I respect that. I just didn’t understand your disagreement on this particular post.

i am not sure that you do now either.

Post #15 has nothing to do with my comment.

RT answered you very solidly as I read it....

I never fault one for holding strongly to their beliefs (even if they are wrong). We should believe what we believe or find something else to believe

.

agree

But what I specifically stated was that Reformed thought is diverse, and it is. Within the Reformed you have Presbyterians, Methodists, Anglicans, Lutherans, Baptists, Episcopalians….it’s diverse plain and simple.

This is too simplistic.....4 of these are dead or dying

What I mean by the legitimacy of other theological persuasions is that there are genuine arguments and views that are not necessarily your own.

way to vague...by that definition any view is okay....I do not believe that.

Some here believe their understanding to be the only understanding that could possibly be correct. This is what Scripture calls “leaning on your own understanding.”

I see this among our resident fundamentalists...

We do not have all of the answers. Theology by definition incorporates human reasoning, and is therefore able to be flawed. It is imperfect because we are imperfect. There are legitimate differences within Reformed thought. And yes, even Arminianism was a legitimate disagreement (they came to a wrong conclusion, but the "problem of evil" has historically been a significant theological issue).

I do not agree

I was not thinking, brother, of confessions when I spoke of people using Calvinism as their measuring stick. I was thinking of people like Geisler who, instead of saying I believe such and such reverts back to Calvinism and calls himself a 4 point Calvinist.

those who do not understand it cannot really comment accurately....they do not know what they do not know.

For centuries Calvinists have affirmed that Jesus died to make salvation possible for all men

No.....not so.

(this is the only reason I mentioned those around during Dort…..to show that Calvinism remained diverse even when they rejected Arminianism). At the same time, other Calvinists have denied that view.

I deny it flat out....To try and piece together fragments from church history is to search in vain.

Neither group considered themselves less Calvinistic or hyper Calvinistic.

this is where this breaks down, going outside of scripture to history books.

What we end up with is some people who think that their understand is and always has been Calvinism

.

Any real Cal knows Cal thought and does not look to explain it away as you are sort of doing. I have visited about 20 new churches in the past year and know within a short time who stands where for the most part. everyone can move the target and say....I do not believe it exactly that way.....that is pointless really.

The irony comes, and the blinders come on, when these people happen to be Baptist

Most baptists do not even know the real issues sad to say...

. But no, Reformed thought (just like with the New Testament church) has never been without internal differences. And no, your particular understanding has been denounced throughout Church history (which does not make you wrong, it just means that your view is not the only view within orthodox Christianity). When we fail to see theory in our theology then have devolved into idolatry (with our theories as the idols).

No....I see this different from you ....very much so. Those differences will come out over time....point by point. Not in a hypothetical way.

There is no need to go into those historical disagreements. That was not my intent at all

Life is to short for that.

. You have acknowledged the truth I was speaking of. There never has been a time in history when Calvinism was united as one in all of its doctrine.

I do not agree with you here. Every real Cal on here knows who is who.each has slight defects here and there but substantial agreement.

There never has been a time in history when Calvinists as a whole accepted Baptistic belief. There never has been at time in history when the Reformed church was unified under one theology.

this is way to general

Anyway, I still do not see where we disagree, except perhaps that you may not understand how all of those other interpretations could possibly have a legitimate cause.

we are not going to agree here.

 

[JonC]

i am not sure that you do now either.

If you mean that you are not sure that I respect where we disagree, then I can assure you that I do. Whether you accept that is of no consequence to me.

This is too simplistic.....4 of these are dead or dying

It is not too simplistic, and the fact that those mainstream denominations are declining does not negate the fact that they existed for centuries within Reformed thought and if rise and decline marks truth, then you would be Pentecostal.

way to vague...by that definition any view is okay....I do not believe that..

I can’t help if you think it too vague that differences arise out of legitimate causes. It is a factual statement regardless as to whether or not you believe it. I suggest that you take a bit of time to study historical theology. What you will find is that over and over again theology develops out of legitimate disagreements (often out of circumstances contemporary to the development). Your disbelief has no bearing on the truth of that statement. But it does highlight the issue of relying on one’s understanding, which I will discuss momentarily.

I see this among our resident fundamentalists...

I also see fundamentalists as believing that their understanding is the only understanding that could possibly be correct. I also see it in your responses to a great degree, and strongly in the replies of Internet Theologian and Sovereign Grace as well.

I do not agree

You do not agree that theology incorporates human reasoning? I don’t think that you fully understand the nature of theological study, and perhaps this is why it seems to me that you often hold theories as Scripture itself. What you do not realize is that when you do this you are placing yourself in the role of God (you are the crux of what is correct interpretation as those theories that suit your understanding are what you accept).

You do not agree that there was a legitimate disagreement at Leiden? History proves you wrong here, brother. In fact, the existence of the five points of Calvinism are proof enough that the disagreement was legitimate. Look at the history of the controversy and the discussions/doctrines that it brought out, for goodness sake. This is a nonsense “disagreement” and I believe you know it.

those who do not understand it cannot really comment accurately....they do not know what they do not know.

I agree.

I deny it flat out....To try and piece together fragments from church history is to search in vain……. this is where this breaks down, going outside of scripture to history books.

This is a foolish statement. The Reformation was a long time ago, but it was not that far back. We do not have to “piece together fragments from church history” to understand the diversity of Calvinism. All we need to do is to read and understand church history. This, brother, is a failing that your posts express. And yes, to know if the Calvinistic church had differing opinions and views under an overarching theology one does have to go outside of Scripture. You like to pull extra-biblical materials when you think it proves your point, but when you are undeniably wrong you plead “scripture.”

Any real Cal knows Cal thought and does not look to explain it away as you are sort of doing. I have visited about 20 new churches in the past year and know within a short time who stands where for the most part. everyone can move the target and say....I do not believe it exactly that way.....that is pointless really.

Again, your definition of “real Cal” is someone who adheres to your understanding. Although I am not claiming to be a Calvinist, I do appreciate church history and on that ground strongly disagree with your standard.

It is not too general to state that there never has been a time in history when Calvinists as a whole accepted baptistic belief or that there never has been a time in history when the Reformed church was united under one theology. That’s a pretty specific fact. You may not like it, but you cannot deny it.

 

[Iconoclast]

If you mean that you are not sure that I respect where we disagree, then I can assure you that I do. Whether you accept that is of no consequence to me.

It is not too simplistic, and the fact that those mainstream denominations are declining does not negate the fact that they existed for centuries within Reformed thought and if rise and decline marks truth, then you would be Pentecostal.



I can’t help if you think it too vague that differences arise out of legitimate causes. It is a factual statement regardless as to whether or not you believe it. I suggest that you take a bit of time to study historical theology. What you will find is that over and over again theology develops out of legitimate disagreements (often out of circumstances contemporary to the development). Your disbelief has no bearing on the truth of that statement. But it does highlight the issue of relying on one’s understanding, which I will discuss momentarily.

I also see fundamentalists as believing that their understanding is the only understanding that could possibly be correct. I also see it in your responses to a great degree, and strongly in the replies of Internet Theologian and Sovereign Grace as well.



You do not agree that theology incorporates human reasoning? I don’t think that you fully understand the nature of theological study, and perhaps this is why it seems to me that you often hold theories as Scripture itself. What you do not realize is that when you do this you are placing yourself in the role of God (you are the crux of what is correct interpretation as those theories that suit your understanding are what you accept).

You do not agree that there was a legitimate disagreement at Leiden? History proves you wrong here, brother. In fact, the existence of the five points of Calvinism are proof enough that the disagreement was legitimate. Look at the history of the controversy and the discussions/doctrines that it brought out, for goodness sake. This is a nonsense “disagreement” and I believe you know it.

I agree.



This is a foolish statement. The Reformation was a long time ago, but it was not that far back. We do not have to “piece together fragments from church history” to understand the diversity of Calvinism. All we need to do is to read and understand church history. This, brother, is a failing that your posts express. And yes, to know if the Calvinistic church had differing opinions and views under an overarching theology one does have to go outside of Scripture. You like to pull extra-biblical materials when you think it proves your point, but when you are undeniably wrong you plead “scripture.”

Again, your definition of “real Cal” is someone who adheres to your understanding. Although I am not claiming to be a Calvinist, I do appreciate church history and on that ground strongly disagree with your standard.

It is not too general to state that there never has been a time in history when Calvinists as a whole accepted baptistic belief or that there never has been a time in history when the Reformed church was united under one theology. That’s a pretty specific fact. You may not like it, but you cannot deny it.

As I said....we will not agree here. Your subjective reasoning from church history does not over ride scriptural truth.
You have stated your view. I do not hold it and from time to time the differences will come to the surface.
If time permits I might get more specific but I do not think you are looking for an answer the way I would offer it.
I am not an expert on church history by any means, but it is not as if I have not understood some of what took place.
I was not there.....Neither were you. Unlike scripture ,written history was not inspired by the Spirit of God.
You can read into it what you want depending on your source.
If a missionary goes into the jungle he need not go into great detail in making disciples. .....Redemptive history from scripture will work just fine. The readers digest version can fill in the blanks.

For you or anyone else to compare people at a distance as theology was forming is not going to get it done.

Why are we not all Lutherans?
Because Luther was one man, he got many things right.
That does not mean he got all.of it.
Others take what he did get good understanding on and move forward.
How we view this is quite different and I am not drinking the Kool aid. We differ and that is okay.....I am not worried that your soul is in danger.....I am not trying to convince you to agree with me because I do not desire to bind your conscience.

 

[JonC]

As I said....we will not agree here. Your subjective reasoning from church history does not over ride scriptural truth.
You have stated your view. I do not hold it and from time to time the differences will come to the surface.
If time permits I might get more specific but I do not think you are looking for an answer the way I would offer it.
I am not an expert on church history by any means, but it is not as if I have not understood some of what took place.
I was not there.....Neither were you. Unlike scripture ,written history was not inspired by the Spirit of God.
You can read into it what you want depending on your source.
If a missionary goes into the jungle he need not go into great detail in making disciples. .....Redemptive history from scripture will work just fine. The readers digest version can fill in the blanks.

For you or anyone else to compare people at a distance as theology was forming is not going to get it done.

Why are we not all Lutherans?
Because Luther was one man, he got many things right.
That does not mean he got all.of it.
Others take what he did get good understanding on and move forward.
How we view this is quite different and I am not drinking the Kool aid. We differ and that is okay.....I am not worried that your soul is in danger.....I am not trying to convince you to agree with me because I do not desire to bind your conscience.

I agree with several of your points here, Icon, and there are several places where I disagree.

The point is not that subjective reasoning overrides scriptural truth but that your theology is also subjective. As we agreed regarding fundamentalism, this is a flaw in their thought process. I am willing to admit that I may be wrong, but I also see this flaw in the theology of a handful here. To stand on one's belief is one thing (we all do it, that's why we have beliefs), but to advocate one's understanding as scripture is another. I see you and Internet Theologian doing the latter.

I am not sure that comparing people at a "distance" as theology is inappropriate when the distance that I am using is the Reformation period all the way to the late nineteenth century. You may get some objection from your own camp as there are some here who still believe John Gill relevant commentary.

 

[Iconoclast]

JonC

With most disagreements there is more we can agree on than differ on.

I agree with several of your points here, Icon, and there are several places where I disagree.

And once again, that is okay. We can provoke one another to love and good works, although I do not think that was the kind of provoking scripture had in mind, lol

The point is not that subjective reasoning overrides scriptural truth but that your theology is also subjective.

I disagree again....no surprise. Theology is objective truth IF it is THE Theology God has revealed.
The closer we can come to truth on a topic is somewhat subjective.

As we agreed regarding fundamentalism, this is a flaw in their thought process.

Yes....not always about the theology in general, but more with their attitude on what the theology translates to......love not the world, separation from everyone, etc/

I am willing to admit that I may be wrong, but I also see this flaw in the theology of a handful here

.
ok ...let me illustrate here....
I am sure we are all wrong as we try and gain more knowledge.I do not want to give you the impression I was blowing off church history in total as i do not. It has most of it's value in the historic development of some of these theologies and the putting down of error.
You have no doubt read or studied more extensively on that so you will react against my seeming dismissal of it.

Now to illustrate..... I am discussing the bible, in a warehouse or truckstop with your basic heathen truckdriver...lol...that is why God sends me in there ...I know all about heathendomThumbsup

In the middle of my discussion with him he is not going to care what Pope Gregory wrote to some bishop hundreds of years ago....he will not ask for the details. Whatever took place then, might be important, but not at the truckstop at that time....so I focus on the theology about, God, man sin, God's eternal purpose..... My time goes toward that person, his soul. his sin, and mostly is he under the blood of Christ, or still outside?
Now if God saves him and he asked me about the contents of the letter from Pope gregory, I will give you a call and have him talk with youThumbsup

To stand on one's belief is one thing (we all do it, that's why we have beliefs), but to advocate one's understanding as scripture is another. I see you and Internet Theologian doing the latter.

let me plead guilty as charged and here is why..... The time of "mystery" is over.
I think God has fully revealed mans sin and responsibility, and God 's Holy anger over sin.
God has ordained to save a multitude in His Son and is doing just that as we speak!
These truths are quite wonderful and openly displayed all over the bible....not to be hidden, but known and openly displayed and lived out as we serve the Lord.

I am not asking you to believe as I do. You asked me for why I have and will view things through another lens. That is why.
You and someone like QF are a nicer kind of person and God will use you to reach others that might reject me for several reasons. I spoke to QF about my concerns over a year ago, he listened but He is a big boy and follows his conscience.
Both of you would consider that what you do is more....acceptable, perhaps more educated approach, or whatever you want to describe it as.....Benjamin might use philosophy to speak and point out a persons debate fallacies...someone else might be an evidentialist....I reject most of that...might pick and choose some , but reject most.

I am not sure that comparing people at a "distance" as theology is inappropriate when the distance that I am using is the Reformation period all the way to the late nineteenth century.

I do not want to corrupt your good system of how you feel to serve the Lord with my thoughts which are mostly self taught and random.....but it works for me.

You may get some objection from your own camp as there are some here who still believe John Gill relevant commentary.

I listen to many sources....but have fine tuned what voices I listen to more effectively. I am not afraid of challenging what I hold, but it had better be really good to get anything going...

 

[JonC]

JonC

With most disagreements there is more we can agree on than differ on.

And once again, that is okay. We can provoke one another to love and good works, although I do not think that was the kind of provoking scripture had in mind, lol

I disagree again....no surprise. Theology is objective truth IF it is THE Theology God has revealed.
The closer we can come to truth on a topic is somewhat subjective.



Yes....not always about the theology in general, but more with their attitude on what the theology translates to......love not the world, separation from everyone, etc/
.
ok ...let me illustrate here....
I am sure we are all wrong as we try and gain more knowledge.I do not want to give you the impression I was blowing off church history in total as i do not. It has most of it's value in the historic development of some of these theologies and the putting down of error.
You have no doubt read or studied more extensively on that so you will react against my seeming dismissal of it.

Now to illustrate..... I am discussing the bible, in a warehouse or truckstop with your basic heathen truckdriver...lol...that is why God sends me in there ...I know all about heathendomThumbsup

In the middle of my discussion with him he is not going to care what Pope Gregory wrote to some bishop hundreds of years ago....he will not ask for the details. Whatever took place then, might be important, but not at the truckstop at that time....so I focus on the theology about, God, man sin, God's eternal purpose..... My time goes toward that person, his soul. his sin, and mostly is he under the blood of Christ, or still outside?
Now if God saves him and he asked me about the contents of the letter from Pope gregory, I will give you a call and have him talk with youThumbsup


let me plead guilty as charged and here is why..... The time of "mystery" is over.
I think God has fully revealed mans sin and responsibility, and God 's Holy anger over sin.
God has ordained to save a multitude in His Son and is doing just that as we speak!
These truths are quite wonderful and openly displayed all over the bible....not to be hidden, but known and openly displayed and lived out as we serve the Lord.

I am not asking you to believe as I do. You asked me for why I have and will view things through another lens. That is why.
You and someone like QF are a nicer kind of person and God will use you to reach others that might reject me for several reasons. I spoke to QF about my concerns over a year ago, he listened but He is a big boy and follows his conscience.
Both of you would consider that what you do is more....acceptable, perhaps more educated approach, or whatever you want to describe it as.....Benjamin might use philosophy to speak and point out a persons debate fallacies...someone else might be an evidentialist....I reject most of that...might pick and choose some , but reject most.



I do not want to corrupt your good system of how you feel to serve the Lord with my thoughts which are mostly self taught and random.....but it works for me.

I listen to many sources....but have fine tuned what voices I listen to more effectively. I am not afraid of challenging what I hold, but it had better be really good to get anything going...

I understand your disagreement with a couple of points I’ve made. I believe that this is due to a difference in definitions. For example, using my definition there is no such animal as theology that has been revealed by God. When I speak of “theology” I am dealing with our interpretations, systematic methods, doctrinal development, and application (what we do with God’s revelation). I do not believe in extended special revelation (I think we agree here). But if I defined theology as, essentially, Scripture, then I would agree with you.

Insofar as my own beliefs, I affirm the depravity of man, unconditional election, particular redemption, effectual grace, and eternal security. Our conclusions on those points are not so different, although our basis for and implications of those doctrines are different. Fitting into a theological system has never been my desire (as you point out, God uses men at different times and in different places, with different truths).

The greatest commandments are to love God with all of our heart, soul and strength and our neighbor as our selves. I would say that the latter is sometimes the difficult part, but in truth if we fail one we can’t keep the other. If in our discourse you have detected that I have not fulfilled these commandments, you are right. It is not for a lack of desire, but a weakness of this flesh.

My concern is not that you believe as I believe - that would exceed my responsibility entirely. My hope is that we are united in Christ regardless of our differing understanding. Sometimes I get the feeling that others are hostile to understandings that are not their own, and it does seem that people coordinate attacks on brethren who hold these differences. I am certain that there are some people who hold views that they cannot defend except within their own systems (they can hold a pep rally but not a debate) because they have been indoctrinated into a theory. I am not saying that this is you by any means, I only mention this because this observation has influenced and motivated my own studies.

One thing that has struck me, Icon, in our past conversation is your willingness to share the gospel message with others. You not only have a heart for evangelism but God has, I believe, placed you in a position where He can use you for the work of the Kingdom. I think it is useful to know where we agree, but also where and why we disagree. My questions of you are not intended to demean your view but were for my own understanding. Yes, we disagree on many points. But the gospel of Christ is not one of these.

 

[Iconoclast]

JonC

I understand your disagreement with a couple of points I’ve made. I believe that this is due to a difference in definitions.

This is always a danger for using just the keyboard.

For example, using my definition there is no such animal as theology that has been revealed by God.

That is a thread all by itself.

When I speak of “theology” I am dealing with our interpretations, systematic methods, doctrinal development, and application (what we do with God’s revelation).

I understand what you mean but see it as revealed by God by special revelation , and also illumination....
16 Cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers;


17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:


18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,


19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,
Paul prayed for it for them....

I do not believe in extended special revelation (I think we agree here)

agreed, however I believe all truth that comes your way is from the Spirit.....the other ideas are just the proud flesh...

. But if I defined theology as, essentially, Scripture, then I would agree with you.

ok....I like that passage in eph 1 quite a bit,,,

Insofar as my own beliefs, I affirm the depravity of man, unconditional election, particular redemption, effectual grace, and eternal security. Our conclusions on those points are not so different, although our basis for and implications of those doctrines are different. Fitting into a theological system has never been my desire (as you point out, God uses men at different times and in different places, with different truths).

any and every believer has to get a handle on these truths to some extent or they might not be Gods child at all.

The greatest commandments are to love God with all of our heart, soul and strength and our neighbor as our selves.

yes

I would say that the latter is sometimes the difficult part, but in truth if we fail one we can’t keep the other. If in our discourse you have detected that I have not fulfilled these commandments, you are right. It is not for a lack of desire, but a weakness of this flesh.

we all fluctuate.....if you learn 3new things today be glad, but realize you were ignorant of those things yesterdayFrown

My concern is not that you believe as I believe - that would exceed my responsibility entirely

we should seek to edify each other...sometimes going after a position aggressively yields fruit, sometimes it is a still small voice of conscience that gets it done.

. My hope is that we are united in Christ regardless of our differing understanding.

well JonC...if indeed we are BLOOD bought brothers we must seek peace to some extent.....you do not show yourself to be an enemy to the cause of God and truth.....hey , that should be a book titleThumbsup

Sometimes I get the feeling that others are hostile to understandings that are not their own, and it does seem that people coordinate attacks on brethren who hold these differences

.
Some post with good will...some attack. It is similar to muslims....some want to learn and God might save them, others want jihad.

I am certain that there are some people who hold views that they cannot defend except within their own systems (they can hold a pep rally but not a debate)

some are new to these truths, and some have to gain wisdom on when to be aggressive, or when to be gentle.
The temptation is to launch an all out attack on an enemy, but this is where loving your enemy enough to post truth to them should be the goal.

We all need to question....am I posting this to help or to hurt?
If my post is effective what would the result be?

One thing that has struck me, Icon, in our past conversation is your willingness to share the gospel message with others

I had a good time at lunch yesterday....the two men gave me money, which I was refusing to take[40$]....but they insisted I use it toward the spreading of the gospel, when I give out bibles or Catechisms....so I resisted at first then realized it was of the Lord...
I was a little stunned I guess....I took a picture of it to remember this kind providence....The men heard me skype with my little grand daughter, we got speaking and somehow sermonaudio came into the conversation, i got excited and before you know it we were full out having some bible study at the golden corral...lol....that is such a joy...

. You not only have a heart for evangelism but God has, I believe, placed you in a position where He can use you for the work of the Kingdom.

I believe each person is a divine appointment for me to interact with them as the Lord wills...I am in a small truckstop now in the
ARBYS PORTION WITH MY LAPTOP SET UP...LOL

I think it is useful to know where we agree, but also where and why we disagree. My questions of you are not intended to demean your view but were for my own understanding. Yes, we disagree on many points. But the gospel of Christ is not one of these.

You can come right at me JONC...anytime....it keeps the blood circulating...hopefully not the blood pressure rising...oh wait, that is why DHK is here,lol

 

[JonC]

That is a thread all by itself.

I understand what you mean but see it as revealed by God by special revelation , and also illumination....

16 Cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers;
17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,
19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,

agreed, however I believe all truth that comes your way is from the Spirit.....the other ideas are just the proud flesh...

ok....I like that passage in eph 1 quite a bit,,,

Well, it has been my experience that disagreements here are about 50% definitions (and therefore arguments are about 50% strawmen arguments).

There are several reasons that I disagree with your application of Ephesians 1, but here I will simply say that I believe the passage to which you refer is speaking of a spiritual understanding but not necessarily the “answers” to questions you may seek to address. The focus is not the development of a concise systematic theology or soteriology but a knowledge of God so that one may know the hope of His calling, the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and the greatness of His power towards us who believe. And you are right that this may deserve a separate thread (I’ll start one, if you are interested please feel free to share your understanding).

Some post with good will...some attack. It is similar to muslims....some want to learn and God might save them, others want jihad. some are new to these truths, and some have to gain wisdom on when to be aggressive, or when to be gentle.The temptation is to launch an all out attack on an enemy, but this is where loving your enemy enough to post truth to them should be the goal.

We all need to question....am I posting this to help or to hurt?
If my post is effective what would the result be?

I agree. The problem with some is that they fail to realize that they cannot defend with words what they deny with action. It is impossible to correct brethren biblically and ignore how Scripture teaches us to deal with one another at the same time. That is why I am so cautious at times (perhaps a bit too cautious or apologetic). But I do not want you, or anyone else, to infer intent or tone to my words which were not implied. I would much rather lose an argument on the Baptist board and remain on firm ground than win having degraded and insulted a brother.

You can come right at me JONC...anytime....it keeps the blood circulating...hopefully not the blood pressure rising...oh wait, that is why DHK is here,lol

I have never viewed our disagreements as anything but family arguments. Sometimes those types of disputes are the strongest, but in the end we are family (like it or not) Biggrin. Between the two of us, I think that we can have good arguments within the context of biblical discourse (even if we never come to an agreement) and without trying to mortally wound the other….we can keep the blood circulating.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

guys.......i gotta complement you both. Nice to see friendly disagreements vs the crud that was BB several years ago. And Tony, keep up the good work spreading the gospel. WAY TO GOThumbsup

 

[The American Dream]

I'm currently studying on Calvinism.I understand that Dallas Theological Seminary is a 4 point Calvinist school. Here are 10 differences I see between a 4 point Calvinist and a 5 point Calvinist. I also have Norm Geisler's book "Chosen But Free". Would you say that "Chosen But Free" represents DTS's view on 4 point Calvinism? Are 4 point Calvinists true Calvinists?

1. 4 point - Faith is not a gift from God. 5 point - Faith is a gift from God
Faith is a gift of God. The number of points of Calvinism is immaterial. Calvinism is a man made series of points that attempt to explain how God thinks at His deepest levels. He created free will. He created grace and sovereignty and it works quite well despite what created beings think about it. Mans free will is bounded by his fallen state.
2. 4 point - Faith precedes regeneration. 5 point - Regeneration precedes Faith. Faith is NOT a byproduct of regeneration. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.
3. 4 point - Man has a free will 5 point - Man is a slave to sin has no free will. Both are hogwash. Mans free will is bounded by his fallen state.
4. 4 point - A Christian can be carnal (backslide) 5 point - No such thing as a Carnal Christian (no backsliding) Anyone who believes there is no carnal Christian does not believe 1 Cor 2-3. So what other sections do you want to leave out.
5. 4 point - Non Lordship salvation 5 point - Lordship salvation. Lordship Salvation is heresy. Christ died once. When we come to salvation, we have all we need. Salvation is not a two step formula.
6. 4 point - Repentance from sin not necessary for salvation 5 point - Repentance from sin necessary for salvation. Repentance is necessary. End of story
7. 4 point - Unlimited Atonement 5 point - Limited Atonement. Atonement is limited........Duh
8. 4 point - A Christian can break fellowship with God 5 point - A christian can not break fellowship with God; Yes a Christian can break fellowship with God. Since Peter and David asked for it to be restored. double duh
9. 4 point - Is possible for a Christian not to be a disciple 5 point - All Christians are disciples
All Christians are disciples.
10. 4 point - Synergism 5 point - Monergism

I don't care.

 

[The American Dream]

[
1. 4 point - Faith is not a gift from God. 5 point - Faith is a gift from God
Faith is a gift of God. The number of points of Calvinism is immaterial. Calvinism is a man made series of points that attempt to explain how God thinks at His deepest levels. He created free will. He created grace and sovereignty and it works quite well despite what created beings think about it. Mans free will is bounded by his fallen state.
2. 4 point - Faith precedes regeneration. 5 point - Regeneration precedes Faith. Faith is NOT a byproduct of regeneration. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.
3. 4 point - Man has a free will 5 point - Man is a slave to sin has no free will. Both are hogwash. Mans free will is bounded by his fallen state.
4. 4 point - A Christian can be carnal (backslide) 5 point - No such thing as a Carnal Christian (no backsliding) Anyone who believes there is no carnal Christian does not believe 1 Cor 2-3. So what other sections do you want to leave out.
5. 4 point - Non Lordship salvation 5 point - Lordship salvation. Lordship Salvation is heresy. Christ died once. When we come to salvation, we have all we need. Salvation is not a two step formula.
6. 4 point - Repentance from sin not necessary for salvation 5 point - Repentance from sin necessary for salvation. Repentance is necessary. End of story
7. 4 point - Unlimited Atonement 5 point - Limited Atonement. Atonement is limited........Duh
8. 4 point - A Christian can break fellowship with God 5 point - A christian can not break fellowship with God; Yes a Christian can break fellowship with God. Since Peter and David asked for it to be restored. double duh
9. 4 point - Is possible for a Christian not to be a disciple 5 point - All Christians are disciples
All Christians are disciples