A Novel Soteriological Explanation in the Calvinism vs Arminianism Debate

[The Archangel]

God’s ability to control His emotions (or control His actions which might be informed by His emotions) does not make His emotions different from ours. And we, as we walk more in His Spirit, are also supposed to learn better how to, for instance, “Be angry, but not sin.”

Again... this is flawed thinking. God's emotions are in no way tainted by sin, but ours most certainly are. So, God's emotions are fundamentally different than ours since He is not fallen and we are.

The anger of God is not an emotional response, per se. Rather, it is a product of His settled disposition against sin and sinners.

Your estimation of God and His emotions (as articulated above) has more in line with Zeus and the other Greek gods than it does with the God of the Bible or the theology thereof.

The Archangel

 

[Steven Yeadon]

The anger of God is not an emotional response, per se. Rather, it is a product of His settled disposition against sin and sinners.

Wow, I agree God's mind is not like ours, since it is higher than the heavens are form the earth. However, where do you find that teaching in the bible? It sounds like systematic theology without biblical warrant.

 

[The Archangel]

Wow, I agree God's mind is not like ours, since it is higher than the heavens are form the earth. However, where do you find that teaching in the bible? It sounds like systematic theology without biblical warrant.

Romans 1 comes to mind (especially 1:18):

[18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. [19] For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. [20] For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. [21] For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. [22] Claiming to be wise, they became fools, [23] and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. (Romans 1:18–23 ESV, emphasis mine)

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

yes, Sam Renihan points out God is love, he does not have it, He is love.
His perfections cannot be increased or diminished

Yeah... I've heard this before. While I agree that His perfections neither increase nor decrease, I find it difficult to support that God "doesn't have love." Of course Scripture tells us (as you've stated already) "God is love." But it also tells us that God demonstrates His love. Scripture seems to affirm that He is love and that He has love.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Steven Yeadon]

Romans 1 comes to mind (especially 1:18):

[18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. [19] For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. [20] For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. [21] For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. [22] Claiming to be wise, they became fools, [23] and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. (Romans 1:18–23 ESV, emphasis mine)

The Archangel

I think it is adding to the text to say God's wrath is thus His settled disposition against sin and sinners. I feel the best way forward is to take a look at God's wrath in scripture, assemble all pertinent verses, and then start a thread in the Baptist Theology forum. Thank you.

 

[The Archangel]

I think it is adding to the text to say God's wrath is thus His settled disposition against sin and sinners. I feel the best way forward is to take a look at God's wrath in scripture, assemble all pertinent verses, and then start a thread in the Baptist Theology forum. Thank you.

Excuse me?!

 

[Steven Yeadon]

Excuse me?!

I did not mean that as something to offend you. I feel I must look at the whole counsel of scripture as a good Berean. I am very very busy lately, so that will take time I do not have. I am bowing out of the debate over these verses, because of that constraint. I'm sorry if I offended you.

 

[The Archangel]

I did not mean that as something to offend you. I feel I must look at the whole counsel of scripture as a good Berean. I am very very busy lately, so that will take time I do not have. I am bowing out of the debate over these verses, because of that constraint. I'm sorry if I offended you.

Fair enough.

If you've never read Packer's Knowing God, he has an excellent discussion on these matters from about p. 150-155, if memory serves. I highly recommend it.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Derf B]

Again... this is flawed thinking. God's emotions are in no way tainted by sin, but ours most certainly are. So, God's emotions are fundamentally different than ours since He is not fallen and we are.

The anger of God is not an emotional response, per se. Rather, it is a product of His settled disposition against sin and sinners.

Your estimation of God and His emotions (as articulated above) has more in line with Zeus and the other Greek gods than it does with the God of the Bible or the theology thereof.

The Archangel

You seem to be arguing with yourself. First you say God’s emotions are fundamentally different from ours, then you say ours are just tainted by our sin. These concepts are opposed to each other.

If God gave us language (we know He did because He talked with Adam on his first day), and He inspired scripture, then don’t you think God can figure out the right words to use when describing His own emotions?

 

[37818]

N[o]w The problem with you notion is that God is not less than my logic.

You are not giving a reason for that argument. How is God being more than your logic my problem?

God uses both Monergism and Synergism to accomplish His will.

That makes no sense. That is contrary to the law of logic of the excluded middle.

I was trying to show that the earliest Believers in Jesus Christ were specially blessed as Isaac and Jacob were. They, like those chosen by God who had not worshipped Baal in the time of Elijah, were a chosen remnant. These two groups of people are thus chosen from the creation of the world to be firstfruits of those that are saved by Jesus Christ. However, not all people in history are like this. That is where Synergism comes in for the others. The chosen people predestined to glory are thus those talked of when the apostles communicate with the Brethren of their time. The following are examples of this,

Either God Himself solely [Monergism] saves a person or God needs the cooperaton of a person in order to save anyone, that is a faith plus the person's works salvation [Synergism].
Now that you further explained what you mean, either you or i have a wrong understanding of Monergism and Synergism.

.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

You are not giving a reason for that argument. How is God being more than your logic my problem?

I'm very sorry, that first sentence about logic was a thought for another debate I was having entirely, I included it by accident.

That makes no sense. That is contrary to the law of logic of the excluded middle.

Why is the middle excluded? Having defended Synergism on this Baptist Board before, there is no reason Synergism cannot assume some, though not all, are saved via Monergism. It is logically possible that if God calls sinners and awaits their faith in Jesus Christ, but that He can simply elect some sinners to glory from beforehand as serves His purposes.

You may want to take a look at these previous and still open discussions I have,

I make the case from the bible that God wants all saved.
A Biblical Defense of Arminianism #1

I show faith in Jesus Christ is not considered a work using the bible, thus Synergists have nothing to boast of whatsoever before God.
A Biblical Defense of Synergism #2

I make the case for human moral ability to put faith in Jesus Christ once they have been given mercy by God.
A Biblical Defense of Synergism #3

 

[Iconoclast]

Yeah... I've heard this before. While I agree that His perfections neither increase nor decrease, I find it difficult to support that God "doesn't have love." Of course Scripture tells us (as you've stated already) "God is love." But it also tells us that God demonstrates His love. Scripture seems to affirm that He is love and that He has love.

Blessings,

The Archangel

This has stirred some controversy in the last view years...Impassibility.

The portions of Pink I quoted in posts 18, 19 are my chief concern. I do not think these can be violated. I might not phrase things as clearly as I would like, but I would never support anything that in any way detracted from what these verses offer.
Jesus showed His love in leaving heaven to accomplish redemption of all the children given to Him by the Father,

2cor8:9 For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.

I believe we are agreed on this.

 

[Derf B]

This goes to a very basic question: Is God still purposing things after the creation? I believe you have a wealth of verses on this Derf. Could you share them again?

Any change in God’s plan is a minor repurposing, but not to the extent of altering His primary or major purposes. Here’s another example:
2 Peter 3:12 (NASB) looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat!

If the day can be “hastened”, then the time is not previously fixed, but God is waiting for an occurrence, triggered by someone, perhaps believers.

 

[The Archangel]

This has stirred some controversy in the last view years...Impassibility.

The portions of Pink I quoted in posts 18, 19 are my chief concern. I do not think these can be violated. I might not phrase things as clearly as I would like, but I would never support anything that in any way detracted from what these verses offer.
Jesus showed His love in leaving heaven to accomplish redemption of all the children given to Him by the Father,

2cor8:9 For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.

I believe we are agreed on this.

We probably do agree... I've found your thoughts here to be clear on many occasions--and they are good thoughts. This issue about whether God is love or demonstrates love is easily summarized by acknowledging the both-and as Scripture itself does.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[37818]

I'm very sorry, that first sentence about logic was a thought for another debate I was having entirely, I included it by accident.



Why is the middle excluded? Having defended Synergism on this Baptist Board before, there is no reason Synergism cannot assume some, though not all, are saved via Monergism. It is logically possible that if God calls sinners and awaits their faith in Jesus Christ, but that He can simply elect some sinners to glory from beforehand as serves His purposes.

You may want to take a look at these previous and still open discussions I have,

I make the case from the bible that God wants all saved.
A Biblical Defense of Arminianism #1

I show faith in Jesus Christ is not considered a work using the bible, thus Synergists have nothing to boast of whatsoever before God.
A Biblical Defense of Synergism #2

I make the case for human moral ability to put faith in Jesus Christ once they have been given mercy by God.
A Biblical Defense of Synergism #3

According to John 6:29 faith in Jesus as the Christ is a work of God, "Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." Therefore is never Synergism.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

According to John 6:29 faith in Jesus as the Christ is a work of God, "Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." Therefore is never Synergism.

According to Romans 4, it is not.

 

[Van]

Theology without biblical warrant is fiction.
John 6:29 says faith in Christ is the work (singular) God requires.
Theology based on not understanding ambiguous verses is the basis of false doctrine.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

According to John 6:29 faith in Jesus as the Christ is a work of God, "Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." Therefore is never Synergism.

Upon further research, both John 6 and and Romans 4 use the Greek word, ergon. The best way forward is to use context. Romans 4 is explicit, faith is not a work so that the faithful may not boast. The context of John 6 is harder, but certainly it cannot go against clear teaching in Romans 4.

 

[The Archangel]

You seem to be arguing with yourself. First you say God’s emotions are fundamentally different from ours, then you say ours are just tainted by our sin. These concepts are opposed to each other.

Not at all... You added "just." God is the Creator and we are the creature. As such we are different than Him. He did not create copies of Himself. Our existence is fundamentally different from God. This is basic theology here. In addition to our differences, we have the Fall. As a result of the Fall, man's emotions are affected by sin. God, who is fundamentally different from us, is not affected by sin. Therefore, there are two differences--who God is and His perfections (being untainted by sin).

If God gave us language (we know He did because He talked with Adam on his first day), and He inspired scripture, then don’t you think God can figure out the right words to use when describing His own emotions?

This is a bad analogy... While God did give us language, it is not endemic to us as creatures. In other words, the lack of language does not makes us less-than-human. So those who are mute, for example, are not some other class of creature. Language and emotions are apples and oranges.

Also, you are ignoring how human emotions work in a reactionary sense. Human emotions are the result of a cause--seeing your wife or children, being cut-off in traffic, etc. (different emotions to be sure). God never reacts. If God were to react that would mean something took Him by surprise. If He is omniscient, that can never happen. Therefore, the emotions He displays are planned and settled expressions of His holiness.

The Archangel

 

[Reformed1689]

The issues with Calvinism and Arminism is that they place a type of choosing by God in the sense of before we were born. The Bible however does not say that sinners were chosen in any sense to be saved . Elect = Jesus
Elect = Jews
Elect = purpose and service .
Elect , is never before we existed.
Predestination is After we believe
Adoption is the future redemption of the body.
Everything else is philosophy from Calvinism/ Arminsim.

Not sure what Bible you are reading...