An "Ax to Grind!"

[rlvaughn]

Just when I had TULIP all figured out... Someone comes on here and throws me into a bed of ROSES... Would you brethren make up your mind?... Brother Glen

Take heart, Brother Glen, a rose by any other name...

Of course, there's also the Daisy, Lily, Lilac, Aster, and the Poinsettia!
Tulips, Roses, Poinsettias and Lilies: a veritable theological garden

 

[kyredneck]

reconcile two seemingly "opposing sides"

The Primitive Baptists have done a good job with the 'reconciling' by defining the two aspects of our ONE salvation. But the erroneous doctrine of 'means regeneration' that the majority holds to blinds them to the precious truths of it.

 

[HankD]

Which is probably why He doesn't.

Remember the Hornet Song.

"He does not compel us to go, No! No!
He does not compel us to go.
He does not compel us to go 'gainst our will
But He just makes us willing to go."

I like that!

 

[tyndale1946]

Take heart, Brother Glen, a rose by any other name...

Of course, there's also the Daisy, Lily, Lilac, Aster, and the Poinsettia!
Tulips, Roses, Poinsettias and Lilies: a veritable theological garden

Thanks for that Brother Robert and I will check out this theological garden... and I hear you TC but I will examine ROSES with my biblical doctrinal microscope... I just thought I heard John Calvin turning over in his grave... Shouldn't disturb the dead!... Brother Glen

 

[Felipe Rios]

I just joined the board and so here is my first post - I would describe myself as a decided 2/ 12 pointer which places me firmly in the middle of His grace by His word. I also think that both sides are wrong on either what they know or don't know, as it were! I will say just because our finite minds can't reconcile two seemingly "opposing sides" does not mean that GOD with His infinite wisdom can't, or that the "sides" exist. GOD is just, and I trust Him. Some one once said "GOD said it, I believe it, and that settles it" but it does not depend on anyone's belief! If GOD said it THAT settles it! God settles it whether anyone believes or understands. I know by God's word each and every person is accountable, and that GOD provided the way for us to be saved.

Side Bar - I know a guy that claims to be a Calvinist and that his living in sin is GOD's will, because it would not happen if it weren't! I doubt anyone on this board would go that far or along with that thought process.

Im kinda with you lol I believe in the T, not on the U, not on the L, and half on the I, and I believe in the P. I guess that makes me a 2.5 Calvinist lol I would call myself a Molinist because I believe in the way Luis De Molina explains God's Foreknowledge and Sovereignty. If you haven't heard of him you should look him up. A modern day Molina is William Lane Craig. He is great!

 

[Felipe Rios]

Thanks for that Brother Robert and I will check out this theological garden... and I hear you TC but I will examine ROSES with my biblical doctrinal microscope... I just thought I heard John Calvin turning over in his grave... Shouldn't disturb the dead!... Brother Glen

Look for William Lane Craig online. Great Theologian/Philosopher.

 

[HankD]

Roses come from Molinism (look it up for yourself) which seeks to reconcile Calvinism and Arminianism.

Actually they are two sides of the salvation coin - The Sovereignty of God; The Responsibility of Man.

About 50 years ago a pastor told me - The Bible teaches both.

I've always remembered that like it was yesterday.

 

[Rhetorician]

Instead of the TULIP, here is a bed of ROSES for you guys:
R Radical Depravity (instead of total depravity): emphasizes that every aspect of our being is affected by the fall and rendered incapable of saving ourselves (instead of the impression that fallen humanity is as bad as it possibly can be).

O Overcoming Grace (instead of irresistible grace): The new term highlights that it is God’s persistent beckoning that overcomes our wicked obstinacy (instead of the old term which seems to imply that God saves a person against his will).

S Sovereign election (instead of unconditional election): old term is presented in such a way as to give the impression that those who die without receiving Christ did so because God never desired their salvation in the first place. The new term affirms that God desires the salvation of all, yet accentuates that our salvation is not based on us choosing God but on God choosing us.

E Eternal life (instead of perseverance of saints): old term leads to the notion that a believer’s assurance is based on his ability to persevere rather than on the fact that he is declared righteous in Christ. The new term stresses that believers enjoy a transformed life that is preserved and we are given a faith that will remain.

S Singular Redemption (instead of limited atonement): old term teaches that Christ died only for the elect and gives the impression that there is something lacking in the atonement. The new term emphasizes that Christ died sufficiently for every person, although efficiently only for those who believe.

Bro. Rios,

Do you not think you need to give credit for this to Dr. Timothy George? Just saying....He is the first one I heard use the term R-O-S-E-S. But I cannot remember what each letter stood for?

sdg!

rd

 

[Benjamin]

Side Bar - I know a guy that claims to be a Calvinist and that his living in sin is GOD's will, because it would not happen if it weren't! I doubt anyone on this board would go that far or along with that thought process.

Yeah, I would think that would be a problem and heard of a guy who was a very Calvinistic pastor who had met his wife on a dating site.

He’s no longer around though now and I don’t expect that I will ever hear of him again. It seems he also got caught up in an adulterous affair with the church secretary and this was going on for some time, although many were becoming suspicious.

Finally, the suspicions spread and rumors reached his wife. When he got home that day he got into a huge fight with his wife and ended up hitting her so hard that she died.

Later, after he had been found guilty and was about to be sentenced the judge paused to ask him, “What was going on in your mind when you found out you had killed had your wife?” Apparently, he said, “I was thinking WHEW, I’m glad that is over with!”

 

[Felipe Rios]

Bro. Rios,

Do you not think you need to give credit for this to Dr. Timothy George? Just saying....He is the first one I heard use the term R-O-S-E-S. But I cannot remember what each letter stood for?

sdg!

rd

I'm really not sure who originally came up with it but it comes from Molinism which I hold to.

 

[rlvaughn]

Do you not think you need to give credit for this to Dr. Timothy George? Just saying....He is the first one I heard use the term R-O-S-E-S. But I cannot remember what each letter stood for?

This appears to be Timothy George's original ROSES acronym:
“Roses” (an Alternative to TULIP) by Timothy George

 

[Reynolds]

Non-Calvinist= ignorant? Based on your opinion.

Instead of the TULIP, here is a bed of ROSES for you guys:
R Radical Depravity (instead of total depravity): emphasizes that every aspect of our being is affected by the fall and rendered incapable of saving ourselves (instead of the impression that fallen humanity is as bad as it possibly can be).

O Overcoming Grace (instead of irresistible grace): The new term highlights that it is God’s persistent beckoning that overcomes our wicked obstinacy (instead of the old term which seems to imply that God saves a person against his will).

S Sovereign election (instead of unconditional election): old term is presented in such a way as to give the impression that those who die without receiving Christ did so because God never desired their salvation in the first place. The new term affirms that God desires the salvation of all, yet accentuates that our salvation is not based on us choosing God but on God choosing us.

E Eternal life (instead of perseverance of saints): old term leads to the notion that a believer’s assurance is based on his ability to persevere rather than on the fact that he is declared righteous in Christ. The new term stresses that believers enjoy a transformed life that is preserved and we are given a faith that will remain.

S Singular Redemption (instead of limited atonement): old term teaches that Christ died only for the elect and gives the impression that there is something lacking in the atonement. The new term emphasizes that Christ died sufficiently for every person, although efficiently only for those who believe.

Roses is much closer to Classical Arminianism than Calvinism.

 

[TCassidy]

I believe in the T

So far, so good.

not on the U

How can you meet a condition of perfect holiness when you admit you are Totally Depraved?

not on the L

Do you believe everyone, including Satan and his demons will be saved?

half on the I

So only half of God's Grace accomplishes what He decrees it to accomplish. I don't know. That sounds like a pretty weak God, to me. Is that what you really meant to suggest?

I believe in the P

Well, better late than never.

As to Molinism: Molinism is a view that cannot be defended using only the Bible. That is because it is a philosophical theory and not a Theological one.

The ideas of Natural Knowledge, Middle Knowledge, and Free Knowledge are nonsense with no biblical support at all.

 

[tyndale1946]

Roses is much closer to Classical Arminianism than Calvinism.

On my way, I stopped and smelled the ROSES and picked a TULIP!... Brother Glen

 

[tyndale1946]

Take heart, Brother Glen, a rose by any other name...

Of course, there's also the Daisy, Lily, Lilac, Aster, and the Poinsettia!
Tulips, Roses, Poinsettias and Lilies: a veritable theological garden

Brother Robert is that where Theologians go to bloom?... Brother Glen

 

[Benjamin]

Roses come from Molinism (look it up for yourself) which seeks to reconcile Calvinism and Arminianism.

You may look at Molinism as a way to reconcile some of the philosophical views and differences between Calvinism and Arminianism but but it doesn't really "seek" that as a goal. I would put it more like: ..."Specifically, it seeks to maintain a strong view of God's sovereignty over creation while at the same time preserving the belief that human beings have self-determined freedom, or libertarian free will."

As said above some think that the Bible teaches both and I believe it does but the way one defines divine Sovereignty and Libertarian free will and supports those conclusions is where the truth comes to light. Although not a classical Molinist I believe their theology is much more logical and biblical than Calvinism. BTW, about all I can do is shake my head and laugh at the claim Molinism is merely a philosophy ...but Calvinism is theology. LOL.

Calvinist seem to believe they have a philosophical monopoly on the type and definition of God's foreknowledge, even to the point they might deny it is merely their question begging philosophical construct in "Classical Theology" wherein they conclude that according to God's foreknowledge He must have had to predetermined all things as their basis to deny free will/human volition. They will say it is Bible and rely on a few proof-texts while avoiding each and every scriptural example of God's instruction to seek Him and the declarations of God's judgment being in truth as if it weren't a genuine plea or justice over volitional creatures. Then, Calvinist love to use philosophical constructs such as "compatibility" and use philosophical terms such as "permissive will" and/or rename human volition to support their views in an attempt to logically avoid theological fatalism. Of course, many Calvinists today are turning to Hard Determinism having realized the fallacious logic of compatibilism between human volition and determinism as all 5 points of Calvinism must logically hinge on strict determinism.

 

[HankD]

Side Bar - I know a guy that claims to be a Calvinist and that his living in sin is GOD's will, because it would not happen if it weren't! I doubt anyone on this board would go that far or along with that thought process.

after reading your post again an individual comes to mind that said something similar to me.

This individual (a Christian) walking contrary to the word of God said "It still brings glory to God".
I love this person and it hurt me to hear this.

it is so difficult to believe when to walk with Him brings that "Joy unspeakable" and a cleansed conscience.

In a sad way though it is true.
ultimately God will be glorified.

Proverbs 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

There is 1 John 1:9.

 

[HankD]

Who depends on a doctrinal creed? I certainly don't. I depend on my bible.

I know, but many Baptists do follow creeds, I believe they rename them to "Confessions".
They have their value, they pinpoint an individual's belief system.

 

[TCassidy]

They have their value, they pinpoint an individual's belief system.

I have never found one that pinpointed my belief system. I disagree with some aspect of all of them.

 

[agedman]

You may look at Molinism as a way to reconcile some of the philosophical views and differences between Calvinism and Arminianism but but it doesn't really "seek" that as a goal. I would put it more like: ..."Specifically, it seeks to maintain a strong view of God's sovereignty over creation while at the same time preserving the belief that human beings have self-determined freedom, or libertarian free will."

As said above some think that the Bible teaches both and I believe it does but the way one defines divine Sovereignty and Libertarian free will and supports those conclusions is where the truth comes to light. Although not a classical Molinist I believe their theology is much more logical and biblical than Calvinism. BTW, about all I can do is shake my head and laugh at the claim Molinism is merely a philosophy ...but Calvinism is theology. LOL.

Calvinist seem to believe they have a philosophical monopoly on the type and definition of God's foreknowledge, even to the point they might deny it is merely their question begging philosophical construct in "Classical Theology" wherein they conclude that according to God's foreknowledge He must have had to predetermined all things as their basis to deny free will/human volition. They will say it is Bible and rely on a few proof-texts while avoiding each and every scriptural example of God's instruction to seek Him and the declarations of God's judgment being in truth as if it weren't a genuine plea or justice over volitional creatures. Then, Calvinist love to use philosophical constructs such as "compatibility" and use philosophical terms such as "permissive will" and/or rename human volition to support their views in an attempt to logically avoid theological fatalism. Of course, many Calvinists today are turning to Hard Determinism having realized the fallacious logic of compatibilism between human volition and determinism as all 5 points of Calvinism must logically hinge on strict determinism.

The Calvinists typically do not deny "free will" in the sense of one having the right to choose of all that the fallen will may choose.

What the Calvinist typically do deny is that such a fallen will cannot of its own innate ability choose that which is outside of the parameters of the fallen.

To those who do not turn from the light, who seek the light, who embrace the light, who long for the light is no indication that they have of their own innate ability to choose other then to respond to the light given, that light which is commonly given to all humankind.

To those who respond to the light and not turn from the light it is given by God that they may be His own.

Nothing in them attained the salvation. They merely did not turn from the light given.

Freedom of the will is bound by the nature of the fallen creature.

Does not the Scripture clearly state that salvation is NOT by the will of humans?