Another Question for Pastors

There is quite a hodge podge here, but much of it is very Calvinistic. The Scriptures clearly teach that man is responsible to respond to God, and such a call to a legitimate response does not take away Gods' sovereignty. But the position you state is an arminian position in the end. It indicates a prevenient grace. There are several significant theological issues that I could address but I won't.

But notice what even you said ... They are within Calvinism. That means that they are a part of one of the two positions. Notice I specificaly said above that it is not about the number of points one holds, but about what they believe about election.

The ones who believe in election. You talk of a "narrow view." Notice again what I said, that the two categories are "broadly speaking." There is room for difference inside the categories

 

Bro Tony:thumbs: :1_grouphug:

 

That's a pretty calvinistic position, which ultimately leads to irresistable grace, a term which I reject in favor of efficacious grace.

I disagree, but that gets into the theological discussion, not the practical one of this thread. I think Scripture declares that man is both responsible and morally unable and unwilling.

BTW, this is a logical position you are espousing, not a theological one. This is a tension in logic that Calvinism is willing to let stand, while those driven by logic demand a resolution.

But if his foreknowledge is immutable and exhaustive, then he is commanding people to do something he knows they can't do because his knowledge knows they won't do it. In other words, if God knows "Joe" won't repent, then Joe can't repent because he would prove God's foreknowledge wrong. Yet God still commands him to repent anyway.

I believe arminianism is wrong, but I do believe they can preach the gospel rightly. So in many cases, I don't think arminianism has compromised the gospel. I think in some cases they have. In all cases, I believe they depend on something which they do not believe exists, and God is gracious enough to work anyway. Of course, they say the same thing about me so that makes us even I guess.

 

OK, for this example, I'm assuming you're Caucasian:

Let me ask you a question: Are you an Aleut or are you an Inuupiq?

Since both Calvinists and Arminians seem to relate their positions on election to spiritual salvation, then I can safely answer "neither". The doctrin of election has to do with those who are called out, not those who are called.

I can expound on the subject at great length, but to answer the question of whether I'm Calvinist or Arminian, I can comfortably answer "neither".

Now, if you ask me how I feel about the subjects of spiritual salvation or the doctrine of election, those would require more thoughtful answers.

 

When in reality, the answer that I would give is not listed above. Once again, I will ask: Are you from Oslo or are you from Vladivostok?

 

Calvinism and Arminianism most certainly are doctrines:

doc‧trine  /ˈdɒktrɪn/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[dok-trin] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.
2. something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.
3. a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
[Origin: 1350–1400; ME < AF < L doctrīna teaching, equiv. to doct(o)r doctor + -īna -ine2]

 

This is obviously just double-speak and more obfuscation.:smilewinkgrin::smilewinkgrin::smilewinkgrin::smilewinkgrin:

 

Fundamental argumentative error. These are not the only two options. If you said, "Are you human or not" then you would have formed a proper argument in the context of this discussion.

Given your denial that election deals with spiritual salvation, your answer is correct. It is also wrong. When we talk about the biblical doctrine of soteriological election, it is spiritual salvatino of individuals. Anything else is to discuss a different doctrine.

I am quite sure you can comfortably answer "neither." However, you cannot accurately answer neither.

No, it is given above. To that question, you must answer either "yes" or "no." It is a simple "Do you believe X" kind of statement, with mutually exclusive answers. It is not like "Have you stopped beating your wife" because that assumes something not in evidence. This question is entirely different. You have given an answer and it has been "No." What is so hard about that. You do not believe that God elects individuals to salvation withotu respect to anythign except his own purpose. That puts you in the arminian categories.

Remember the context of the comment was about "man made doctrines." Here is what I said, "They aren't doctrines at all. They are labels that summarize a particular position on soteriology."

Notice that "Calvinism" is a label about what one believes about soteriology. "Arminianism" is a label. They are words. It doesn't matter what you call it. It is the doctrine that the label represents that is important.

They are not man-made systems. They are man-made labels, just like Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Pretribulationist, Amillennialist, etc. The systems are rooted in an understanding of the Bible.

 

Oh, no. After two fairly recent attempts to inject the C vs A argument into the Missions/evangelism forum, now you guys are trying to inject it into another fellowship (that's F-E-L-L-O-W-S-H-I-P) forum. Shame on all parties trying to make this a debate. For crying out loud, in the theology forum the top three threads are currently C vs A. Why do you need to bring that stuff in here?

I'm going to be brutally honest here. More and more I just stick to the fellowship threads because of the silliness that develops and the half baked theology I've been reading in the debate forums. I was thinking of starting a thread in the Pastoral Ministries forum in the next day or two, but I may have found another reason to start looking for another forum all together.

I'm editing this because after finishing it I looked again at what was written on the main page under Pastoral Ministries: "Talk about the joys and struggles of ministry." Just thought I'd remind you guys.

 

Your OP was perfectly valid, StefanM, and the first few posts were fellowship. In fact, there was ample room for fellowship in your OP, and there should have been fellowship. I don't blame you at all.

You know, there are so many issues we face as pastors, so many things we need to fellowship on. So I just have to wonder, why the nonsense? I just had a rough time after my evening service because one of the Japanese believers had read some book (translated into Japanese, unfortunately) accusing our government of planting bombs on 9/11 to blow up our own World Trade Center. So I stop by the BB looking for fellowship and I find the C vs A debate spreading into this thread.

Get real, men. There are 433 verses in the book of Romans, but only 7 of them have the words elect, election, predestinate or foreknow in them. I realize this is an oversimplification, but that is only 1.6% of the book. But some people let that 1.6% become their whole topic of discussion. There are so many other precious things to discuss about the Word of God, so many wonderful things about our Lord and Savior, why not fellowship around the Lord?

 

I am a Baptist and that was a label given by the pedobaptists of the time. Most non-Baptists and I am convinced most Baptists know what Baptists are against but little of what they stand for.

I seriously doubt that very many "Calvinists" have actually read Calvin's Institutes. When I poled the BB awhile back not very many responded positively to reading the Institutes. That being the case then they are just assuming what Calvin believed and really not knowing for themselves. Even Calvin recognized the shortcomings of his theology should it be taken too far.

 

I also recognize the short-comings of Calvin's theology if it is taken too far...as did William Carey, a known reformed theologian and missionary. It is also quite evident today in the hatred of Fred Phelps.

I can even recognize the short comings of some of Calvin's theology that should be rejected altogether, such as infant baptism.

JOJ,

Before you get too high and mighty up there on your horse, let me just say that the OP (which you, surprise surprise...being an open theist, found no problem with) was offensive in that it questioned the integrity of Reformed Pastors when interviewing for a search committee. All I did was throw the same question the other way to the open theist heretics on the board. Now, if that irritated you enough to leave the BB, then by all means, don't let the door hit ya on the way out. But, to get all in a huff about hearing the Calvinist side of this inflammatory thread and then praise the originator of the falme is HYPOCRISY in the Paige Patterson extreme.

Joseph Botwinick

 

I guess I don't understand how the OP was offensive. It is a legitimate question. How was it offensive?

 

It began with the unfounded assumption that Reformed Pastors are somehow dishonest about their theology when interviewing for a pastoral job. This kind of inflammatory statement began with Paige Patterson and has apparently made its way to those wishing to attend his seminary.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Joseph, you read that assumption into the OP. I am Calvinistic in my theology and I did not find that assumption there at all.

It is a legitmate question to ask if a person shares all of their theology with a search committee.

 

If that is a legitimate question, then so is this:

 

The difference is you call all arminians open theists, which is not accurate. So instead of just asking a question you put your own twist on it.

 

Herein lies one of the greatest problem in the whole discussion: people think that Calvinism is about what Calvin believed. It isn't. It is about what a person believes about the biblical doctrine of soteriology. Calvin's name was attached to it because, just as Arminius' name was to the opposite view because of the way that they systematized the doctrine, just as other doctrines through the years have been attached to men's names.

We need to get it through our heads that Calvinism is not about what Calvin taught but rather about what a person believes the Bible says.