Are forms other than Calvinism & Arminanism debate form to be C & A debate?

[JonC]

@JonC . Someday. I wish somebody with a theological background, who is fairly neutral, would write book about the Calvinistic resurgence that took place in the last 30 years. For laymen, like most of us on here, it has been confusing and has left a lot of animosity that will not disappear in my lifetime I'm sure. This may be off topic but I think it explains some of the stuff you see. I just got to thinking about that when you mentioned your professor. I wonder if this started in theology departments or was it grass roots?

I think much of the Calvinistic resurgence is the result of a period of decline in doctrine within many churches. People who see a void will seek to fill that void (and there was a void).

That was my experience anyway (not how I became a Calvinist but what led me to seek an undergraduate degree in religion and continue on to seminary).

I started realizing that I held beliefs I truly had no right to hold. I learned what was taught, but didn't work out that doctrine and really could not defend it against other positions.

For me it started with doctrines like OSAS (a belief I still hold). I could give you the doctrine and supporting passages, but I could not defend it against other interpretations. This led me to transfer to another college and change my major from business to religion.

I believe this is why we saw the resurgence in Calvinism, and I believe it is why Calvinism has often become a stepping stone for many (as we now see a decline in, or revision of, Calvinism).

I don't know my professors background prior to teaching.

 

[DaveXR650]

and I believe it is why Calvinism has often become a stepping stone for many (as we now see a decline in, or revision of, Calvinism).

I think it's declining too. Partly I think the Young, Restless and Reformed group and the Gospel Coalition took a hard turn left and it made a lot of recent Calvinists say "Wait a minute". Plus, as the debating goes, I have noticed the level of debate against Calvinism is at a higher level than it was in the early 2000's. Back then, if you could show a few verses that supports each letter of the TULIP you won. Folks are writing much better arguments nowadays but I don't see it on here. There is also a lot of hard Calvinism or hyper Calvinism on this site and while most of them are really nice they don't represent all types of Calvinism and they go beyond the Puritans and the WCF. If we all could stay on our meds we could have good discussions and maybe even learn something once in a while.

 

[AustinC]

I think much of the Calvinistic resurgence is the result of a period of decline in doctrine within many churches. People who see a void will seek to fill that void (and there was a void).

That was my experience anyway (not how I became a Calvinist but what led me to seek an undergraduate degree in religion and continue on to seminary).

I started realizing that I held beliefs I truly had no right to hold. I learned what was taught, but didn't work out that doctrine and really could not defend it against other positions.

For me it started with doctrines like OSAS (a belief I still hold). I could give you the doctrine and supporting passages, but I could not defend it against other interpretations. This led me to transfer to another college and change my major from business to religion.

I believe this is why we saw the resurgence in Calvinism, and I believe it is why Calvinism has often become a stepping stone for many (as we now see a decline in, or revision of, Calvinism).

I don't know my professors background prior to teaching.

If you see the decline in Reformed theology it is only because men love themselves more than the King and the days draw near when, if possible, even the elect would be overtaken.
*Matthew 24:22-25*
And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short. Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. See, I have told you beforehand.

 

[JonC]

If you see the decline in Reformed theology it is only because men love themselves more than the King and the days draw near when, if possible, even the elect would be overtaken.
*Matthew 24:22-25*
And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short. Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. See, I have told you beforehand.

No, that isn't correct. History is full of Calvinists and non-Calvinists (even anti-Calvinists) whose love for God was manifest in their lives.

I tend to think that the love for God those 1st century Christians (non-Calvinists, BTW) had as they gave their lives for the gospel of Jesus Christ outshines the "love" shown by Calvinists (and non-Calvinists) who sit in the comfort of their homes damning any Christian who disagrees with their views.

 

[AustinC]

No, that isn't correct. History is full of Calvinists and non-Calvinists (even anti-Calvinists) whose love for God was manifest in their lives.

I tend to think that the love for God those 1st century Christians (non-Calvinists, BTW) had as they gave their lives for the gospel of Jesus Christ outshines the "love" shown by Calvinists (and non-Calvinists) who sit in the comfort of their homes damning any Christian who disagrees with their views.

The 1st Century Christians had the same theology as Calvinists. They understood the full Sovereignty of God. This was the purpose of the Reformation. Today the vast majority of churches are semi-pelagian like Rome.

 

[DaveXR650]

I have just started reading earlier Christian literature and it does seem that early Christians had a very high view of the sovereignty of God and at the same time a strong belief in their absolute responsibility to choose to do God's will, without any explanations being necessary. They also had a strong view of the necessity of baptism and frankly - they looked rather Catholic in many cases. Augustine wouldn't last 3 posts on here without some Calvinist putting a curse on him and Calvin would be trashed - especially with some of the things he said about the atonement. We should be a little more careful, or maybe read a book once in a while.

 

[JonC]

The 1st Century Christians had the same theology as Calvinists. They understood the full Sovereignty of God. This was the purpose of the Reformation. Today the vast majority of churches are semi-pelagian like Rome.

They did understand the sovereignty of God, but they were far from Calvinists. Many of the questions Calvinism addresses (like the scope of the Atonement) were not asked until long after the 1st century.

You could say that they would have been Calvinists if they lived in another time, but such hypothetical claims are pretty useless.

Those Christians were too busy working for the kingdom, living and dying for the gospel of Jesus Christ, to sit around and ponder exactly for whom Christ died (they knew He died for them), if free-will existed (the mutual exclusiveness of divine will and man's will was not a part of their worldview as it is ours), etc.

In the heat of battle soldiers don't argue about the administrations overall plans. They are about the mission.

Unfortunately Christian theology is often too much about anything but the mission.

I wish our churches were filled with men and women who had a zeal for Christ, who would love their enemies, who would give all that some might be saved. Instead I believe far too many are content to stand by and watch people die, thinking "God will save them". Too many love their own comfort, their own wealth, their own lives.

And, before anybody tosses a stone in my direction, I grant that I am too often in this crowd.

There is simply something wrong when Christians look at D.L. Moody and think he lacked a love for God because he was not a Calvinist, or at George Müller and think he lacked love for God because he was a Calvinist.

 

[JonC]

I have just started reading earlier Christian literature and it does seem that early Christians had a very high view of the sovereignty of God and at the same time a strong belief in their absolute responsibility to choose to do God's will, without any explanations being necessary. They also had a strong view of the necessity of baptism and frankly - they looked rather Catholic in many cases. Augustine wouldn't last 3 posts on here without some Calvinist putting a curse on him and Calvin would be trashed - especially with some of the things he said about the atonement. We should be a little more careful, or maybe read a book once in a while.

I agree.

Theology seeks to answer questions contemporary to the people asking those questions.

For centuries nobody asked the questions Calvinism seeks to answer. They didn't ask specific questions addressed in the fuller doctrine of the Trinity (with persons and natures).

It doesn't mean newer views are wrong. Theology has developed over time.

 

[AustinC]

They did understand the sovereignty of God, but they were far from Calvinists. Many of the questions Calvinism addresses (like the scope of the Atonement) were not asked until long after the 1st century.

You could say that they would have been Calvinists if they lived in another time, but such hypothetical claims are pretty useless.

Those Christians were too busy working for the kingdom, living and dying for the gospel of Jesus Christ, to sit around and ponder exactly for whom Christ died (they knew He died for them), if free-will existed (the mutual exclusiveness of divine will and man's will was not a part of their worldview as it is ours), etc.

In the heat of battle soldiers don't argue about the administrations overall plans. They are about the mission.

Unfortunately Christian theology is often too much about anything but the mission.

I wish our churches were filled with men and women who had a zeal for Christ, who would love their enemies, who would give all that some might be saved. Instead I believe far too many are content to stand by and watch people die, thinking "God will save them". Too many love their own comfort, their own wealth, their own lives.

And, before anybody tosses a stone in my direction, I grant that I am too often in this crowd.

There is simply something wrong when Christians look at D.L. Moody and think he lacked a love for God because he was not a Calvinist, or at George Müller and think he lacked love for God because he was a Calvinist.

It has nothing to do with a lack of love for God. It has everything to do with synergism or monergism. What do we think about ourselves and our work?

 

[JonC]

It has nothing to do with a lack of love for God. It has everything to do with synergism or monergism. What do we think about ourselves and our work?

I agree differences on views (those who advocate Calvinism, those who seek to reform Calvinism, and those who abandon Calvinism) has nothing to do with their love for God.

What do we think about our work? I guess it depends on our work. Are we like Paul, desiring to save men? He knew it is God who saves but still used that language to emphasize the necessity of our work (we were saved to do the work God has purposed for us to do).

 

[MrW]

Too many muddy the water.

God calls—we must answer.

Simple Gospel. Romans 1:16.

 

[AustinC]

Too many muddy the water.

God calls—we must answer.

Simple Gospel. Romans 1:16.

Romans 1 makes clear that the only ones who will believe are the ones God calls since everyone rejects God by looking only at nature.

Indeed, when God calls (cause) we are made alive and answer (effect).

 

[AustinC]

I agree differences on views (those who advocate Calvinism, those who seek to reform Calvinism, and those who abandon Calvinism) has nothing to do with their love for God.

What do we think about our work? I guess it depends on our work. Are we like Paul, desiring to save men? He knew it is God who saves but still used that language to emphasize the necessity of our work (we were saved to do the work God has purposed for us to do).

I believe the English translation is "win men", meaning he tries what he can to have men see their sin and respond in repentance. Paul always attributes salvation to God alone.

 

[Silverhair]

Romans 1 makes clear that the only ones who will believe are the ones God calls since everyone rejects God by looking only at nature.

Indeed, when God calls (cause) we are made alive and answer (effect).

Anyone can hear anyone can answer. That is unless you think most people are deaf and mute?

 

[JonC]

I believe the English translation is "win men", meaning he tries what he can to have men see their sin and respond in repentance. Paul always attributes salvation to God alone.

Yes, I like "winning men" better as well. Like I said, Paul knows only God saves.

That does not mean we do not work towards "winning men".

 

[AustinC]

Yes, I like "winning men" better as well. Like I said, Paul knows only God saves.

That does not mean we do not work towards "winning men".

Of course.
We obey God and we make disciples. Not all of Jesus disciples followed him as believers. They came, they rejected, and they walked away. The disciples we bring around us to teach them God's word will be responsible for believing due to God's work in them or their rebellion against God. The attempt to win is the process of disciple making.

 

[JonC]

Of course.
We obey God and we make disciples. Not all of Jesus disciples followed him as believers. They came, they rejected, and they walked away. The disciples we bring around us to teach them God's word will be responsible for believing due to God's work in them or their rebellion against God. The attempt to win is the process of disciple making.

I agree. We are called to make disciples, not to save souls. This includes sharing the gospel but goes beyond this initial step by including discipling those who are saved.

 

[AustinC]

I agree. We are called to make disciples, not to save souls. This includes sharing the gospel but goes beyond this initial step by including discipling those who are saved.

We disciple both, just as Jesus disciples both. The elect will persevere.

 

[AVL1984]

Romans 1 makes clear that the only ones who will believe are the ones God calls since everyone rejects God by looking only at nature.

Indeed, when God calls (cause) we are made alive and answer (effect).

Your understanding/interpretation of this scripture...not everybody interprets it that way.

 

[MrW]

C summary:

The devil wants everyone.

God doesn’t.

Glad I’m not C. [emoji1783]