Are you a Calvinist?

[Jim1999]

On a personal note, thank you, gentlemen, for your kindnesses.

The key to Calvinism is not soteriology, but, as Calvin, and Augustine before him, declared, the absolute sovereignty of God. Once we settle on the fact that God is sovereign, everything else can fall into line.

Cheers.

Jim

 

[dan e.]

On a personal note, thank you, gentlemen, for your kindnesses.

The key to Calvinism is not soteriology, but, as Calvin, and Augustine before him, declared, the absolute sovereignty of God. Once we settle on the fact that God is sovereign, everything else can fall into line.

Cheers.

Jim

Can't you at least see how your previous comment is a little over the top regarding nonCalvinists?

You said:
"those who adopt inbetween views are like only eating the icing on the cake, but never the cake. They want man to control God, "once-saved always saved". If you want me to keep you in my hand, I determine when I will flip my hand and you to boot."

I have never met a sincere believer, who is also a nonCalvinist, that would say ANYTHING close to that. It is nothing meant to be disrespectful, but I think this is a typical way that many Calvinists tend to over-categorize others.

Just because some don't outline soteriology the same way you do, doesn't mean they fall under these criticisms you've given.

 

[Dr. Bob]

I have never met a sincere believer, who is also a nonCalvinist, that would say ANYTHING close to that.

They will not SAY it (it sounds too much like centuries-old pelagian heresy) but that does not mean that the position they hold will not end exactly at the same place - salvation is offered by God and ultimately up to "man"

 

[dan e.]

They will not SAY it (it sounds too much like centuries-old pelagian heresy) but that does not mean that the position they hold will not end exactly at the same place - salvation is offered by God and ultimately up to "man"

that's a pretty easy way out, don't you think? To respond, "well they won't actually SAY it".

 

[Dr. Bob]

da truth. When pinned down, NNE "says" they believe it is up to man. But when pushed to the conclusion of what their position is, that is the bottom line.

God offers and man must DO. Up to man.

It's a pretty water-shed issue. Either God does 100% or not. We have enough arminian/sympathizers/semi-pelagians on the BB to have seen this in discussion time and time again. After nine years here . . .

 

[dan e.]

da truth. When pinned down, NNE "says" they believe it is up to man. But when pushed to the conclusion of what their position is, that is the bottom line.

God offers and man must DO. Up to man.

It's a pretty water-shed issue. Either God does 100% or not. We have enough arminian/sympathizers/semi-pelagians on the BB to have seen this in discussion time and time again. After nine years here . . .

Well I congratulate you for having the mysteries of salvation figured out.

I applaud you. :applause:

 

[Andy T.]

Well I congratulate you for having the mysteries of salvation figured out.

I applaud you. :applause:

I'm tired of these types of responses on the BB. Like all of us, Dr. Bob has certain beliefs about sotierology. Instead of giving reasons why you think he is wrong in his beliefs, you essentially castigate him for have beliefs at all on the matter. I could easily say the same thing to you in a different way: "Well, I congratulate you for figuring out that you haven't figured out all the mysteries of salvation. I applaud you." IOW, you are just as confident in your non-figured-out beliefs on the matter, as Dr. Bob is in his figured-out beliefs on the matter.

Do you see how ugly such a response is?

 

[swaimj]

Do you see how ugly such a response is?

But, AndyT, was Dr. Bob's response any more pretty or helpful? He simply asserts what he thinks without giving any evidence for it.

As for 9 years on the board, I have been here almost that long. If you get tired of these discussions, by all means take a break from it. I have taken many breaks from it over the years for months on end because I did get tired of it. Both sides need to remember that, when you type on this board, you are speaking to your brothers and sisters in Christ and your speach should be kind and gracious, not haughty and sarcastic.

 

[dan e.]

I'm tired of these types of responses on the BB. Like all of us, Dr. Bob has certain beliefs about sotierology. Instead of giving reasons why you think he is wrong in his beliefs, you essentially castigate him for have beliefs at all on the matter. I could easily say the same thing to you in a different way: "Well, I congratulate you for figuring out that you haven't figured out all the mysteries of salvation. I applaud you." IOW, you are just as confident in your non-figured-out beliefs on the matter, as Dr. Bob is in his figured-out beliefs on the matter.

Do you see how ugly such a response is?

I understand what you are saying, but my original point wasn't about who is more or less accurate in their belief, but the response from one side to the other, and the overthinking in it. For a calvinist to make the statement that noncalvinists want to control God, I think it is a little over the top, and reveals that calvinists tend to box things up and say, "this is the way it is, and if you don't think that way then this is how you are".

 

[Andy T.]

But, AndyT, was Dr. Bob's response any more pretty or helpful? He simply asserts what he thinks without giving any evidence for it.

Actually, he did clarify what he meant. You may not like what he believes, but he did explain it. It may have been a rather blunt explanation, but it wasn't particularly ugly.

As for 9 years on the board, I have been here almost that long. If you get tired of these discussions, by all means take a break from it. I have taken many breaks from it over the years for months on end because I did get tired of it. Both sides need to remember that, when you type on this board, you are speaking to your brothers and sisters in Christ and your speach should be kind and gracious, not haughty and sarcastic.

I agree, and I have taken a break from the C/A arguments for a long time.

 

[Andy T.]

I understand what you are saying, but my original point wasn't about who is more or less accurate in their belief, but the response from one side to the other, and the overthinking in it. For a calvinist to make the statement that noncalvinists want to control God, I think it is a little over the top, and reveals that calvinists tend to box things up and say, "this is the way it is, and if you don't think that way then this is how you are".

Dr. Bob can clarify more if he wants, but it appeared to me that he expressed, "This is the way I believe, and if you believe differently, then this is the logical conclusion of your belief."

Dr. Bob is no more trying to "box things up" than you are trying to box him up as someone "who's got it all figured out..."

 

[swaimj]

Actually, he did clarify what he meant. You may not like what he believes, but he did explain it. It may have been a rather blunt explanation, but it wasn't particularly ugly.

When a person asserts what they believe, that is fine. When they assert what they think the logical conclusion of another's system is, that is fine, but when you say "this is what another person believes" that is NOT fine. For a person to know what another believes they would have to be God. This type of assertion has no place on this board.

 

[dan e.]

Dr. Bob can clarify more if he wants, but it appeared to me that he expressed, "This is the way I believe, and if you believe differently, then this is the logical conclusion of your belief."

Dr. Bob is no more trying to "box things up" than you are trying to box him up as someone "who's got it all figured out..."

All I'm saying is that I was never trying to debate the finer points of C/A. If you'll read my original comment, it was that I think calvinists tend to over-categorize those who are noncalvinists....and I said I never knew a noncalvinist who is also a sincere believer in Jesus to want to "control God".

I think that is a wrong judgment to make, not matter what logical conclusions you have figured out.

 

[webdog]

da truth. When pinned down, NNE "says" they believe it is up to man. But when pushed to the conclusion of what their position is, that is the bottom line.

God offers and man must DO. Up to man.

It's a pretty water-shed issue. Either God does 100% or not. We have enough arminian/sympathizers/semi-pelagians on the BB to have seen this in discussion time and time again. After nine years here . . .

...the very same thing can be said of the responsibility of sin. When pushed to the logical conclusion, God is the author of sin. Accepting a gift NEVER makes the one receiving the gift the "hinge" in the gift giving process. That is the normal calvinist strawman that gets quite old.

 

[webdog]

On a personal note, thank you, gentlemen, for your kindnesses.

The key to Calvinism is not soteriology, but, as Calvin, and Augustine before him, declared, the absolute sovereignty of God. Once we settle on the fact that God is sovereign, everything else can fall into line.

Cheers.

Jim

The key to all soteriology is God's sovereignty. Unfortunately, one camp says God is in control while the other says God is contolling.

 

[Jim1999]

The best illustration I gave of God's sovereignty and Calvinism, as I understand it, is Jonah. He was called of God and thusly a child and servant of God. God gave him a mission. Jonah refused to obey and under God's permissive will, he went his own way. God in His sovereignty dealt with Jonah and Jonah fell into line. Even though he continued in rebellion, he preached God's message to the appointed people.

We see God's absolute sovereignty in choice of servants and directions. We see man's freedom of choice under God's permissive will, and the consequences of disobedience.

Now fit in all the verses that teach God's absolute sovereignty and man's so-called free will all in the same vein.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Marcia]

I had this exact same poll with the exact same question not long ago. At first, when I saw the subject, I thought it had been resurrected.

The choices in my poll were Calvinist, Non-Calvinist, Not Sure.

Non-Calvinist won.

 

[Marcia]

All I'm saying is that I was never trying to debate the finer points of C/A. If you'll read my original comment, it was that I think calvinists tend to over-categorize those who are noncalvinists....and I said I never knew a noncalvinist who is also a sincere believer in Jesus to want to "control God".

I think that is a wrong judgment to make, not matter what logical conclusions you have figured out.

I agree with you, dan e. :thumbs:

I just realized that this is an old thread that was resurrected - a thread older than the one I started a few weeks ago.

 

[IFB Mole]

I'm a Soveriegn Compatibalist.

 

[Rippon]

I'm a Soveriegn Compatibalist.

Oh.When I looked at your post in haste I thought you were a savvy cannibal.:laugh: