Beyond Calvinism & Arminianism

[Jarthur001]

Someone gave me the book "Beyond Calvinism & Arminianism" to read today. I have read 3 chapters and wanted to post a few lines here and there and get some feedback.

The book is by C. Gordon Olson who claims he is not a Calvinist nor a Arminian, but rather a "mediate". What I have read so far would say he is an Arminian.

page 54..

"surprisingly, there are absolutely no references to God's decrees in the Net Testament"

same page same subject talking about Hodge words on Gods decree..
Section G "The decrees of God relate to all events". Olson says...

Contains not one scripture reference, because there really are none

more to come later

I'll save my thoughts for last. I wish to hear others thoughts.

Thanks

 

[Jarthur001]

Sorry...


One more and I'll be quit for a while.

On page 61 section called "The Self-limitations of Gods Sovereignty"

Olson says this verse proves God does not rule over all things.

Genesis 1:26

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Same page...
Olson says this verse proves "God chose to greatly limit the exercise of His own sovereignty" (i kid you not)

Hebrews 2:14

14Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil—

 

[Jarthur001]

ok..I give up

Never mind this thread. I was hoping I could read the whole book, but there are some many holes in it that it about made me half sick. :tear:

Olson has such a low view of God. He did manage to support one thing which I agree with.

Classic Arminianism is much closer to Calvinism then what we see posted day after day on this board. I have said that for years.

Other than this one thing, the book is full of holes and way to much rambling about nothing. Its about 500 pages....but not worth 50 pages of good.

 

[pinoybaptist]

There truly is no such thing as a "median" in these two theologies.
Some here have tried to project themselves as Biblicists, whatever that means.
But when you get right down to the nuts and bolts of what they believe, they're really Arminians, either of today's mold, or the classic one.

 

[jdlongmire]

As you can see from my poll, I see it as more monergism vs synergism - those terms seem to cut through the bias of "name-based" debates straight to the core of the issue.

 

[J.D.]

ok..I give up

Never mind this thread. I was hoping I could read the whole book, but there are some many holes in it that it about made me half sick. :tear:

Olson has such a low view of God. He did manage to support one thing which I agree with.

Classic Arminianism is much closer to Calvinism then what we see posted day after day on this board. I have said that for years.

Other than this one thing, the book is full of holes and way to much rambling about nothing. Its about 500 pages....but not worth 50 pages of good.

Right, the "median" view is riddled with internal inconsistancies.

Here's what I've always wanted to ask about this idea of "self-limitation" - if one claims that God is not sovereign in salvation by some self-limitation, then one is admitting by default that God CAN save a soul by His omnipotent power, right? (Is His hand shortened, that He cannot save?)

Good, now that we've established that God CAN save by his omnipotent power, can we admit that man CANNOT save himself since all come short of the glory of God?

Good, now that we've established that God CAN save by His omnipotent power, and man CANNOT save himself, we can clearly see that in order for man to be saved, God MUST save man by His omnipotent power if man - any man - is to be saved.

And we know that he DOES save men by His omnipotent power, for there are many of us that were made willing in the day of His visitation! Neat how it all comes together, eh? Soli Deo Gloria!

 

[Jarthur001]

Right, the "median" view is riddled with internal inconsistancies.

Here's what I've always wanted to ask about this idea of "self-limitation" - if one claims that God is not sovereign in salvation by some self-limitation, then one is admitting by default that God CAN save a soul by His omnipotent power, right? (Is His hand shortened, that He cannot save?)

Good, now that we've established that God CAN save by his omnipotent power, can we admit that man CANNOT save himself since all come short of the glory of God?

Good, now that we've established that God CAN save by His omnipotent power, and man CANNOT save himself, we can clearly see that in order for man to be saved, God MUST save man by His omnipotent power if man - any man - is to be saved.

And we know that he DOES save men by His omnipotent power, for there are many of us that were made willing in the day of His visitation! Neat how it all comes together, eh? Soli Deo Gloria!

Good stuff brother.

 

[J.D.]

Good stuff brother.

Thanks, glad to contribute. I think I got the idea from Steve Lawson while reading "A Long Line of Godly Men".

 

[Dale-c]

As you can see from my poll, I see it as more monergism vs synergism - those terms seem to cut through the bias of "name-based" debates straight to the core of the issue.
____________

Absolutely true.
Either you are a monergist, which is a Biblicist or you are a synergist which is decidedly unBiblical.

 

[jdlongmire]

Right, the "median" view is riddled with internal inconsistancies.

Here's what I've always wanted to ask about this idea of "self-limitation" - if one claims that God is not sovereign in salvation by some self-limitation, then one is admitting by default that God CAN save a soul by His omnipotent power, right? (Is His hand shortened, that He cannot save?)

Good, now that we've established that God CAN save by his omnipotent power, can we admit that man CANNOT save himself since all come short of the glory of God?

Good, now that we've established that God CAN save by His omnipotent power, and man CANNOT save himself, we can clearly see that in order for man to be saved, God MUST save man by His omnipotent power if man - any man - is to be saved.

And we know that he DOES save men by His omnipotent power, for there are many of us that were made willing in the day of His visitation! Neat how it all comes together, eh? Soli Deo Gloria!

AMEN, fellow J.D.!

 

[J.D.]

AMEN, fellow J.D.!

JD, did you catch my greeting back in one of your TULIP threads? Just remember I'm the SENIOR RANKING JD AROUND HERE! Just kidding! Welcome. I used to post a lot but for the last year or so I only make occasional visits due to a busy work/home/church schedule. BTW your're right about monergism vs synergism, but there are some around BB that want to confuse what that means too. Straighten them out brother!

 

[skypair]

Group hug! :1_grouphug: Cheese! Oh, that's what all that twittering WAS! Cheese!

Good ... that ought to be great for the "family album." :laugh:

Now ... seriously. How many of you are married? What did you have to do to get your wife to marry you, Mr. Sovereignty? "Arrange" the marriage with her dad when she was 2 years old? Give her no choice in the matter? What were the "sweet nothings" you told her after you were married -- after she was "regenerated" -- that made her "most willingly and irresistibly" accept her fate?

You do realize, don't you, that your thesis sounds more like Islam than Christianity?

skypair

 

[jdlongmire]

JD, did you catch my greeting back in one of your TULIP threads? Just remember I'm the SENIOR RANKING JD AROUND HERE! Just kidding! Welcome. I used to post a lot but for the last year or so I only make occasional visits due to a busy work/home/church schedule. BTW your're right about monergism vs synergism, but there are some around BB that want to confuse what that means too. Straighten them out brother!

Well, as a good Reformed Baptist, I certainly respect my elders

Thanks for the warm welcome :wavey:

 

[JustChristian]

Right, the "median" view is riddled with internal inconsistancies.

Here's what I've always wanted to ask about this idea of "self-limitation" - if one claims that God is not sovereign in salvation by some self-limitation, then one is admitting by default that God CAN save a soul by His omnipotent power, right? (Is His hand shortened, that He cannot save?)

Good, now that we've established that God CAN save by his omnipotent power, can we admit that man CANNOT save himself since all come short of the glory of God?

Good, now that we've established that God CAN save by His omnipotent power, and man CANNOT save himself, we can clearly see that in order for man to be saved, God MUST save man by His omnipotent power if man - any man - is to be saved.

And we know that he DOES save men by His omnipotent power, for there are many of us that were made willing in the day of His visitation! Neat how it all comes together, eh? Soli Deo Gloria!

But didn't God limit Himself by requiring the death of His Son on the cross to provide the hope of salvation to man? Couldn't He in His Sovereignty simply decreed that man be saved rather than taking this arduous path. Clearly, He chose to "limit Himself" such that salvation could only be obtained through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[jdlongmire]

But didn't God limit Himself by requiring the death of His Son on the cross to provide the hope of salvation to man? Couldn't He in His Sovereignty simply decreed that man be saved rather than taking this arduous path. Clearly, He chose to "limit Himself" such that salvation could only be obtained through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Not "limit" - "glorify".

Ezekiel 39:13
"Even all the people of the land will bury them; and it will be to their renown on the day that I glorify Myself," declares the Lord GOD.

Isaiah 48:11
For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it,for how should my name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage...se=12&end_verse=14&version=49&context=context
John 8:54
Jesus answered, " If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing; it is My Father who glorifies Me, of whom you say, 'He is our God';

 

[skypair]

jdl,

You seem to be having a problem with the concept of "cause and effect." Glory does not stand alone. There is a reason -- a cause -- for it to occur. The "glory" was the resurrection, not the submission unto death.

Just like salvation. In order for the "calling" to salvation/regeneration to be called "effectual," there had to be 1) hearing and comprehending of the gospel and 2) repentance on the part of the one being "called." Cause: hearing, understanding, and repenting. Effect: Salvation/regeneration.

skypair