Calvinism vs. DoG??

[The Archangel]

Archangel and Earth, Wind & Fire,

I know you both may believe my methodology may seem to be too confrontational or even combative, but that is not my intent.

The Gospel is the lynch-pin of all that we believe. If we lose the lynch-pin we lose all. History teaches us that, once the Gospel was compromised, way back in the 2nd century AD, the decline became so ubiquitous that only a very small remnant was left, hiding in the most remote places available to them. It was 1300 years before the main stream, visible, claimants on the name of Christendom where openly challenged resulting in the semi-reformation of the 16th century.

My greatest fear is that, as we approach the return of Christ, and sin continues to wax worse and worse, we will again lose the lynch-pin of our faith, the Gospel, and another dark age as experienced in that time of the ascendancy of the apostate "Church" of Rome will be upon us.

You may consider this to only be a diverting dalliance on a discussion board, but I believe it to be the battle for "the faith once delivered." Jude warned us of this very thing in verse 3 of his epistle, "Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints."

Some things are worth the effort.

Please don't misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that you shouldn't confront theology that is lacking. I think you should contend and do so earnestly for the faith.

Though, I'm not convinced that the Arminian gospel is false. There are many similarities--salvation by grace, through faith (not works), etc.

Now, I think the strategy of confronting synergists on how their theology supports salvation by grace through faith is fine. But, I would encourage you to properly represent their position as they claim it is, not a false caricature of their position.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[TCassidy]

I do not believe it is a false caricature. The whole point of a synergistic gospel is that God does part of it and man does the rest. Even their own evangelists admit to this. I have personally heard the statement made from the pulpit, "God casts a vote, the devil casts a vote, and you cast the deciding vote." If your salvation rests on your vote did you not, then, save yourself?

 

[quantumfaith]

I do not believe it is a false caricature. The whole point of a synergistic gospel is that God does part of it and man does the rest. Even their own evangelists admit to this. I have personally heard the statement made from the pulpit, "God casts a vote, the devil casts a vote, and you cast the deciding vote." If your salvation rests on your vote did you not, then, save yourself?

You are so correct here, man MUST have faith, so man is part of the equation of the salvation experience. It is solely by God's Grace that salvation even exists, and that grace which extends this "great a salvation" to mankind. But mankind must respond to this grace with faith.

Romans 5:1-2

Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through OUR Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand.

In the provision of salvation God has demonstrated His infinite grace, in order to secure that salvation, man must respond with belief and faith.

"What must I do to be saved?"

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." (Acts 16:31)

 

[ashleysdad]

I really don't have an answer as to how you should refer to them.

My point, though, is to give deference to our opponents who do claim that they are not self-saved.

You and I may (and do) disagree with them on this in that we see salvation as a work of God from beginning to end, not based on "foreknowledge" wrongly defined. However, to use "Self-Saved" puts an unnecessary stumbling block between to conversants that might other wise have a fruitful conversation.

Perhaps ask how their theology doesn't emphasize the "self?" Try to change their mind. But, please don't make it harder for them by having to stomach a term they see as offensive.

Blessings,

The Archangel

Would a term like "opponents" be a term that might be a stumblingblock? You have used that term twice now to refer to those who are not Calvinists. Do you seriously view non-cals as "opponents"? I would think that Christian or fellow believer would be a more appropriate term. I do not mean to sound rude but I see alot of harshness and venom in these threads regarding C/A and it comes from both sides. I think that it is unnecessary and wrong. We are all believers here.

 

[TCassidy]

You are so correct here, man MUST have faith, so man is part of the equation of the salvation experience. It is solely by God's Grace that salvation even exists, and that grace which extends this "great a salvation" to mankind. But mankind must respond to this grace with faith.

Romans 5:1-2

Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through OUR Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand.

In the provision of salvation God has demonstrated His infinite grace, in order to secure that salvation, man must respond with belief and faith.

"What must I do to be saved?"

"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." (Acts 16:31)

Yes, a man must have faith to be saved. But is that faith an act of the unregenerate, dead, man, or is it the work of God in regenerating him and giving him the faith to believe and follow Christ?

That is the whole point of the discussion. Allow me to use this illustration. "By grace are you saved through faith." I have a lawn. I water the lawn regularly. The source of the water is the faucet. The means by which the water gets from the source to the need (the grass) is through the hose. Now, think about this. Can the water (grace) get from the faucet (source) to the grass (the lost soul) without the hose (faith) ALREADY BEING IN PLACE? If faith is the conduit through which grace flows unto salvation it must precede salvation, and that is only accomplished by regeneration.

The problem we seem to have is that we are finite creatures and must, in order to try to understand, produce a logical sequence of grace, regeneration, faith, and salvation. We must break these great truths into a logical sequence because we lack the capacity to see it as one complete, inseparable truth.

Salvation is the gift of God according to Ephesians 2:8-9, but we must remember that grace, faith, regeneration, and adoption are all INSEPERABLE aspects of our "so great salvation."

 

[TCassidy]

Would a term like "opponents" be a term that might be a stumblingblock? You have used that term twice now to refer to those who are not Calvinists. Do you seriously view non-cals as "opponents"? I would think that Christian or fellow believer would be a more appropriate term. I do not mean to sound rude but I see alot of harshness and venom in these threads regarding C/A and it comes from both sides. I think that it is unnecessary and wrong. We are all believers here.

So how should be refer to each other to maintain the distinction between our different positions?

If we say "Christians believe that faith precedes regeneration" then counter point that with "But Christians believe regeneration precedes faith" our entire discussion will become incomprehensible (even more so than it already is!).

How about this: Synergists verses monergists. Will that help?

 

[quantumfaith]

Yes, a man must have faith to be saved. But is that faith an act of the unregenerate, dead, man, or is it the work of God in regenerating him and giving him the faith to believe and follow Christ?

That is the whole point of the discussion. Allow me to use this illustration. "By grace are you saved through faith." I have a lawn. I water the lawn regularly. The source of the water is the faucet. The means by which the water gets from the source to the need (the grass) is through the hose. Now, think about this. Can the water (grace) get from the faucet (source) to the grass (the lost soul) without the hose (faith) ALREADY BEING IN PLACE? If faith is the conduit through which grace flows unto salvation it must precede salvation, and that is only accomplished by regeneration.

The problem we seem to have is that we are finite creatures and must, in order to try to understand, produce a logical sequence of grace, regeneration, faith, and salvation. We must break these great truths into a logical sequence because we lack the capacity to see it as one complete, inseparable truth.

Salvation is the gift of God according to Ephesians 2:8-9, but we must remember that grace, faith, regeneration, and adoption are all INSEPERABLE aspects of our "so great salvation."

We agree on the elements of salvation, grace, faith, regeneration. We do not agree necessarily on the sequence, and as for man responding, well even though man is marred and messed up because of sin, he still retains the "imago dei".

 

[TCassidy]

We agree on the elements of salvation, grace, faith, regeneration. We do not agree necessarily on the sequence, and as for man responding, well even though man is marred and messed up because of sin, he still retains the "imago dei".

The problem with that view is that earlier Amy G. stated that a person must "take his hands out of his pockets and accept the gift." If we put Ephesians 2:8-9 in context we read in verse 1 that the lost man is "dead in trespasses and sins."

In my 37+ years of ministry I have officiated at and attended many funerals. None of the dead persons did anything at all. None of them were able to move at all, let along lift their hands and receive a gift.

Those who are "dead in trespasses and sins" not only don't want anything to do with God, even if they did want it, they could not receive it because they are dead!

To receive that unspeakable gift we must first be made alive.

 

[The Archangel]

I do not believe it is a false caricature. The whole point of a synergistic gospel is that God does part of it and man does the rest. Even their own evangelists admit to this. I have personally heard the statement made from the pulpit, "God casts a vote, the devil casts a vote, and you cast the deciding vote." If your salvation rests on your vote did you not, then, save yourself?

The theology expressed here--by the preacher you heard--is VERY wrong. I think Quantum has spoken to this.

But, I don't think the person you've heard in your own experience is indicative of all non-Calvinists (hence the encouragement against caricature).

To paint all non-Calvinists as believing the same thing as this person or even a number of persons (less than a majority) would be the same as saying all cops are dirty because Det. So-and-so was on the take.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[quantumfaith]

So how should be refer to each other to maintain the distinction between our different positions?

If we say "Christians believe that faith precedes regeneration" then counter point that with "But Christians believe regeneration precedes faith" our entire discussion will become incomprehensible (even more so than it already is!).

How about this: Synergists verses monergists. Will that help?

Some believers believe faith precedes regeneration, while other believers believe that regeneration precedes faith. (That wasnt so hard was it?)

 

[quantumfaith]

The problem with that view is that earlier Amy G. stated that a person must "take his hands out of his pockets and accept the gift." If we put Ephesians 2:8-9 in context we read in verse 1 that the lost man is "dead in trespasses and sins."

In my 37+ years of ministry I have officiated at and attended many funerals. None of the dead persons did anything at all. None of them were able to move at all, let along lift their hands and receive a gift.

Those who are "dead in trespasses and sins" not only don't want anything to do with God, even if they did want it, they could not receive it because they are dead!

To receive that unspeakable gift we must first be made alive.

TCassidy; I respect your position, honestly I do. However, I dont see it the way you do. But I still love you, and not simply because I am commanded to, but because I choose to also.

 

[TCassidy]

TCassidy; I respect your position, honestly I do. However, I dont see it the way you do. But I still love you, and not simply because I am commanded to, but because I choose to also.

That goes without saying (or at least it should) but it doesn't really address the issue, does it?

 

[TCassidy]

To paint all non-Calvinists as believing the same thing as this person or even a number of persons (less than a majority) would be the same as saying all cops are dirty because Det. So-and-so was on the take.

Blessings,

The Archangel

But so far only two have even commented on the issue and neither of those contradicted the doctrine illustrated by the example given.

If that is not what they believe, now is the time to say so.

 

[quantumfaith]

That goes without saying (or at least it should) but it doesn't really address the issue, does it?

Well, unless we want to continue to "banter" back and forth, I would say we have both said our peace (piece)??

 

[TCassidy]

Well, unless we want to continue to "banter" back and forth, I would say we have both said our peace (piece)??

But, you see, I don't see this as mere banter. I see this as arguably the most important issue facing Christendom today.

Let me ask you a question. Did Christ need your help to save you?

 

[quantumfaith]

But, you see, I don't see this as mere banter. I see this as arguably the most important issue facing Christendom today.

Let me ask you a question. Did Christ need your help to save you?

Of course not, but he does require my faith and belief.

 

[TCassidy]

Of course not, but he does require my faith and belief.

So your answer is "no and yes?" He doesn't need your help but He has to ask your permission? And, if you are lost, how can you have faith and belief unless He has already given you a new heart of faith? Remember, "the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

So, how can you have faith and belief in that which you do not receive, consider foolishness, and can not know?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Archangel and Earth, Wind & Fire,

I know you both may believe my methodology may seem to be too confrontational or even combative, but that is not my intent.

The Gospel is the lynch-pin of all that we believe. If we lose the lynch-pin we lose all. History teaches us that, once the Gospel was compromised, way back in the 2nd century AD, the decline became so ubiquitous that only a very small remnant was left, hiding in the most remote places available to them. It was 1300 years before the main stream, visible, claimants on the name of Christendom where openly challenged resulting in the semi-reformation of the 16th century.

My greatest fear is that, as we approach the return of Christ, and sin continues to wax worse and worse, we will again lose the lynch-pin of our faith, the Gospel, and another dark age as experienced in that time of the ascendancy of the apostate "Church" of Rome will be upon us.

You may consider this to only be a diverting dalliance on a discussion board, but I believe it to be the battle for "the faith once delivered." Jude warned us of this very thing in verse 3 of his epistle, "Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints."

Some things are worth the effort.

Amen to everything your saying. Note that I have many generations of Reformed ancestors/saints who also stood for the Faith & even died for it so I'm stalwart in my beliefs, be assured. Again please stay tuned though because I know your value to the Faith. We desperately need you & Bob & Jim & Ruiz & all the other Brethren. Especially at this time. :thumbsup:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Would a term like "opponents" be a term that might be a stumblingblock? You have used that term twice now to refer to those who are not Calvinists. Do you seriously view non-cals as "opponents"? I would think that Christian or fellow believer would be a more appropriate term. I do not mean to sound rude but I see alot of harshness and venom in these threads regarding C/A and it comes from both sides. I think that it is unnecessary and wrong. We are all believers here.

I havent used it but "opponent" is a common term in debating....at least when I was on debating teams in school. Terminology though can be a stumbling block. Both Mr. Cassidy & I, for example dont like Calvinist. That congers up John Calvin & his mistakes (Infant Baptism, sacraments) so what I will throw out. If were not called Calvinists, then what do you call us....I'm up for suggestions. Then if you dont call us Calvinists then they cant go around saying they're Non-Calvinists. LOL

 

[TCassidy]

I am beginning to think that this obsession with what we call each other is an example of the first quotation in my signature line. We have allowed ourselves to be distracted by the semantics of names to the detriment of the discussion of the doctrine.

Its a good way to avoid the real discussion.