Calvinism vs. DoG??

[quantumfaith]

Uh, no. That was my whole point!Denial of the label "self-salvationist."Exactly my point. But rather than just ignoring the discussion you chose to engage me in conversation. That was the goal.

OK, I am totally confused now, but that happens often. Perhaps we will engage again sometime in the future.

 

[The Archangel]

You sure have that backwards. Calvinism is not offensive and describes the belief; the term the doctrines of grace is offensive to many Non-Calvinists.

Using the term the doctrines of grace to describe Calvinism compared to Non-Calvinists, implies that Non-Calvinists do not believe in God's grace. All Christians believe in God's grace. Christians do not appreciate having their belief misrepresented, which results in much resentment and rejection.

Instead of the term the doctrines of grace, why not be more descriptive by using unconditional election and irresistible grace?

I've never heard this before.

I know of no one else who has bristled at the term "Doctrines of Grace" the way you are doing here. To use "Doctrines of Grace" (DoG) does not necessarily imply that all others do not believe in God's grace. Obviously, you have taken it that way and I'll venture to say that you are in the vast minority in this.

It does not misrepresent the "Arminian" position. We know that Arminians also believe in salvation by grace alone. We Calvinists see a disconnect between what is said (salvation by grace alone) and what is described as the process (for lack of a better term). But, that does not mean that in raising objections to the stated Arminian theology that we are necessarily saying "you don't believe in salvation by grace." Sadly, our questions are taken that way. Even more sadly, many Calvinists accuse in this way. And...accusations are thrown at Calvinists too, so the "sadness" and the "more sadness" of these actions occur on both sides of the debate.

In any event, perhaps it best to refer to Calvinists as "Monergists" and Arminians as "Synergists."

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[TCassidy]

OK, I am totally confused now, but that happens often. Perhaps we will engage again sometime in the future.

I certainly hope so.

I did not use terms such as "Calvinist" or "Arminian" for the very reason that those two terms usually result in little or now actual discourse. However, by using the terms "self-salvationist" - well, the very term begs the question, doesn't it? I draws people into the discussion. It is designed to be provocative. See? There really is some method in my madness.

 

[psalms109:31]

Self-salvationist

The only one who can claim self-salvationist, is the one who has never sinned. They are self-righteous, because all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God and there is none righteous, not one. No matter if you claim that you trusting in Jesus didn't come from you or not, you are still depending on Christ and His word for your salvation not your self.

 

[TCassidy]

The only one who can claim self-salvationist, is the one who has never sinned. They are self-righteous, because all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God and there is none righteous, not one .No matter if you claim that you trusting in Jesus didn't come from you or not, we are still depending on Christ and His word for your salvation not your self.

I think you may have missed the point. We are talking about soteriological monergism as contrasted to soteriological synergism.

 

[psalms109:31]

I think you may have missed the point. We are talking about soteriological monergism as contrasted to soteriological synergism.

I do not believe to much into reconciliation of scripture or belief system. To many try to reconcile truth out of scripture that doesn't agree with their doctrine. What was said is what I have gotten from not doing so.

 

[TCassidy]

I do not believe to much into reconciliation of scripture or belief system. To many try to reconcile truth out of scripture that doesn't agree with their doctrine. What was said is what I have gotten from not doing so.

I am sorry but that makes absolutely no sense. May I assume that English is a second language?

 

[zrs6v4]

The question I have is this: What are the differences in these two theologies? I read a post that someone stated that Calvinism could lead to an elitist attitude, whereas DoG leads to a humble Christian. Every thing I have look at for Calvinism, it says "also referred to as DoG", and when I look up DoG, it says, "also referred to as Calvinism". So what seperates the two from each other? I am trluy curious, because coming from someone who holds to FW, I don't know the differences. Please explain the differences for me. Thanks in advance!!:thumbs::thumbs:

Definitions are tricky these days. Jesus name means a million different things in the hands of the world, grace is defined many ways, and so forth.

As for the question; Generally speaking Calvinist and DoG are synonomous unless someone gets picky and breaks these labels down. When I use them to show my belief system to save hours of explaining I mean them generally although I do not hold with to all views of Calvin. I was reading the other day and read that to truly call yourself "reformed" you must also hold to infant baptism and so forth. Yet, people will call themselves reformed to describe their soteriology, generally speaking .

Hope that helps!

PS. I wish these theological debate forums would spend more time with exegesis in the debates rather than throwing passages around by the bundles. We ought to pick one and stay there, then move to the next. I believe it would be great but impossible!

 

[SimpleMan]

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.

No, we are not dead. Go all the way back to the beginning, God himself breathed life into man.
Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostril the breath of life;and man became a living soul.
Even later on in Genesis when Adam and Eve (of their own "free will" made a decision to defy God's commandment, God still did not remove that living soul that He had placed in them. He still loved them, but there were consequences for their bad decision making. Why didn't God make them stay away from the tree. He could have. He wanted them to make their own decisions and to love Him wholeheartedly and of their own accord, not because He forced them to obey and love him.

We must first be made aware that we are lost and going to Hell if we don't accept the gift of salvation. We learn that we are lost through conviction not regeneration. Regeneration comes later if and when we accept Christ into our lives. People are dead in their sins and trespasses because 1) they have not been convicted, yet or 2) They have been convicted of their lost condition and have chosen not to accept Christ's gift of salvation. I believe Paul's use of the word "dead" was a metaphor for "loss of hope" and being "spiritually dead". At that point, they still have a living soul, that is headed towards hell. After we are convicted and we are aware that we have a Heaven to gain and a hell to shun, then the choice is ours. That's what's so great about what Jesus did for each and every one of us. He suffered and died on the Cross knowing good and well that not everone was going to accept His sacrifice and recieve His gift of salvation, but He still did it anyways.
Just like any gift, the recipient can either accept it or reject it. Someone had to pay a price for the gift and the gift is presented to the recipient. At that point, the recipient can either accept the gift and appreciate and cherish the gift or they can put it in a closet and forget about it, outright refuse it, or accept it and then get rid of it because it's not what they really wanted. Once the gift has been presented, then I'm the one that has the decision to make. But like any decision that we make, there are consequences, both good and bad. If I make the wrong decision and refuse the gift, then I'll have to pay the price with my soul and a eternity in torment. If I make the right choice and accept the gift, then the price has already been paid, and I'll reap the benefits of Christ's sacrifice and I'll get to spend eternity in Heaven with my Savior. God gave us all free will to make our own choices, good and bad. If he chose everything for us, all He would have is a bunch of mindless robots. Sometimes, I think that would be better. Then I would always make the right decision. It would be much easier if God was controlling my each and every move. But that's not how He set it up. He wants us to choose to love him and accept his gift. Just like all the disciples, they each one had a choice to make when Christ asked them to follow Him. They could either follow Him or stay right where they where at and remain in there present condition. Judas followed and accepted Christ's offer just like the other disciples, but because of "free will", he made the choice to betray Christ and turn his back on Him. His choice had a immediate and, I believe, eternal consequence of damnation.
God Bless.

 

[convicted1]

No, we are not dead. Go all the way back to the beginning, God himself breathed life into man.
Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostril the breath of life;and man became a living soul.
Even later on in Genesis when Adam and Eve (of their own "free will" made a decision to defy God's commandment, God still did not remove that living soul that He had placed in them. He still loved them, but there were consequences for their bad decision making. Why didn't God make them stay away from the tree. He could have. He wanted them to make their own decisions and to love Him wholeheartedly and of their own accord, not because He forced them to obey and love him.

We must first be made aware that we are lost and going to Hell if we don't accept the gift of salvation. We learn that we are lost through conviction not regeneration. Regeneration comes later if and when we accept Christ into our lives. People are dead in their sins and trespasses because 1) they have not been convicted, yet or 2) They have been convicted of their lost condition and have chosen not to accept Christ's gift of salvation. I believe Paul's use of the word "dead" was a metaphor for "loss of hope" and being "spiritually dead". At that point, they still have a living soul, that is headed towards hell. After we are convicted and we are aware that we have a Heaven to gain and a hell to shun, then the choice is ours. That's what's so great about what Jesus did for each and every one of us. He suffered and died on the Cross knowing good and well that not everone was going to accept His sacrifice and recieve His gift of salvation, but He still did it anyways.
Just like any gift, the recipient can either accept it or reject it. Someone had to pay a price for the gift and the gift is presented to the recipient. At that point, the recipient can either accept the gift and appreciate and cherish the gift or they can put it in a closet and forget about it, outright refuse it, or accept it and then get rid of it because it's not what they really wanted. Once the gift has been presented, then I'm the one that has the decision to make. But like any decision that we make, there are consequences, both good and bad. If I make the wrong decision and refuse the gift, then I'll have to pay the price with my soul and a eternity in torment. If I make the right choice and accept the gift, then the price has already been paid, and I'll reap the benefits of Christ's sacrifice and I'll get to spend eternity in Heaven with my Savior. God gave us all free will to make our own choices, good and bad. If he chose everything for us, all He would have is a bunch of mindless robots. Sometimes, I think that would be better. Then I would always make the right decision. It would be much easier if God was controlling my each and every move. But that's not how He set it up. He wants us to choose to love him and accept his gift. Just like all the disciples, they each one had a choice to make when Christ asked them to follow Him. They could either follow Him or stay right where they where at and remain in there present condition. Judas followed and accepted Christ's offer just like the other disciples, but because of "free will", he made the choice to betray Christ and turn his back on Him. His choice had a immediate and, I believe, eternal consequence of damnation.
God Bless.

Friend,

You just opened a big ole can of worms in here!! This is a "dog-eat-dog" thread....I hope you don't have on "milkbone underwear"....LOL Just kidding Brother!! Welcome to BB!!

i am I am's!!

Willis

 

[zrs6v4]

Judas followed and accepted Christ's offer just like the other disciples, but because of "free will", he made the choice to betray Christ and turn his back on Him. His choice had a immediate and, I believe, eternal consequence of damnation.
God Bless.

Hey, welcome to the boards :thumbs:

I first want to say that the issue you are debating is very complex and not so simple as we desire it to be. This isn't a bad thing because it gives us stuff to chew on as we grow in the understanding of our Lord.

I grabbed your comment about Judas because I just posted about him in another thread. I want you to read these Scriptures written about Judas and chew on them for awhile. Think about what each verse is saying and write it down one at a time, then put it all together. I encourage that you read the context if you have the time.

John 6:64 “But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him."

John 6:70 "Jesus answered them, “Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?”
John 6:71 "Now He meant Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was going to betray Him."

John 13:2 "During supper, the devil having already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray Him"

John 13:11 "For He knew the one who was betraying Him; for this reason He said, “Not all of you are clean.”

John 13:18 “I do not speak of all of you. I know the ones I have chosen; but it is that the Scripture may be fulfilled, ‘HE WHO EATS MY BREAD HAS LIFTED UP HIS HEEL AGAINST ME.’

John 13:26 "Jesus then answered, “That is the one for whom I shall dip the morsel and give it to him.” So when He had dipped the morsel, He took and gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot."

John 13:27 "After the morsel, Satan then entered into him. Therefore Jesus said to him, “What you do, do quickly.”

John 17:12 "While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not 1one1 of them perished but the son of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled."

Now after 17:12 ^ read and think it through John 6:35-40 .

 

[kyredneck]

...... Just like all the disciples, they each one had a choice to make when Christ asked them to follow Him. They could either follow Him or stay right where they where at and remain in there present condition. Judas followed and accepted Christ's offer just like the other disciples, but because of "free will", he made the choice to betray Christ and turn his back on Him. His choice had a immediate and, I believe, eternal consequence of damnation.
God Bless.

Ye did not choose me, but I chose you, and appointed you...Jn 15:16

Jesus answered them, Did not I choose you the twelve, and one of you is a devil? Jn 6:70

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Ye did not choose me, but I chose you, and appointed you...Jn 15:16

Jesus answered them, Did not I choose you the twelve, and one of you is a devil? Jn 6:70

Great scriptural response Brother! :thumbs:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

No, my intention was not shouting, but yes it was intended to be emphasized brother.

Q... Thats why I asked. Thanks:love2:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You sure have that backwards. Calvinism is not offensive and describes the belief; the term the doctrines of grace is offensive to many Non-Calvinists.

Using the term the doctrines of grace to describe Calvinism compared to Non-Calvinists, implies that Non-Calvinists do not believe in God's grace. All Christians believe in God's grace. Christians do not appreciate having their belief misrepresented, which results in much resentment and rejection.

Instead of the term the doctrines of grace, why not be more descriptive by using unconditional election and irresistible grace?

D, then you can appreciate how it can go both ways. I cant tell you how many folks I know who have misinterpreted my faith values & theology. Besides the Doctrines Of Grace have been doctrines for quite some time & nobody is going to change that title to appease anyone. They stand as doctrines to represent Reformed Theology. Period.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I've never heard this before.

I know of no one else who has bristled at the term "Doctrines of Grace" the way you are doing here. To use "Doctrines of Grace" (DoG) does not necessarily imply that all others do not believe in God's grace. Obviously, you have taken it that way and I'll venture to say that you are in the vast minority in this.

It does not misrepresent the "Arminian" position. We know that Arminians also believe in salvation by grace alone. We Calvinists see a disconnect between what is said (salvation by grace alone) and what is described as the process (for lack of a better term). But, that does not mean that in raising objections to the stated Arminian theology that we are necessarily saying "you don't believe in salvation by grace." Sadly, our questions are taken that way. Even more sadly, many Calvinists accuse in this way. And...accusations are thrown at Calvinists too, so the "sadness" and the "more sadness" of these actions occur on both sides of the debate.

In any event, perhaps it best to refer to Calvinists as "Monergists" and Arminians as "Synergists."

Blessings,

The Archangel

The sadness here Archangel is when I have Brothers in Christ who make statements that Reformed Theology is not Pauline in its origins. These folks are,unfortunately, disconnected.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Friend,

You just opened a big ole can of worms in here!! This is a "dog-eat-dog" thread....I hope you don't have on "milkbone underwear"....LOL Just kidding Brother!! Welcome to BB!!

i am I am's!!

Willis

Willis, He is just explaining his prospective. However some in here have already indicated that his prospective runs counter to both scriptural interpretation & sometimes personal salvation stories. The second portion of my own statement is what anchors me to Reformed Doctrine more than anything. The live experience takes a person from theory to reality.

 

[webdog]

I think you may have missed the point. We are talking about soteriological monergism as contrasted to soteriological synergism.

Scripture does not teach an "either / or" as you do but "both".

 

[Luke2427]

Scripture does not teach an "either / or" as you do but "both".

Scripture teaches salvation is BOTH monergistic AND synergistic???

Salvation is both ALL of God and some of man at the same time.

That is like saying water is dry.

 

[webdog]

Scripture teaches salvation is BOTH monergistic AND synergistic???

Salvation is both ALL of God and some of man at the same time.

That is like saying water is dry.

No, it's not like saying that at all...it's like you saying that.

So in your "either / or" scenario...what is reprobation? Is it all God, or all man?