Can we conclude that Calvinism is a relatively NEW doctrine?

[Cypress]

Many have mistaken or over embellished the teachings and speculative writings of the ECF's on this subject in order to label and dismiss their views on all matters, but even Augustine, the hero of many didn't take this approach:

There are very many in our day, who though not denying the Holy Scriptures, do not believe in endless torments. -- Augustine (354-430 A.D.)

In this day too!:thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Aaron]

Since my conclusion is the same as that of Lorraine Boettner, can we conclude you believe the same about his assessment . . .

I'm not concerned with Lorraine Boettner. I and others pointed out how you wrested the Hodge's words not too long ago in an attempt paint your unconventional and somewhat pagan notions concerning election a certain color of orthodoxy. I could do the same here, but 1) it requires reading volumes of a particular author in which I am not interested to gain a genuine understanding of his frame of mind and the stages of his development as a theologian, and 2) it appears someone has beat me to the punch.

In the same vein, to understanding the teaching of the church fathers is a lifelong discipline. Anyone can do online searches wrench blurbs from their contexts to support just about any heresy. It appears you're being taken to task on that one too.

Misrepresent much? There is not a single scholarly Baptist of which I'm aware who doesn't affirm that God must draw or 'enable' men to come. And their is certainly not any, even the most "pelagian" among them, who would say that man draws himself.

Depends upon whether one is utilizing the connotations intended by the biblical authors, or reading his own definitions into the terms.

You are only discrediting yourself which such statements, Aaron. If you want people here to take your posts seriously you need to respond as if you have some grasp of the position you presume to oppose. Clearly, you do not.

Keep telling yourself that. In my usual manner, I go to the Scriptures.

 

[Skandelon]

I'm not concerned with Lorraine Boettner.

I wouldn't expect that you would be unless he was complete agreement with you on all matters.

I and others pointed out how you wrested the Hodge's words not too long ago in an attempt paint your unconventional and somewhat pagan notions concerning election a certain color of orthodoxy.

Do you mean when I showed the historical split in the Calvinistic camp over the different approaches to the doctrine of atonement, which is well documented and known by anyone who has any formal education on the subject? You are only revealing your own lack of objectivity and education Aaron.

I could do the same here, but 1) it requires reading

No, we can't have that. :laugh:

Keep telling yourself that. In my usual manner, I go to the Scriptures.

Well then, let's hope you start reading the scriptures with more discernment than you read the clear and obvious intent of the ECF's. I'm not counting on it.

 

[Skandelon]

In all honesty Skandelon you have presented the essence of your discussion and the discussion of most "freewill" folks on this Forum: Freewill good, Sovereignty of God bad!

Sovereignty defined by Calvinists = God must play both sides of the Chess board to ensure his victory.

True Biblical Sovereignty = God is so powerful, mightly, wise and good that he is able to conquer any free moral creature, regardless of his FREE sinful choices, and accomplish His purposes in, through and despite the FREE choices of his creation.

 

[Iconoclast]

I'm not concerned with Lorraine Boettner. I and others pointed out how you wrested the Hodge's words not too long ago in an attempt paint your unconventional and somewhat pagan notions concerning election a certain color of orthodoxy. I could do the same here, but 1) it requires reading volumes of a particular author in which I am not interested to gain a genuine understanding of his frame of mind and the stages of his development as a theologian, and 2) it appears someone has beat me to the punch.

In the same vein, to understanding the teaching of the church fathers is a lifelong discipline. Anyone can do online searches wrench blurbs from their contexts to support just about any heresy. It appears you're being taken to task on that one too.

Depends upon whether one is utilizing the connotations intended by the biblical authors, or reading his own definitions into the terms.

Keep telling yourself that. In my usual manner, I go to the Scriptures.

You have am ability to weed through this assault and expose it.It is the fact that you are grounded and settled in the scripture that enables you to see clearly on this and offer help and correction to this free moral agent who can seek the truth you offer. Thank you for another good post brother:thumbsup::wavey::thumbs:

 

[Yeshua1]

Sovereignty defined by Calvinists = God must play both sides of the Chess board to ensure his victory.

True Biblical Sovereignty = God is so powerful, mightly, wise and good that he is able to conquer any free moral creature, regardless of his FREE sinful choices, and accomplish His purposes in, through and despite the FREE choices of his creation.

Nope, nice try to 'force' your viewinto that issue!

Biblical concept is that God , knowing that ALL humans born are sinner by both nature and wills, has decided to show his good pleasure to actively chose out from ALL deserving hell, some to be saved, to His glory and praiase, and allows the rest to do and go where they desire too!

 

[MB]

Nope, nice try to 'force' your viewinto that issue!

Biblical concept is that God , knowing that ALL humans born are sinner by both nature and wills, has decided to show his good pleasure to actively chose out from ALL deserving hell, some to be saved, to His glory and praiase, and allows the rest to do and go where they desire too!

Well now that can't be Calvinism. No one desires to go to hell. If God allows men to go where they desire (which is conditionaly true) it would stand to reason God doesn't send men to hell and that they send them selves there. This implies a freewill choice. Looks like your beginning to see the light.:smilewinkgrin:
MB

 

[Yeshua1]

Well now that can't be Calvinism. No one desires to go to hell. If God allows men to go where they desire (which is conditionaly true) it would stand to reason God doesn't send men to hell and that they send them selves there. This implies a freewill choice. Looks like your beginning to see the light.:smilewinkgrin:
MB

we NEVER denied man has SOME will of his own, its justthat manking is limited by having sin natures to what they can "freely decide" to do, and coming to jesus to get saved NOT one of them able to do on their own!

 

[OldRegular]

Sovereignty defined by Calvinists = God must play both sides of the Chess board to ensure his victory.

True Biblical Sovereignty = God is so powerful, mightly, wise and good that he is able to conquer any free moral creature, regardless of his FREE sinful choices, and accomplish His purposes in, through and despite the FREE choices of his creation.

I understand there is no Scripture supporting your obviously false definition of Sovereignty as defined by Calvinists but certainly you can support your so-called Biblical definition with Scripture! Can't you? Or are you simply bloviating?


Skandelon: You apparently believe all people are free moral creatures and that

God is so powerful, mightly, wise and good that he is able to conquer any free moral creature, regardless of his FREE sinful choices, and accomplish His purposes in, through and despite the FREE choices of his creation.

1. Then why is that all people are not saved.

2. Why is it that you are one of the few among all free moral creatures whom God is able to "conquer"?

3. Why you and not all? Why some and not others? I have yet to get a "freewiller" to answer that question.

4. Is it possible you are incorrect and not all persons are free moral agents?

5. Is it possible that you are completely incorrect and that no person is a free moral agent.

6. Does God choose to save some and leave others in their sins. I believe that is called unconditional election as asserted in the Doctrines of Grace.

 

[quantumfaith]

Sovereignty defined by Calvinists = God must play both sides of the Chess board to ensure his victory.

True Biblical Sovereignty = God is so powerful, mightly, wise and good that he is able to conquer any free moral creature, regardless of his FREE sinful choices, and accomplish His purposes in, through and despite the FREE choices of his creation.

Major Kudos!!!!!

 

[quantumfaith]

Sovereignty defined by Calvinists = God must play both sides of the Chess board to ensure his victory.

True Biblical Sovereignty = God is so powerful, mightly, wise and good that he is able to conquer any free moral creature, regardless of his FREE sinful choices, and accomplish His purposes in, through and despite the FREE choices of his creation.

"It is the fact that you are grounded and settled in the scripture that enables you to see clearly on this and offer help and correction to this free moral agent who can seek the truth you offer. Thank you for another good post brother."

 

[OldRegular]

Sovereignty defined by Calvinists = God must play both sides of the Chess board to ensure his victory.

True Biblical Sovereignty = God is so powerful, mightly, wise and good that he is able to conquer any free moral creature, regardless of his FREE sinful choices, and accomplish His purposes in, through and despite the FREE choices of his creation.

Gee Skandelon, I apologize. I believe that I missed something in my hurried response to the above definitions by you. You say after incorrectly defining Calvinism {but that is Okay since I am not a Calvinist}, you say and I quote;

God is so powerful, mightly, wise and good that he is able to conquer any free moral creature, regardless of his FREE sinful choices, and accomplish His purposes in, through and despite the FREE choices of his creation.

I really don't want to put words in your mouth or thoughts in your mind {you are a fgree moral agent and were before God saved you of course} but your above statement? There is something there, perhaps cleverly hid but! I do declare Skandelon, that sounds almost like Irresistible Grace. Lets read that again. I am gouig to quote your exact words Skandelon. Don't want to miss anything.

True Biblical Sovereignty = God is so powerful, mightly, wise and good that he is able to conquer any free moral creature, regardless of his FREE sinful choices, and accomplish His purposes in, through and despite the FREE choices of his creation.

I got it now:

God is able to conquer any free moral creature, regardless of his FREE sinful choices.

There it is folks: Irresistible Grace! Grace because

God is so powerful, mightly, wise and good

and Irresistible because

he is able to conquer any free moral creature

Regardless of the free sinful choices of this free moral agent God is able to CONQUER! Whoopee! Irresistible Grace. I never liked that term but Good old Skandelon has defined it so well that I can almost embrace it. God CONQUERS all. So in that one little definition Skandelon shows us Unconditional Election {earlier response please} and Irresistible Grace!

 

[Aaron]

Sovereignty defined by Calvinists = God must play both sides of the Chess board to ensure his victory.

Correction:

God created chess, the chessboard and the players. How was His victory ever in question?

True Biblical Sovereignty [per Scandal] = God is so powerful, mightly, wise and good that he is able to conquer any free moral creature, regardless of his FREE sinful choices, and accomplish His purposes in, through and despite the FREE choices of his creation.

EXCEPT for His purposes to redeem the ones who freely reject Him. It doesn't matter how you slice it, dude. Man is the sovereign in your economy.

 

[Skandelon]

I got it now: There it is folks: Irresistible Grace! Grace because and Irresistible because Regardless of the free sinful choices of this free moral agent God is able to CONQUER! Whoopee! Irresistible Grace. I never liked that term but Good old Skandelon has defined it so well that I can almost embrace it. God CONQUERS all. So in that one little definition Skandelon shows us Unconditional Election {earlier response please} and Irresistible Grace!

Brother, you are not following my argument. No one is denying God's power or ability to overtake our wills. If God wanted to blind everyone on while walking on a road (like Paul) or use a storm and a big fish to convince them all to believe (like Jonah) he could. He could show up to everyone's door step and show them his nail scared hand (like Thomas), but he doesn't do that....'blessed are they who don't see but still believe.' He desires for men to follow Him by faith.

BTW, proof that God uses outward means to convince his messengers (blinding lights/big fish) is not proof that God uses inward irresistible means to make certain individuals to believe their message.

The point I was making regarding the SOVEREIGNTY of God and how it is defined. Is it:

God decreeing/ordaining all things before they occur so as to accomplish his purpose.

OR

God accomplishing his ultimate purposes in, through and despite all sinful and unholy things?​

I think the latter is much more impressive and a much greater display of His Sovereign abilities.

 

[Skandelon]

Correction:

God created chess, the chessboard and the players. How was His victory ever in question?

And he must have created me just as I am, determining for me to call you out on your errors. :laugh:

Check mate.

EXCEPT for His purposes to redeem the ones who freely reject Him.

Listen carefully Aaron. God's purpose is not to save them regardless of their willingness to be save. His purpose is to save the willing...those who freely come to him for healing. It is short-sighted and fallacious to think in our view God is attempting to irresistibly save people and just can't do it because they don't want to, as we don't believe God's plan is to irresistibly cause people to worship him. That is reserved for the rocks if no man wills to worship.

It doesn't matter how you slice it, dude. Man is the sovereign in your economy.

And I suppose if you ever allow your children make any independent choices, without you stepping in to ensure your way is always accomplished, then you would be giving up your spiritual headship as the father, right? Granting freedom is not giving up Sovereignty, no matter how you slice it.

 

[Aaron]

His purpose is to save the willing...those who freely come to him for healing.

Yes, those who can see better and hear better than others. One has to have some kind of merit to be saved.

You just keep flip-flopping on the same old fallacies. But then, there is nothing new under the sun.

 

[Skandelon]

1. Then why is that all people are not saved.

Just because I affirm God's power over man's will doesn't mean I'm affirming that God overpower's man's will. I have the power to physically force my daughter to obey, but I may choose to allow her to make a decision without the use of force and let her suffer the consequences. That choice on my part doesn't lesson my strength.

2. Why is it that you are one of the few among all free moral creatures whom God is able to "conquer"?

Huh? You act as if we believe God is trying to irresistibly conquer man's will but can't, that is not our view. See post to Aaron above.

3. Why you and not all? Why some and not others? I have yet to get a "freewiller" to answer that question.

Free will. You seem to be asking what determined man's free choice, which assumes a deterministic response is necessary. Glad, I could finally answer that one for you.

4. Is it possible you are incorrect and not all persons are free moral agents?

Yes, it is possible but the very fact that I don't believe it is true and others do believe it is true goes to support my view of freedom, otherwise you have God determining some of his children to believe lies and others to believe truth.

6. Does God choose to save some and leave others in their sins. I believe that is called unconditional election as asserted in the Doctrines of Grace.

God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. He bound all men over to disobedience (original sin) so as to show mercy to them all. If anyone perishes it is only because they refused to accept the truth and so be saved. It is not because God didn't love them, provide for them or call them to reconciliation.

 

[Iconoclast]

"It is the fact that you are grounded and settled in the scripture that enables you to see clearly on this and offer help and correction to this free moral agent who can seek the truth you offer. Thank you for another good post brother."

You liked Aarons response also....:laugh::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[OldRegular]

Brother, you are not following my argument.

To the contrary believe I followed your argument very well. I believe you were hoisted by your own petard.

Using your definition of Sovereignty believe I showed either universal salvation or unconditional election. Then using that same definition I showed Irresistible Grace.

Following is your definition of Sovereignty. I take the liberty of emphasis!

True Biblical Sovereignty = God is so powerful, mightly, wise and good that he is able to conquer any free moral creature, regardless of his FREE sinful choices, and accomplish His purposes in, through and despite the FREE choices of his creation.[/QUOTE]

Frankly you did good!

 

[saturneptune]

Just because I affirm God's power over man's will doesn't mean I'm affirming that God overpower's man's will.

The picture you paint of the Creator of the Universe and our Savior is that of an indecisive, weak leader.

God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. He bound all men over to disobedience (original sin) so as to show mercy to them all. If anyone perishes it is only because they refused to accept the truth and so be saved. It is not because God didn't love them, provide for them or call them to reconciliation.

God was not in Christ, Christ is God. If anyone perishes it was God's will. In all of your posts you have never explained how someone can reject the truth that never heard the Gospel, since faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.