Continuation of Why Y'all Aint Calvinists thread

[Rippon]

Many (myself included) often look to Gordon Fee (Pentecostal, Assembly of God) as a resource.

I agree. He has been a wonderful gift to the Church for more than four decades. But don't tell MM --he doesn't respect Dr. Fee.

Pray for him, he has Alzheimer's Disease.

I think also what we see too often are pastors and teachers exceeding their ability. We don't have experts in one field any more, and I think scholarship has suffered. For example, 50 years ago I don't think one would even consider calling John MacArthur a "theologian". But now he is somehow an expert in theology, Greek, and textual criticism (to read his commentaries). In reality he is a gifted pastor.

That's right. It's good to agree with you here.

 

[JonC]

I believe it is a mistake to say that Calvies do not understand scripture. Nor are they illiterate. That is a broad claim and really implies that there is no part of scripture in which they get correct. That is not a fair assessment. I believe they apply some passages of scripture, namely in the gospels and the book of Romans incorrectly, but I also believe they understand scripture.

To make the claim that one does not understand scripture is to apply the whole from Genesis to Revelation. It implies that one does not understand its purpose or underlying message. This would be true of lost people but not of Christians. We should likely be more careful and succinct when making these accusations.

I understand whay you are saying, and if I intended my remarks to be applied generally to tyhe whole I would agree. I am not saying Christians lack an understanding of the gospel, but biblical illiteracy is a problem in our churches.

 

[Rippon]

I believe it is a mistake to say that Calvies

Are you aware that you are violating the rules with that term?

I believe they apply some passages of scripture, namely in the gospels and the book of Romans incorrectly,

That's a whole bunch of vital doctrine you claim we have gotten wrong.

but I also believe they understand scripture.

What's that --a left-handed compliment? It's a contradiction with what you said earlier.

 

[Revmitchell]

I understand whay you are saying, and if I intended my remarks to be applied generally to tyhe whole I would agree. I am not saying Christians lack an understanding of the gospel, but biblical illiteracy is a problem in our churches.

It is a problem but not necessarily with Calvies but across the board.

 

[JonC]

It is a problem but not necessarily with Calvies but across the board.

I agree. The difference is, IMHO, that Calvinism is more concise than many other systems. Heck, James Arminius couldn't even decide if everlasting life lasted forever.

 

[Revmitchell]

I agree. The difference is, IMHO, that Calvinism is more concise than many other systems. Heck, James Arminius couldn't even decide if everlasting life lasted forever.

I didnt say it was more concise, I said our criticism should be concise. In fact calvinism is not, in my view more concise since they redefine terms and words.

 

[JonC]

I didnt say it was more concise, I said our criticism should be concise. In fact calvinism is not, in my view more concise since they redefine terms and words.

I'm saying it's more concise, and because it is one can rest in the theology more than a less concise system where you'd be forced into Scripture.

Every point is linked to another wherr a less-than 5 point Calvinist is typically an inconsistent Calvinist.

 

[Reformed]

I don't know of any Calvinist who follows John Calvin. And I agree with you that many erroneous accusations are presented against Calvinism (in fact, I can't recall very many legitimate ones offered).

The reason that I do not use the term Monergist is that it can be misleading. For example, I believe that no one comes to God unless God Himself draws them. Men do not cooperate to get saved, but rather salvation is entirely a work of God. But I am not a Calvinist. I don't believe the flaw in Calvinism resides in its Monergism, although I do believe it flawed at its root. So you and I could come together and agree in the five points, but this is only a surface agreement. We are both Monergists. But at a deeper level we understand God's work in salvation very differently. This is the reason I choose "Calvinism", although I understand why you would not choose that term.

Surface agreement? I am not much of a surface agreement guy. We either agree or we do not. I can handle both with a smile.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Revmitchell]

I'm saying it's more concise, and because it is one can rest in the theology more than a less concise system where you'd be forced into Scripture.

Every point is linked to another wherr a less-than 5 point Calvinist is typically an inconsistent Calvinist.

so what makes less that 5 point calvies inconsistent.

 

[TCassidy]

On this forum @TCassidy and @John of Japan have proved themselves good resources,

What is interesting is that John and I differ on our understanding of Soteriology, but respect each other and don't make false accusations regarding the other. I understand John's position and respect it, and know he has defendable exegetical reasons for believing as he does, and, I hope, he believes the same of me.

The problem is not those who hold a defendable exegetical position. The problem is, on one side, the hate mongers who know virtually nothing of the Soteriology of Monergism and constantly post known falsehoods and utter nonsense, quoting "Calvinists" and demanding all Monergists walk in lockstep with the quote (usually taken out of context). They only know what they have been taught, "Calvinism bad! Calvinism bad! Calvinism bad!" And as a consequence they cannot and will not learn, but choose to remain willfully ignorant.

On the other side is our group of "Cage Calvinists." The are young, not necessarily in years but in understanding, who think that going on the attack is better than honest, calm discussion.

As Paul puts it in Romans 10:2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.

Which is why, when this thread was opened to post and discuss the verses Monergists are said to misunderstand, the first post after the OP is a childish personal attack without one word of scripture and completely off topic.

I suspect we are wasting our time and the board's band width. There will not be honest discussion. The emotional involvement of the antagonists is much too profound to allow such discussion.

 

[TCassidy]

so what makes less that 5 point calvies inconsistent.

That's a good question (except for the "calvies" slur). I see the 5 points of TULIP as being linked. If Total Depravity is not true, then Unconditional Election is not necessary for the lost person, not being totally depraved, might meet some condition of Divine election.

If the Atonement is not limited to believers (Atonement - At One Ment, the person who is At One with God because of the Atonement) then Efficacious Grace is no longer required, as all would be "At One" with God - nothing between that person and God which would limit both fellowship and relationship.

And, of course, if God's Grace is not efficacious, then there could be no security of the believer.

 

[TCassidy]

redefine terms and words.

Or we define terms and words. Before any meaningful discussion can begin we must first define terms. Failure to do so causes nothing but confusion.

 

[Revmitchell]

The other problem is with those who preten

That's a good question (except for the "calvies" slur). .

Its not a slur anymore than "dyspies" is. Certianly not intended by me. Not sure how one comes to that conclusion. Is there some history with that I am not aware of?

 

[Revmitchell]

Or we define terms and words. Before any meaningful discussion can begin we must first define terms. Failure to do so causes nothing but confusion.

I agree, and we often talk past each other in these debates because of differing understanding of words and phrases that never get addressed.

 

[TCassidy]

biblical illiteracy is a problem in our churches.

By that do you mean "people who disagree with me?" That seemed to be the case in the long, drawn out discussions of Penal Substitution.

 

[TCassidy]

Its not a slur anymore than "dyspies" is.

Even though I am not a Dispensationalist (or at best a minimalist Dispensationalist, Old, New, and Kingdom) you have never seen me use that term. Using such terms are a way of dismissing or marginalizing the position before the discussion has a chance to begin.

Certianly not intended by me.

I am not the only person in the thread who took exception to the term.

 

[JonC]

Surface agreement? I am not much of a surface agreement guy. We either agree or we do not. I can handle both with a smile.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

The reason that I say that we agree on the surface is because I believe that we both agree that men are depraved (we are "turned away from God" by nature), that God elects men for His own glory and not for any merit in those saved, that Jesus died to save only the elect, that God's will in salvation is going to be accomplished, and that the elect will persevere to final salvation (we can't lose our salvation). If this is true, then we do have a lot in common and areas of agreement. But we don't get there the same way.

 

[TCassidy]

But we don't get there the same way.

How do you get there?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I agree. He has been a wonderful gift to the Church for more than four decades. But don't tell MM --he doesn't respect Dr. Fee.

Pray for him, he has Alzheimer's Disease.

I'm not quite sure if it's Fee or myself that Rippon is asking prayer for!
If it's Gordon Fee, I'm very sorry to hear this. I know enough people who have the disease to know how terrible it is.
However, I do not care for his work. Like N.T. Wright he is the more dangerous to the unsuspecting reader because he is so often right.

 

[Revmitchell]

Even though I am not a Dispensationalist (or at best a minimalist Dispensationalist, Old, New, and Kingdom) you have never seen me use that term. Using such terms are a way of dismissing or marginalizing the position before the discussion has a chance to begin.

I am not the only person in the thread who took exception to the term.

Not to be difficult but that is a bit paranoid. Its just shorthand if you will. Also I never understood that to be a marginalization tool when it comes to the term "dyspy" maybe Im not very observant.