Continuation of Why Y'all Aint Calvinists thread

[JonC]

so what makes less that 5 point calvies inconsistent.

Each point builds on the other. If men are totally depraved (nothing in man that merits salvation) then they are saved independent of themselves. God choses them apart from their fallen nature / corruptable will. If this is true then God's grace will prevail over man's stubborn will. It is to save these people, those who are given by God to Christ that Jesus died. Jesus did not die to save those who will not believe. If salvation is a work of God then it will be accomplished, regardless of human will.

What point do you believe can be changed to an opposing view without altering the consistency in the Calvinistic argument?

 

[JonC]

How do you get there?

I believe that the heart of man is wicked, that not one of us will seek after righteousness, which means that no one can come to the Son except the Father draw him. So Jesus died, then, to save those the Father draws (to save those who believe). Those God draws will come (God’s purposes will be accomplished), and those who believe will have everlasting life.

 

[JonC]

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.

No, not at all.

Like you I believe that I am right in what I believe. If thought I was wrong and you right, then I'd change my belief and we'd agree.

The case in the long, drawn out discussion of Penal Substitution is a good example. I respect men (like Piper, Wright, Sproul, Beeke, etc) who, although differing in interpretation, are biblical in their approach. But these men acknowledge what is of Scripture and what is not (they seem to be able to identify what is their understanding and what is the actual biblical text). This is different from claiming that at every turn God chose to imply, rather than have written down, such a vital doctrine.

That said, I do not have much patience with dishonesty, and that is what we often see in these types of discussions. One side pulls out quotes and misapplies them to suit their agenda. We saw this in the Penal Substitution thread and we see it in accusations against Calvinists.

So when I say "biblical illiteracy" I mean things like saying "forsake" in Psalm 52 has the exact meaning of God abandoned Jesus not to the Cross but while He was on it. I mean reading "dying he died" to mean, because of the grammar, that Adam died twice - an immediate spiritual death followed by a physical death. We have to be able to distinguish between our interpretation and what is really written, while holding our interpretation as true.

 

[Revmitchell]

Each point builds on the other. If men are totally depraved (nothing in man that merits salvation) then they are saved independent of themselves.

God choses them apart from their fallen nature / corruptable will. If this is true then God's grace will prevail over man's stubborn will

I don't know what this means.

It is to save these people, those who are given by God to Christ that Jesus died. Jesus did not die to save those who will not believe. If salvation is a work of God then it will be accomplished, regardless of human will.

What point do you believe can be changed to an opposing view without altering the consistency in the Calvinistic argument?[/QUOTE]

This does not explain the "inconsistencies".

 

[Revmitchell]

No, not at all.

Like you I believe that I am right in what I believe. If thought I was wrong and you right, then I'd change my belief and we'd agree.

The case in the long, drawn out discussion of Penal Substitution is a good example. I respect men (like Piper, Wright, Sproul, Beeke, etc) who, although differing in interpretation, are biblical in their approach. But these men acknowledge what is of Scripture and what is not (they seem to be able to identify what is their understanding and what is the actual biblical text). This is different from claiming that at every turn God chose to imply, rather than have written down, such a vital doctrine.

That said, I do not have much patience with dishonesty, and that is what we often see in these types of discussions. One side pulls out quotes and misapplies them to suit their agenda. We saw this in the Penal Substitution thread and we see it in accusations against Calvinists.

We see it in accusations against those who are not Calvinists more frequently and with much vehemence.

 

[JonC]

I don't know what this means.

It means that Total Depravity necessitates Unconditional Election.

This does not explain the "inconsistencies".

If Total Depravity necessitates Unconditional Election (and within Calvinism it does) then to reject one but hold the other is inconsistent to Calvinism.

We see it in accusations against those who are not Calvinists more frequently and with much vehemence.

Perhaps. I've seen the tide change a few times, but the "young, restless, and Reformed" can be a pretty nasty bunch. I think it's because many have been exposed to shallow doctrine for a long time before becoming Calvinists.

 

[TCassidy]

I believe that the heart of man is wicked, that not one of us will seek after righteousness, which means that no one can come to the Son except the Father draw him. So Jesus died, then, to save those the Father draws (to save those who believe). Those God draws will come (God’s purposes will be accomplished), and those who believe will have everlasting life.

How does the above differ from classic Monergism? Did I miss something?

 

[Revmitchell]

Perhaps. I've seen the tide change a few times, but the "young, restless, and Reformed" can be a pretty nasty bunch. I think it's because many have been exposed to shallow doctrine for a long time before becoming Calvinists.

That is an excuse and not a very good one. People are nasty because it is their heart to be that way and no other reason.

 

[JonC]

How does the above differ from classic Monergism? Did I miss something?

No. In my view it doesn't differ at all. My view is Monergism, but my disagreement with Penal Substitution is enough that I would not consider myself a Calvinist. The way we would look at the Cross is different enough, I believe, to warrant the distinction regardless of our ultimate conclusions.

 

[Revmitchell]

No. In my view it doesn't differ at all. My view is Monergism, but my disagreement with Penal Substitution is enough that I would not consider myself a Calvinist. The way we would look at the Cross is different enough, I believe, to warrant the distinction regardless of our ultimate conclusions.

No such thing as monergism. It is a made up word by Calvies. Everyone is a synergist in one form or another.

 

[JonC]

No such thing as monergism. It is a made up word by Calvies. Everyone is a synergist in one form or another.

Monergism - the theological doctrine that regeneration is exclusively the work of the Holy Spirit Definition of MONERGISM

the doctrine that the Holy Ghost acts independently of the human will in the work of regeneration. the definition of monergism

noun, the Christian doctrine that the Holy Spirit alone is responsible for the spiritual regeneration of human beings Monergism definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Collins English Dictionary cites it's first use in 1889 (whereas it traces the word "synergism" to 1819).

synergism - the interaction or cooperation of two or more organizations, substances, or other agents to produce a combined effect greater than the sum of their separate effects.

 

[TCassidy]

I think it's because many have been exposed to shallow doctrine for a long time before becoming Calvinists.

I think you may have put your finger squarely on the problem. Evangelicalism is slowly, but finally, coming out of the darkness of anti-intellectualism which engulfed it (probably as a response to the encroaching Modernism of the early decades of the 20th century) and seeing the advantages of learning the biblical languages, and reading the creeds and confessions of historic Christendom.

For all too long, "ignorance is bliss" seems to have been the watchword of all too much of Evangelicalism, and especially Baptist Evangelicalism. During that time, as a response to the well educated Theological Liberals who were taking over our colleges and seminaries, much of the rank and file sitting in the church pews reverted to a modern reiteration of the extreme Fideism ("the exclusive reliance upon faith alone, and the disparagement of reason/education in the pursuit of understanding spiritual truth") of the Dark Ages.

We have seen troubling examples of exactly that right here on the BB when a careful and reasoned exegesis of a bible passage is countered by "I have the Holy Spirit to teach me so I don't need the Hebrew or Greek." (This has reared its ugly head just this past weak regarding the discussion of Psalm 12:6-7. The Hebrew Grammar means nothing because the Holy Spirit told me the KJV is the only Perfectly Preserved word of God in English!)

But the consequence of the retreating anti-intellectualism, and the reemergence of the need and respectability of higher education, is that more and more pastors and laymen alike are beginning to understand the biblical basis of Monergism. We are finally getting back to the solid, biblical doctrine we believed 150 years ago before Biblical Evangelicalism was virtually destroyed by Finneyism and the Revivalism resulting from his heretical teaching/preaching.

My prayer is that the trend continue.

 

[TCassidy]

No. In my view it doesn't differ at all. My view is Monergism, but my disagreement with Penal Substitution is enough that I would not consider myself a Calvinist. The way we would look at the Cross is different enough, I believe, to warrant the distinction regardless of our ultimate conclusions.

I see. You equate the two. When I say "Calvinist" or "Monergist" or "Particular" Baptist I mean TULIP. No more.

 

[TCassidy]

No such thing as monergism. It is a made up word by Calvies. Everyone is a synergist in one form or another.

This is exactly what is wrong. The word "Monergist" has a very specific theological meaning, but you deny that meaning and redefine the word in a way in which it has never been used simply because you can't otherwise defend your semi-pelagianism.

 

[JonC]

I see. You equate the two. When I say "Calvinist" or "Monergist" or "Particular" Baptist I mean TULIP. No more.

I view "Monergist" as the belief that salvation is entirely the work of God, independent of man's will. A Calvinist is, of course, a Monergist. But I do make a distinction. The primary reason is the "I" in TULIP. While I believe that Christ died for all men, but to save only those who believe, I think that most Calvinists would disagree with me in how we view the Cross and individual atonement (I do not believe God punished Christ as the substitute for those who will believe, but rather that Christ became the representative of mankind). So yes, definitions are very important to prevent people from talking past each other.

 

[Yeshua1]

I was also typing, but apparently too slowly, and got cut off by the thread closure. Here was my post:


I believe some do understand both their system and Scripture, although perhaps through their theology (we all do this to an extent). I appreciate the insights of teachers like MacArthur, Keller, Sproul, and Piper.

But I share your concern as it seems more and more study and know the tradition they have chosen far more than the Bible. Recent posts point to the fact many can't even identify what is their understanding of Scripture from Scripture itself.

The most consistent people I know (in terms of theology) are Calvinists. But in many ways they seem the most biblically illiterate (especially the younger group, many who will only spout off cliche Calvinistic answers instead of engaging Scripture).

Would this be like in the areas of the Atonement and the Fall/Original Sin, be areas where you see us as following traditions of men and not the scriptures themselves?

 

[Yeshua1]

It is on a vital doctrine. I think Wright focused too much on the historical circumstances of first century Judaism. But that does not mean his observations about our traditional approach is in itself wrong. We also base much of our doctrines on tradition and Reformed interpretation as we take for granted an approach to the Jewish religion that may not actually be correct (we highlight what we see as legalism over the Jewish concept of a covenant people). Wright's objections (not his conclusions, but his objections) were dismissed far too quickly.

What is a big problem is that the truths of the Bible in regards to the Atonement views/Original Sin, and effects of the fall in regards to our sin natures are seen by some as holding to traditions of men over that of the scriptures. Problem is that the scriptures affirm all of those doctrines itself though!

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

As well as the long discussions regarding the fall and Original Sin, and human sin nature...

 

[Yeshua1]

No, not at all.

Like you I believe that I am right in what I believe. If thought I was wrong and you right, then I'd change my belief and we'd agree.

The case in the long, drawn out discussion of Penal Substitution is a good example. I respect men (like Piper, Wright, Sproul, Beeke, etc) who, although differing in interpretation, are biblical in their approach. But these men acknowledge what is of Scripture and what is not (they seem to be able to identify what is their understanding and what is the actual biblical text). This is different from claiming that at every turn God chose to imply, rather than have written down, such a vital doctrine.

That said, I do not have much patience with dishonesty, and that is what we often see in these types of discussions. One side pulls out quotes and misapplies them to suit their agenda. We saw this in the Penal Substitution thread and we see it in accusations against Calvinists.

So when I say "biblical illiteracy" I mean things like saying "forsake" in Psalm 52 has the exact meaning of God abandoned Jesus not to the Cross but while He was on it. I mean reading "dying he died" to mean, because of the grammar, that Adam died twice - an immediate spiritual death followed by a physical death. We have to be able to distinguish between our interpretation and what is really written, while holding our interpretation as true.

Except that those like a NT Wright, and his atonement views, are pretty much stating to us that everyone else has had it wrong period....
Same way those who oppose Original Sin, the fall and its effecting human nature are arguing against the vast majority of Conservative Christians of history!

 

[TCassidy]

Would this be like in the areas of the Atonement

Those denying the biblical doctrine of Limited Atonement have to ignore the historical meaning of the word and redefine the word to fit their semi-pelagianism.

Atonement. At-one-ment. The Atonement makes the recipient At One with God through the blood of Christ.

Those denying Limited Atonement have to ignore the historical/theological meaning of the term because if they don't it will destroy their unbiblical teaching of universal atonement.

If the Atonement is Universal, than ALL are At One with God. To be At One with God is to mean nothing separates you from God. If the Atonement is universal, then all, even, presumably Satan and his demons, are At One with God and this destined for heaven.

If, on the other hand, the Atonement is only applied to believers, then only believers are destined for heaven.

They can't have it both ways. At One Ment or At All Ment.