Emotional or Exegetical?

[Skandelon]

Who has said that God determines what everyone believes? Who has said that God determines if someone will believe Calvinism or Arminianism???

The Westminster Confession of Faith, a known and widely respected confession of Reformed scholars states,

"I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass"​

Now, I would presume that what I believe (my soteriological views) is within the confines of 'whatsoever comes to pass'. Don't you?

 

[psalms109:31]

We are basing our beliefs by our emotions. The more we listen and learn from Christ the more His lovingkindness draws us to Himself. We through His word are in love with God. We are born dead every single one of us headed for destruction. In our first birth we are apart of the world no matter how much we want to deny it and say we are special from our first birth.

We to see heaven have to be born again they way we are in our first birth can not even see heaven. Through Jesus word when we listen and learn we are being born again, we are becoming a new creation in Christ. We are being born again through the enduring word of God, your first birth will not even let you see heaven. Only in Christ can we see heaven. Your first birth has nothing to do with your salvation, you have to be born again and only in Christ can that happen. Jesus is the only reason you see heaven. Our old creation is death our new creation in Christ is life.

We want to create everyone like us. The hand can't tell the foot we don't need you because you are not like me. We all have different function in Christ and may look different and have different purposes, but we are to be part of the same body. I am not going to feel shame in who I am becoming in Christ or guilty in who He is created me to be in Christ.

 

[Amy.G]

The Westminster Confession of Faith, a known and widely respected confession of Reformed scholars states,

"I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass"​

Now, I would presume that what I believe (my soteriological views) is within the confines of 'whatsoever comes to pass'. Don't you?

No. I don't think that's what it means. God can also ordain that you think for yourself.

 

[Skandelon]

No. I don't think that's what it means.

So, you now blindly accept whatever Reformed believers say too? What else could 'unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass' mean?

God can also ordain that you think for yourself.

My point exactly!

 

[Amy.G]

So, you now blindly accept whatever Reformed believers say too? What else could 'unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass' mean?


My point exactly!

I don't "blindly" accept anything. God is the sovereign King of the universe. Nothing is outside of His authority. So in that sense He ordains everything.

 

[Iconoclast]

No one. Some on here like to take a portion of what one believes and skew it to make it look bad. There are two here that have made a living doing that. The problem happens is that they look at one aspect of what someone believes and filter it through their own perspective. Calvinist do not believe that we are all robots and God makes all our choices for us. This however doesn't stop some here from posting such garbage like that.

They have to post something ...so they can participate. Scriptural arguements of any substance......you might have to wait on that:laugh:

 

[OldRegular]

Winman and HOSS

Seems like I recall that a post was made recently suggesting that rather than saying a person is incorrect or has no idea what they are talking about we were to say something nice like: "In my opinion" or "I disagree with your premise"! Perhaps I got carried away in my attempt to be agreeable. If so I apologize, but not humbly cause someone said I lied if I said I humbly disagree.

humblethinker you should consider changinging your moniker since someone done told me:

Let us never deceive ourselves....your opinions are no more "humble" than mine are, or Winman's. You lie to yourself, as do I.

 

[Skandelon]

They have to post something ...so they can participate. Scriptural arguements of any substance......you might have to wait on that:laugh:

Icon, I'd welcome an audit of our posts over the past years to see which if us actually references and exegetes scriptures the most. You know full well this comment is nothing more than meant to inflame and falsely accuse. You can do better than that.

 

[Skandelon]

So in that sense He ordains everything.

So, in what 'sense' does He NOT ordain (predetermine) everything? And how is what I said inaccurate?

 

[OldRegular]

A word to Winman, HOSS, humble thinker, Skandelon and any other Arminian or freewill believers on the forum: Whether you brethern agree with or understand the Doctrines of Grace, which some of you relish in calling Calvinism or determinism, you are saved only because, before the foundation of the world God chose you and all that are saved or ever will be saved, to Salvation in Jesus Christ; and that is a Scriptural truth.

John 6:37. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

John 6:65. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.


John 10:24-29
24. Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.
25. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness of me.
26. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
27. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
28. And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
29. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.


Ephesians 1:4-7
4. According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5. Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
6. To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
7. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

Romans 8:29, 30
29. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

I present the above without comment. They have been posted many times and I am sure they are familiar to you brethern. Furthermore, anything I might say would be superfluous and surely rejected as always before.

One thing is obvious in the posts of most of you brethern; they exhibit a pernicious animosity against the Doctrines of Grace. Is it just possible that you are kicking against the "pricks" or "goads" as jesus Christ asked the persecutor Saul on the road to Damascus?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Is it just possible that you are kicking against the "pricks" or "goads" as jesus Christ asked the persecutor Saul on the road to Damascus?

If we are imprisoning and killing and persecuting the Church, then yes, if we aren't then probably not, no.

 

[psalms109:31]

John 6:44
“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.

John 1:18
No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

John 14:6
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

John 10:30
I and the Father are one.”

1 John 2:23
No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.24 As for you, see that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father. 25 And this is what he promised us—eternal life.

John 14:24
Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.

John 6 :
53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

John 6:63
The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life.

Jeremiah 31:3
The LORD has appeared of old to me, saying: “Yes, I have loved you with an everlasting love; Therefore with lovingkindness I have drawn you.

 

[Luke2427]

I think the same of you my friend! :thumbsup:


I love you bro, you know I do, but my argumentation is not purely emotive.

I should have been more clear. I apologize.

I did not mean that your arguments were "purely emotive."

I meant that they centered around an emotional, not exegetical, problem.

The essence of your arguments were "Why would God ______________?"

That's emotional. It is not at all exegetical.

Now that's hub of your argumentation, in my opinion, -not the spokes or it. Along the spokes were all kinds of clear headed logic and some fine exegesis.

But I think, and I know you want me to be forthright because I believe you to be of that quality and caliber of person, that if you were honest with yourself you'd see that your arguments against Calvinism and for Arminianism are based on these two things:

#1 A sense of justice by which you seek to conform God

#2 A powerful emotional problem with the idea of God creating some people who he knows he will destroy.

BTW, I struggle with those same things emotionally. But exegetically, theologically and logically I think they are very clear.


Even emotionally I find the exhaustive sovereignty of God to be very comforting- but I had to FIRST abandon what I consider to be corrupt, self-centered, man-centered emotions and sense of justice.

 

[Luke2427]

I was actually thrilled that Luke opened up this particular can...because I think it is worthy of discussion....I will, point by point, respond to where I think he is absolutely correct (and he is on many levels IMO) and then suggest some counter-arguments:



Agreed on all points, and well-spoken.

.

No doubt about that.


Yes, it is. The gospel in general is....so anyone who is "Saved".....does have to swallow a hard-pill to begin with anyway:
Pe 2:7 Unto you therefore which believe [he is] precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
1Pe 2:8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, [even to them] which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.



Yes, it does grate against many Pre-concieved and emotional convictions of humans....but I think no Theology is "Purely exegetical"...in that, we all come from a certain Philosophical point of view. Ultimately. I cannot shake the conviction that Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism....O.T....they all have certain philosophical pre-suppostitions which are unavoidable. Unfortunately, many who are passionate adherents simply are unaware of them. They do not understand the assumptions they bring into their reading of Scripture. Too many people truly "Believe" that they believe "Only" the Bible, and "nothing else" (with respect to their Theology)...but they then inadvertently bely that they assume too many (debatable) Philosophical assumptions which are not inherent in Scripture. I actually contend that the new-fangled term "Biblicist" is the most insultingly ignorant term extant in modern parlance. No ONE is a "Biblicist"....we all attempt to be, and that is the goal, but we know only what we CAN know, and we see through a glass darkly. It is of signifigance that in the Middle Ages (for instance) no one was even ALLOWED to study "Theology" until they had first formally learned Philosophy, Mathematics, Dialectic and so on.....



As a rule...they would be mistaken



They would again be mistaken, and you are correct, I think, some people do think that way.

NO doubt :applause:




This is quite probably true of some Arms...but it is actually the words I bolded that I think are disputable....Given what I bolded, then here is where I think we disagree:

1.) Emotions:

It is not always strictly speaking an "emotional" issue, but an actually exegetical one...which truly believes propositionally that it is simply not "true" that God would actually want or desire for their to be those who are not saved...to wit:
We call to mind Scriptures such as:
Mic 7:18 Who [is] a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage? he retaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth [in] mercy.

Eze 33:11 Say unto them, [As] I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

These are merely two examples...but what our Argument might be, is that, like a Calvinist...we TRULY BELIEVE that he worketh ALL things according to his OWN GOOD PLEASURE...

Eph 1:9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
Eph 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; [even] in him:

We honestly believe that He has TOLD us what his "GOOD PLEASURE" is...and that it does NOT involve the Death of the wicked:
Eze 33:11 Say unto them, [As] I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked;

I have no doubt that one's personal emotions are often too powerful in determining our Theology....But I think it can work in more ways than one. It is a difference often in our "Theology Proper" not our "Soteriology" wherein lies the disconnect. It seems (to me) that to the Calvinist, "Soteriology" tends to define their "Theology Proper" whereas to the Arminian (or non-Cal) that "Theology Proper" effects our "Soteriology".
In other words...we don't merely "dislike" Calvinism...we believe that it is a mis-representation of WHO God IS.




"Emotions" I contend, are not the sole issue....this actually kind of smacks to me of Vulcans delineating their "logic" from human "emotion"...Moreover, we do not believe, I think, that a truly regenerate person is so very en-slaved to "depraved human emotions" as a non-regenerate person is. We tend to believe that we are being continually:
Rom 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what [is] that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

This suggests to us that we are not merely objecting to certain Calvinist assumptions because of a "depraved" point of view...but that, we have an indwelling Holy Spirit and that as we grow and learn more of God and his nature, and who he is...than our minds are truly transformed to where we think more LIKE Christ, and LIKE God. We believe we no longer:
1Cr 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

We believe that we have learned to develop a "Spidey-sense" :laugh: or a capacity for discernment about what God has told us is his NATURE...And we do not believe PROPOSITIONALLY....that God is at all "Glorified" or "Pleased" with the death of the wicked. We believe that as we "grow in grace" that (by definition) our no longer "depraved" but, rather, "regenerate" sense of what defines "justice" is worthy of respect.


And I return this compliment to my Calvinist Brethren :applause::thumbsup:



See above...I am glad you began an irenic thread about this. It is Very worthy of discussion. God Bless YOU!!

I thought this post was very good as I have come to expect from you.

It deserves more attention than I am able to give to it right now, so I am just writing to let you know that I have read it, find it to be thoughtful and that I will respond to it when I can devote the energy and time it deserves.

God bless!!

 

[Benjamin]

The Op speaks of a human sense of justice while implying its opposition attributes this sense to God’s judgment. False, non-Calvinist believes in the truth of Divine judgment and understands it is logically impossible for truth in justice if all actions and abilities to respond have been pre-determined. The non-Calvinist upholds the true character of God and that He is Truth, and believes in the truth that God is love and in His purpose in creation which was to bring that love into all the world for His creatures in a promise made before the foundation as well as uphold the truth that there is no excuse for not responding to God’s offer of grace which pertains to all his creatures.

He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
(Deu 32:4)

The Op goes on to claim its opposition uses emotionalism to interpret scripture. False, the non-Calvinist focuses on important Divine truths and does not have to go through the very emotion the Op suggest the Calvinists have to go through which consist of despair of having to accept a Nature of God that is not consistent with the truth of His Nature and purposes of God in creation and does not have to forgo the “truth” of Divine judgment. Calvinist are forced to do so because their doctrines logically are hinging on determinism which assigns evil to Him and leads to into theological fatalism.

It seems to me, as has been admitted, the Calvinist are the ones struggling with emotionalism which is brought on by feeling the need of having to hold onto a doctrine of man; one that declares faith had to be determined upon them against their will. I suggest the correct interpretations would allow it to be much easier for them to accept the truths of God’s character and judgment because it would bring them peace and give light to the truth that they could freely accept giving their own faith for love of these truths through their own volition.

The premise of Op is basically begging the question with a belief that Calvinism is true while attempting to claim proper interpretations of scripture to them alone and while unethically assigning mere emotional interpretations to non-Calvinist. It is rather an insulting rhetorical ploy to discredit its opposition and is not only baseless but revealing of its own unecessary emotional struggles.

 

[Luke2427]

The Op speaks of a human sense of justice while implying its opposition attributes this sense to God’s judgment. False, non-Calvinist believes in the truth of Divine judgment and understands it is logically impossible for truth in justice if all actions and abilities to respond have been pre-determined.

Right. This is another very CLEAR proof that the OP is valid- at least as it pertains to many non-calvinists.

It admits that you come to the text of Scripture with AN ALREADY FORMED SENSE OF JUSTICE and force the scriptures to conform to it.

This is the same things universalists do and for the same reason.

he non-Calvinist upholds the true character of God and that He is Truth, and believes in the truth that God is love and in His purpose in creation which was to bring that love into all the world for His creatures in a promise made before the foundation as well as uphold the truth that there is no excuse for not responding to God’s offer of grace which pertains to all his creatures.

He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
(Deu 32:4)

Further proof.

This verse does not say a single word of definition for God's justice. It just states that he IS just.

But somehow you think this verse supports your preformed view of justice.

It does not even ADDRESS your preformed sense of justice which proves that you come to the Scripture with man-centered justice and powerful emotional convictions grown in a depraved heart (which we all have) and see the scriptures through those colored glasses.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Let's go back and see who is using "emotional" terms.

From Mexdeaf;



Mexdeaf does not refute non-Cals with scripture, he weeps for those who do not see his point of view.

P4T said;



P4T does not refute non-Cals with scripture, he feels disconsolation (beyond consolation, extremely dejected, cheerless, gloomy) to assert he is correct.

Dr Bob said;



Dr. Bob does not quote one line of scripture to refute non-Cals, but he feels pity and sadness for them.

These are perfect examples of this false form of argument Calvinists use constantly. I didn't have to go off this thread to find three such examples. None of these are arguments from scripture, they simply ASSUME the author is correct and imply the person who disagrees with them is in serious error. They are in such serious error that they must be wept over, they are beyond consolation for them, they should be pitied, and there is great sadness over their error.

This is a form of subtle intimidation Calvinists constantly use to attempt to force others to accept their doctrine. They can barely post a refutation without using this tactic. Not one word of scripture was used to refute non-Cals, only this tactic of assuming their opponents are in serious error and should be pitied and wept over. Total nonsense.

So, who uses emotion?

If your doctrine does not affect your emotions then perhaps you need new doctrine.

God bless.

 

[OldRegular]

If we are imprisoning and killing and persecuting the Church, then yes, if we aren't then probably not, no.

You people are doing your best at persecuting those on this board who believe in the Doctrines of Grace.

In the course of doing that some of you are making outrageous statements about the nature of GOD. Now I am not accusing you HOSS but I have seen the accusation that the Doctrines of Grace make "God a monster". I am not going to search the board to find out who and when!

 

[Winman]

If your doctrine does not affect your emotions then perhaps you need new doctrine.

God bless.

Who said my doctrine does not affect my emotions?

But I can honestly say this, my doctrine does not contradict what I know to be just. It is not "a hard pill to swallow" as Luke said about Calvinism.

 

[Winman]

You people are doing your best at persecuting those on this board who believe in the Doctrines of Grace.

In the course of doing that some of you are making outrageous statements about the nature of GOD. Now I am not accusing you HOSS but I have seen the accusation that the Doctrines of Grace make "God a monster". I am not going to search the board to find out who and when!

This is total misrepresentation. We are not making any outrageous statements about the nature of God. We in fact believe that Calvinism/Reformed doctrine makes outrageous statements about God.

You believe that before the foundation of the world that God determined to cast many people in the lake of fire. God did not do this because he saw these men would be evil, your doctrine of Unconditional Election states that God elects to save some, and pass by all others without regard to whether they are good or evil. Your doctrine states that God casts men in the lake of fire to glorify himself.

Even with the elect, you believe that God ordained them to sin so that he could save them to glorify himself. This would be like a doctor intentionally infecting a village with a deadly disease, and then saving a few of these victims to glorify himself, and allowing the rest to die. If a doctor did such a thing we would justly throw that man in jail for the rest of his life, or possibly execute him. But this is similar to your view of God.

It is your doctrine that makes outrageous accusations against God, we are trying to defend God. Not that God needs our defense, but so that others are not deceived by this terrible doctrine.

I am amazed that anyone can believe this doctrine.