quantumfaith
Active Member
Ditto!!!!!! A fine example of how debates "betwixt" believers ( and even (especially) non-believers) should be.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Good Debate
- Thread starter Luke2427
- Start date
- Status
Ditto!!!!!! A fine example of how debates "betwixt" believers ( and even (especially) non-believers) should be.
On the money!:thumbsup:
Or you may just want to ditch Calvinist thinking totally & look into a purer form of Salvation Theology like Primitive and or Old Regular Baptist theology..... Im sure there is some in FLORIDA. Not in New Jersey though.
psalms109:31
Active Member
We have no life in us until we eat His flesh and drink His blood. I praise God i listened to Peter word of Jesus that He has the words of eternal life, not in me, but in Him. We are born again through His word not mine, not in me, but in Him.
Without Jesus sending His messenger I would be dead heading for hell with no hope like many who needs the word of life. Jesus is deep as all need to go
"My fear is lest the reader should rest content with understanding what is to be done, and yet never do it. Better the poorest real faith actually at work, than the best ideal of it left in the region of speculation. The great matter is to believe on the Lord Jesus at once. Never mind distinctions and definitions. A hungry man eats though he does not understand the composition of his food, the anatomy of his mouth, or the process of digestion: he lives because he eats. Another far more clever person understands thoroughly the science of nutrition; but if he does not eat he will die, with all his knowledge. There are, no doubt, many at this hour in Hell who understood the doctrine of faith, but did not believe. On the other hand, not one who has trusted in the Lord Jesus has ever been cast out, though he may never have been able intelligently to define his faith. Oh dear reader, receive the Lord Jesus into your soul, and you shall live forever! "He that believeth in Him hath everlasting life.""
C.H. Spurgeon
Last edited by a moderator:
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
I agree. The Double Predestinarian view, though troubling and clearly false (IMO), is the more logically consistent of the two options.
The term "equal ultimacy" is sometimes used of this view that God works equally to keep the elect in heaven and the reprobate out of heaven. R. C. Sproul argues against this position on the basis that it implies God "actively intervenes to work sin" in the lives of the reprobate. I'd like to hear Luke's response to Sproul and many other Calvinists who reject his position.
Maybe he can explain?
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
:thumbsup: :thumbs:
Just trying to continue with the irenic attitude of the thread. :wavey:
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
##***bump***
I have been gone too long and I did not want to let this subject lay any longer because it is important.
I still am extremely busy, but I want to continue this discussion.
So I present this request.
Succinctly as possible ask me the most important points of mine which you would like me to expound upon.
I don't have time to argue against infralapsarianism- nor should I have to here since we all agree that it is inherently inconsistent.
I don't embrace all of the baggage that often comes along with the term "double predestination" so I prefer not to use that term, but I do adhere to the core of it- God is active in both the salvation of the elect and the reprobation of the non-elect. The latter is what even Calvin referred to as the "terrible decree."
The fact is that it is VERY difficult for me to grasp that doctrine (but this difficulty is emotional because I know I am a human no more worthy of salvation than any of the non-elect). But that God does this is abundantly clear in Scripture so I do not struggle with this truth theologically.
Finally, the hang up seems to be concerning the Gospel. God has injected something into the world that has the power to regenerate any soul that has ever lived- it is the Gospel.
To keep the non-elect from being regenerated by the Gospel (which every one of us believes that he does this very thing AT LEAST TEMPORARILY) God must take active measures.
This does not at all repudiate the doctrine of Total Depravity or total inability. It says that the Gospel, applied by the Holy Spirit (which it almost always IS) would regenerate EVERYBODY if God did not take active means to stop it.
Now the question arises here, "Why would God stop the Gospel from regenerating people?" But I think the question is emotional, not theological. All of us recognize that God could save any person on earth if he wanted to but that he chooses not to save everyone. We all have the same emotional problem.
God bless guys!
I have enjoyed this discussion heretofore.
humblethinker
Active Member
I dont think we all have the same emotional problem.
IMO, prior to creating, God committed Himself to see His project through to the end. He created a world in which there were ontological possibilities. I'd like to not hijack this thread since it is doing so well being focused as it is. I just wanted to push-back on what seems to give you some emotional 'cover' and just make sure that the actual truth is that a predetermined world in which there are no real possibilities should make one very emotionally uncomfortable.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
If I were to ask for just one thing it would be to quote the paragraph of any notable Reformed/Calvinistic scholar who specifically argues, "the Gospel would regenerate EVERYBODY if God did not take active means to stop it."
I know you linked to several articles earlier, but as I pointed out, while those scholars support Gospel regeneration, I don't see in any of their writing that draw this particular conclusion, do you? If you do please don't simply link to a whole long article. Copy and paste the actual paragraph that makes this point.
I'm insisting on this for several reasons:
1. To show that this view is nonexistent or very rare.
2. To gain a better understanding of what a scholar would say in defense of many other issues that arise with this view.
3. To challenge you to rethink your conclusions.
Why can't it be both? I can tell you exactly why God stopped the Jews from understanding the gospel temporarily, because the theology of Israel's Judicial Hardening based out of the text tells us why, and that is not merely emotional. Your avoidance to speak of God's motive only reveals the weakness of your conclusions. Especially when you hold the motives of Israel's temporary judicial hardening up next to what you suspect may be God's motives for actively hardening every lost reprobate.
I agree with Heir, we do not have the same emotional problem on this point. Not even close. Let me restate what you just said using different words and I think my point will be clear:
"All of us recognize that God could Calvinistically (effectually) save any person on earth if he wanted to, but that he chooses not to Calvinistically (effectually) save everyone."
The belief that God didn't choose to effectually save everyone doesn't prove that we (who reject the notion of effectual salvation) have the same dilemma as Calvinists (who believe God effectually saves a relative few). Once you accept our view of God's design of free responsible moral creatures and God's desire for them to make a free independent morally accountable decision, any concept of effectual salvation, or the dilemmas that come with them, vanish. In our view, God's plan to make rocks cry out is the only effectual worship he desires, and that is only in case the free moral creatures all choose to keep silent.
I hate to "Pile-on" before you are able to respond Luke...BUT YOU TAKE SO LONG!!! :thumbs::wavey: Thank you, BTW... for accepting the 45 against 1 odds you have been dealing with BTW...
So I am going to throw in another two cents:
HT...alluded to this, I think...but the hang-up for Arminians or non-Cals is not (strictly-speaking) an "emotional one" alone. For instance....I have searched far and wide in the Scriptures for ANY conceivable inclination that HELL is not, in fact, a place of Eternal and horrific torment for all consigned...That is an EMOTIONAL PROBLEM!!!! None of us like that idea. But I am forced to conclude, as almost all of us do, that regardless of our emotions or sensibilities...it is just, it is what we believe the Scriptures teach, and we must accept it, and we (almost) all do.
I think what I am saying is that we don't object merely because a Calvinistic interpretation offends our fallible sensibilites (as many a Calvinist seems to think). A lot of doctrines do, but we still accept them as we believe them to be revealed. It is rather a notion that God has endowed man with a knowledge and sense of "Justice" which simply makes Calvinism (to our minds) make absolutely NO sense whatsoever....We don't think that Calvinism is an adequate representation of Justice. We believe rather, that man is endowed with enough sense to know (even while struggling with Noetic effects of sin) that certain things are "just" and certain ones are simply "unjust". An example would be from an essay, or maybe an excerpt from a book by C.S. Lewis....) I don't recall, wherein he argued that certain terms like "Good" or "Evil" or "right" or "wrong" must be available to be understood by any reasonable mind....In that writing he said something to the effect that if we cannot trust some of our basic intuitions on such basic moral principles...than God could be nothing more than an "Omnipotent fiend"...and that if we cannot basically understand the notion of "Good"...than to say that God is "Good", is to say in his words: "God is, we know not what"..... Do you know what I am saying?
We do not reject all of Calvinism, SIMPLY because it is offensive to sensibilities, or "emotion" as you call it, but rather because we have a certain level of faith in the normative capacity of human beings to understand what is, or is not "just", and that we feel a deterministic and "double-predestinarian" view of election is simply "unjust"....and that to explain it as Calvinism does, and then to claim simultaneously that God is "Good" and "Just" is to say (as Lewis did) that God is then..."We know not what".
Long story short...ours is as much a cognitive or logical objection as it is an "emotional" one....We don't "feel" that it is "unfair"....we "think" that God has granted us sufficient understanding to "think" we "smell a rat"...
So I am going to throw in another two cents:HT...alluded to this, I think...but the hang-up for Arminians or non-Cals is not (strictly-speaking) an "emotional one" alone. For instance....I have searched far and wide in the Scriptures for ANY conceivable inclination that HELL is not, in fact, a place of Eternal and horrific torment for all consigned...That is an EMOTIONAL PROBLEM!!!! None of us like that idea. But I am forced to conclude, as almost all of us do, that regardless of our emotions or sensibilities...it is just, it is what we believe the Scriptures teach, and we must accept it, and we (almost) all do.
I think what I am saying is that we don't object merely because a Calvinistic interpretation offends our fallible sensibilites (as many a Calvinist seems to think). A lot of doctrines do, but we still accept them as we believe them to be revealed. It is rather a notion that God has endowed man with a knowledge and sense of "Justice" which simply makes Calvinism (to our minds) make absolutely NO sense whatsoever....We don't think that Calvinism is an adequate representation of Justice. We believe rather, that man is endowed with enough sense to know (even while struggling with Noetic effects of sin) that certain things are "just" and certain ones are simply "unjust". An example would be from an essay, or maybe an excerpt from a book by C.S. Lewis....) I don't recall, wherein he argued that certain terms like "Good" or "Evil" or "right" or "wrong" must be available to be understood by any reasonable mind....In that writing he said something to the effect that if we cannot trust some of our basic intuitions on such basic moral principles...than God could be nothing more than an "Omnipotent fiend"...and that if we cannot basically understand the notion of "Good"...than to say that God is "Good", is to say in his words: "God is, we know not what"..... Do you know what I am saying?
We do not reject all of Calvinism, SIMPLY because it is offensive to sensibilities, or "emotion" as you call it, but rather because we have a certain level of faith in the normative capacity of human beings to understand what is, or is not "just", and that we feel a deterministic and "double-predestinarian" view of election is simply "unjust"....and that to explain it as Calvinism does, and then to claim simultaneously that God is "Good" and "Just" is to say (as Lewis did) that God is then..."We know not what".
Long story short...ours is as much a cognitive or logical objection as it is an "emotional" one....We don't "feel" that it is "unfair"....we "think" that God has granted us sufficient understanding to "think" we "smell a rat"...
Last edited by a moderator:
So are you saying that it is your view that all professing Calvinists who believe in Doctrines of Grace or professing Primitive Baptists who believe in Salvation by Grace doctrines also believe in double predestination? I want to clarify that straight away.
HOS, I have the same objection to eternal torment. It would appear to me that we might have come to the same conclusion. But such is not the case. Makes the argument difficult to press very specifically I fear. It may tie into the evolution or corruption of language thread underway on the other forum.
Last edited by a moderator:
If you can quote me saying it...than, presumably I said it....if you can't, then, presumably, I didn't..... And anyone who is truly saved by the Grace of God (which is, in fact, the only way to be saved) also already believes in "Salvation by Grace" doctrine...it is determinism we don't accept, not Grace.
Last edited by a moderator:
maybe purer, but NOT better from the biblical perspective!
As those holding to primitive seem like Hyper cals, as they hold to possibility that one gets saved apart from even having faith placed into jesus!
It is the same conclusion- the Gospel is the means whereby God regenerates men so that they can come to Christ.
It is also true that many reputable Calvinists, like the Hodges for example, believe that the atonement is sufficient in value to save everybody on this world and a thousand worlds like it.
Application is the issue.
I hope I answered that for you.
I don't think you can- at least I don't think you can thereby, even if you could, show that God always hardens JUST TEMPORARILY.
I think we can easily demonstrate that that is not the case at all.
I'm not avoiding it Skan. His glory is his motive.
The problem is that this leads to this conclusion- God absolutely cannot save everyone no matter how bad he wants to- their wills stop him.
I think that is very problematic.
Respectfully, yes it does.
And the "few" thing is a low blow. Many Calvinists believe that more will be saved than lost.
No. This creates far worse problems. It creates a God who is not all-knowing, almighty and sovereign.
Wow.....your calling me a Hyper Calvinist Now? :laugh: And how do you know that a Primitive Baptist doesnt put faith in Jesus.....brother your misinformed.... Perhaps you should quit hanging around those other people I wont mention....they are filling your head full of rubbish.
Last edited by a moderator:
I hate to "Pile-on" before you are able to respond Luke...BUT YOU TAKE SO LONG!!! :thumbs::wavey: Thank you, BTW... for accepting the 45 against 1 odds you have been dealing with BTW...
Certainly. I have been strung out the last few weeks. From a week devoted to framing up our family life center, to VBS, to prison ministry, to seminary and last week my three year old was bitten by a copperhead snake and airlifted to USA Women and Children's hospital where he spent a week. He's fine BTW.
This is why I have taken so long to respond. I usually try to be more active on here.
Agreed.
Do you see where this is problematic? You think you have within you some innate sense of justice whereby you can judge God.
This is where most non-calvinistic beliefs fail, in my opinion. They are based on this idea that we can judge God based on our own sense of justice.
Again, this is a severe epistemological difference between our two systems. It assumes that good is something that God must conform himself to. The right thinking, imo, is that good emanates from God, not that it encapsulates him.
Things are not good because they meet our emotional definitions of what good is. Things are good because God does them. Good is whatever God says is good- not whatever we feel is good.
If God says it is good for sinners to burn in hell in relentless agony forever- then their burning and agonizing forever without one second of reprieve is a good thing.
It is not emotionally congruent with our natural inclinations but it is good nonetheless because God said it is.
You see, brother, this is terribly wrong in my opinion. It certainly doesn't mean that you are not a very good brother in Christ with a very good grasp on the Word of God with whom I can serve shoulder to shoulder with in the Kingdom gladly.
But it does mean that I think your thinking here is terribly wrong.
No, sir. Not based on the argument you made above. The argument you employ to prove you are not arguing emotionally is emotional.
You feel, you just believe that men have a decent sense of justice.
Well that's not good enough, brother. And it is not true according to the Scriptures.
I've been following this thread...excellent, btw...and wanted to see if this is accurate.
Calvinist A: man calls to a dead corpse to come. The words are enough to revive the corpse, the corpse comes....those not intended to come, the corpse is blindfolded, soundproof earmuffs are placed on, imbedded in concrete.
Calvinist B: man calls to dead corpse to come. The words must first be preceded by revival of the corpse to come...those not intended to come, corpse is simply not revived.
Is this a pretty accurate description of the 2 calvinist views of regeneration?
Calvinist A: man calls to a dead corpse to come. The words are enough to revive the corpse, the corpse comes....those not intended to come, the corpse is blindfolded, soundproof earmuffs are placed on, imbedded in concrete.
Calvinist B: man calls to dead corpse to come. The words must first be preceded by revival of the corpse to come...those not intended to come, corpse is simply not revived.
Is this a pretty accurate description of the 2 calvinist views of regeneration?
WEBDOG.
When it comes to God raising the dead...like in Jn 11...Lazarus come forth.
Was the Spirit still in the corpse? or Did God have to do a supernatural work to have The Spirit return to the body,as He raised it by supernatural power.
Taking death as seperation...Lazarus Spirit was not remaining in the corpse was it?
If Spirits depart from the body at physical death.....this necessitates a supernatural work....correct????
A spiritual truth or command itself cannot be comprehended by a physical corpse....without a Spirit in it.
- Status