How does one's theology positively or negatively affect how they deal with addiction?

[preacher4truth]

Once again you resort to unfounded and unsupported blanket accusations. Your representation of me is a misrepresentation and that has become the norm for your replies. If you are going to bring a charge, fine. I welcome it. But come with an actual argument otherwise this turns into a childish game of "nuh-huh...uh-huh" and is a waste of our time.

Allow me to help get you started on engaging in an actual debate. You might say, "Skan, you have misrepresented Calvinism by saying, 'XYZ,' when in reality we believe, 'ABC,' as evidenced by these quotes from scholar X and scholar Y."

Then I could actually engage your argument and the reasons you have made it. Otherwise, all you are virtually saying is that you disagree, which we all already know. Okay?

LOL! Here, I'll again explain and then you can deal with it, OK?

No one within Calvinist theology behaves the way you've described. You simply are misunderstanding them and/or are misrepresenting them, partly due to your own behavior in the past.

Here is what you are doing whether you'll "own up" to it or not. :smilewinkgrin:

You have presented a theology, namely Calvinist, as an inferior theology to yours, namely arminianism in dealing basically with behavior and sin.

This is how you have done it:

• You've presented Calvinists with a blanket accusation and implication that they don't "own up" and or use excuses, i.e. not accepting blame &c.

• You've presented non-cal theology as a theology where those who hold it "own up."

• You've presented yourself as being superior, in that you are more apt to blame yourself, due to your theology, of course.

• This implies that Calvinists (Reformed) don't do these things, "own up" accept responsibility &c.

Thus you've presented non-cal theology as being superior, and Calvinist theology as being inferior in dealing with behavior and sin/addictions. This is all simply untrue.

Here is part of what you've stated:

...its true of every situation, it appears that those of the more 'reformed' belief tend to 'wait on God to change them' or tend to think their nature can only be changed by a supernatural and irresistible working of God thus even their addictive behavior is only going to be corrected by God's doing (though I KNOW they would explain it differently).

I take it that you believe the above is wrong?

Yes. We believe our nature can only be changed by a supernatural working of God. I'll reject your word "irresistible" there as it is not necessary nor true in this case and is out of place IMO. And yes, we give glory to God and Him alone that He is the one who will ultimately get the glory and praise, as only He and He alone will heal addictive behavior. I believe this shows our utter dependence upon God.

You again:

Again, I KNOW these are generalities, but having been one who held to both systems of thought I do recognize in me more of a willingness to take ownership of my behavior, choices and recovery than I did as a Calvinist.

No, these aren't generalities. This whole case is subjective to you and you alone and limited to your personal situation. Just because you find yourself where you are now doesn't indict Calvinists in the way you are attempting to indict them. This would make you then representative of Calvinists in your former state of behavior. This is what you are implying in your above statement.

If you weren't owning up as a Calvinist, don't blame it on your theology my friend, blame it on yourself. In addition, your personal theological experience doesn't play over to others and make them like you. Instead, the above is an isolated personal incident. I can gather then, that if you were an addict, had behavioral problems, you then in your Calvinist understanding blamed God for it, and nonchalantly went about in addiction and bad behavior, apathetically waiting for God? This is what I gather. Is this what you are saying? This is definitely implied. I can honestly say I have never seen a believer act this way.

Thus your subjective representation of Calvinists is to be rejected for obvious reasons.

Now, I gave you a broad area of discussion in the Psalms and there are many incidences where David was waiting on deliverance from God. This is also what Calvinists do. Pretty Biblical, isn't it? He wasn't waiting on free will was he? No. He was waiting on deliverance from God. Some of these incidences mention his iniquities and sins, which is exactly what addictions are. He was owning up, yet still waiting, he blamed himself, he awaited deliverance of God. This is what Calvinists do.

My point is that until God delivers we wait, and this against the idea of your theology that believes free will does it. It doesn't.

To put it in perspective for you, the Calvinists probably have a better grasp of this in knowing that we in fact do have to wait and depend upon God for deliverance. Much of this is due to the fact we reject for the most part any "power" in mans free will, especially so in any kind of deliverance it brings. This doesn't mean, as you've implied, that Calvinists sit idly by waiting and excusing themselves. Instead they are prayerfully trusting God.

The fact that you are implying Calvinists don't accept blame, well, I'm going to reject that as false. I think perhaps you feel I am just not allowed to do that, and I have to let it ride?

I totally disagree with this. It is God who delivers, not mans free will. I don't see ones Calvinist theology making a person make excuses and sitting back idly and not accepting blame. That's a misrepresentation altogether. But this is exactly what you are attempting to present and do here in your thread and OP.

Against what you've said, I've presented a better example of persons who hold to a Calvinist theology, and what they actually do, that is, wait upon God, know that He and He alone can deliver, and are being active in pursuing Him for this deliverance.

Now, I've presented how I believe a Calvinist theology positively deals with these things (addiction, sin) by seeking and depending upon God and God alone for deliverance, and also how I believe a non cal theology deals with them, that in non cal camps greater dependence is upon mans ability/free will.

Thanks.

 

[JesusFan]

LOL! Here, I'll again explain and then you can deal with it, OK?

No one within Calvinist theology behaves the way you've described. You simply are misunderstanding them and/or are misrepresenting them, partly due to your own behavior in the past.

Here is what you are doing whether you'll "own up" to it or not. :smilewinkgrin:

You have presented a theology, namely Calvinist, as an inferior theology to yours, namely arminianism in dealing basically with behavior and sin.

This is how you have done it:

• You've presented Calvinists with a blanket accusation and implication that they don't "own up" and or use excuses, i.e. not accepting blame &c.

• You've presented non-cal theology as a theology where those who hold it "own up."

• You've presented yourself as being superior, in that you are more apt to blame yourself, due to your theology, of course.

• This implies that Calvinists (Reformed) don't do these things, "own up" accept responsibility &c.

Thus you've presented non-cal theology as being superior, and Calvinist theology as being inferior in dealing with behavior and sin/addictions. This is all simply untrue.

Here is part of what you've stated:



I take it that you believe the above is wrong?

Yes. We believe our nature can only be changed by a supernatural working of God. I'll reject your word "irresistible" there as it is not necessary nor true in this case and is out of place IMO. And yes, we give glory to God and Him alone that He is the one who will ultimately get the glory and praise, as only He and He alone will heal addictive behavior. I believe this shows our utter dependence upon God.

You again:



No, these aren't generalities. This whole case is subjective to you and you alone and limited to your personal situation. Just because you find yourself where you are now doesn't indict Calvinists in the way you are attempting to indict them. This would make you then representative of Calvinists in your former state of behavior. This is what you are implying in your above statement.

If you weren't owning up as a Calvinist, don't blame it on your theology my friend, blame it on yourself. In addition, your personal theological experience doesn't play over to others and make them like you. Instead, the above is an isolated personal incident. I can gather then, that if you were an addict, had behavioral problems, you then in your Calvinist understanding blamed God for it, and nonchalantly went about in addiction and bad behavior, apathetically waiting for God? This is what I gather. Is this what you are saying? This is definitely implied. I can honestly say I have never seen a believer act this way.

Thus your subjective representation of Calvinists is to be rejected for obvious reasons.

Now, I gave you a broad area of discussion in the Psalms and there are many incidences where David was waiting on deliverance from God. This is also what Calvinists do. Pretty Biblical, isn't it? He wasn't waiting on free will was he? No. He was waiting on deliverance from God. Some of these incidences mention his iniquities and sins, which is exactly what addictions are. He was owning up, yet still waiting, he blamed himself, he awaited deliverance of God. This is what Calvinists do.

My point is that until God delivers we wait, and this against the idea of your theology that believes free will does it. It doesn't.

To put it in perspective for you, the Calvinists probably have a better grasp of this in knowing that we in fact do have to wait and depend upon God for deliverance. Much of this is due to the fact we reject for the most part any "power" in mans free will, especially so in any kind of deliverance it brings. This doesn't mean, as you've implied, that Calvinists sit idly by waiting and excusing themselves. Instead they are prayerfully trusting God.

The fact that you are implying Calvinists don't accept blame, well, I'm going to reject that as false. I think perhaps you feel I am just not allowed to do that, and I have to let it ride?

I totally disagree with this. It is God who delivers, not mans free will. I don't see ones Calvinist theology making a person make excuses and sitting back idly and not accepting blame. That's a misrepresentation altogether. But this is exactly what you are attempting to present and do here in your thread and OP.

Against what you've said, I've presented a better example of persons who hold to a Calvinist theology, and what they actually do, that is, wait upon God, know that He and He alone can deliver, and are being active in pursuing Him for this deliverance.

Now, I've presented how I believe a Calvinist theology positively deals with these things (addiction, sin) by seeking and depending upon God and God alone for deliverance, and also how I believe a non cal theology deals with them, that in non cal camps greater dependence is upon mans ability/free will.

Thanks.

IF Cals hold the fact that it is God at work in us, who will be finishing that which He started, which we do, than wouldn't it make more semse for us to actively be involved in getting "aided" by God, as he would be the One convicting/leading us back to Himself, in order to find the strenght and hel to deal with our problems?

Since we hold that God is active on our behalf, wouldn't we have extra incentive to seek Him and His power?

 

[preacher4truth]

IF Cals hold the fact that it is God at work in us, who will be finishing that which He started, which we do, than wouldn't it make more semse for us to actively be involved in getting "aided" by God, as he would be the One convicting/leading us back to Himself, in order to find the strenght and hel to deal with our problems?

Since we hold that God is active on our behalf, wouldn't we have extra incentive to seek Him and His power?

The bottom line here is that Skan is "attempting" to say that Calvinist theology has a negative impact on persons sins/addictions/behavior, and that, of course his theology has a positive impact. But of course! Why would it be construed otherwise!!! And, might I add, this (his OP) is the epitome of begging the question.

If one defends Calvinist theology against this accusation, which I have and will, I suppose then that person is just being "unruly." :laugh:

:flower: :love2: :smilewinkgrin:

I've addressed this specifically, and am being treated as though I am not allowed to point out his overall objective, and this objective of his is exactly what I've stated in my first paragraph in response to you.

- Peace

 

[agedman]

IF Cals hold the fact that it is God at work in us, who will be finishing that which He started, which we do, than wouldn't it make more semse for us to actively be involved in getting "aided" by God, as he would be the One convicting/leading us back to Himself, in order to find the strenght and hel to deal with our problems?

Since we hold that God is active on our behalf, wouldn't we have extra incentive to seek Him and His power?

I am not certain that being Calvinistic in thinking or Arminian in thinking urges one to seek God any more or less, any faster or slower, or with any more or less fervency.

Any believer who has especially been troubled by addictive tendencies is pretty much troubled in spirit and shame over their plight. The "besetting sin" Paul refers to may very well have been that very condition. For the sin returned over and over and seeking God's help did not remove the tendency to engage in the sin.

Salvation and victory over addictive tendencies do not always run true to every believer.

Personally, I have seen both Calvinistic and Arminian thinking folks fail in their living when the addictive behavior tendency reared its head demanding attention.

It is also important to note that Paul (no doubt through the physician Luke) instructed Timothy in what to do medically for a stomach problem.

It is important to run to God for help. That is not to be left out.

But those who have struggled, and more so those who have low impulse control such as is in ALL attention deficit children and adults, need to seek medical help.

To ignore, make lite of, or shun the medical side either because of the thinking that God gives the victory in all matters, or it is a sign of weakness is a foolishness.

If medical attention was necessary for Timothy, it is ridiculous for adults to ignore or for preachers to froth against that side in our modern age.

 

[preacher4truth]

I am not certain that being Calvinistic in thinking or Arminian in thinking urges one to seek God any more or less, any faster or slower, or with any more or less fervency.

Any believer who has especially been troubled by addictive tendencies is pretty much troubled in spirit and shame over their plight. The "besetting sin" Paul refers to may very well have been that very condition. For the sin returned over and over and seeking God's help did not remove the tendency to engage in the sin.

Salvation and victory over addictive tendencies do not always run true to every believer.

Personally, I have seen both Calvinistic and Arminian thinking folks fail in their living when the addictive behavior tendency reared its head demanding attention.

It is also important to note that Paul (no doubt through the physician Luke) instructed Timothy in what to do medically for a stomach problem.

It is important to run to God for help. That is not to be left out.

But those who have struggled, and more so those who have low impulse control such as is in ALL attention deficit children and adults, need to seek medical help.

To ignore, make lite of, or shun the medical side either because of the thinking that God gives the victory in all matters, or it is a sign of weakness is a foolishness.

If medical attention was necessary for Timothy, it is ridiculous for adults to ignore or for preachers to froth against that side in our modern age.

To what you said which I've underlined! :thumbsup:

Sometimes God does leave us with a struggling addiction and/or besetting sin, and in our weakness, trusting in him, His strength is made perfect for us in that situation.

If we all could learn not to judge a person for their struggles, when said persons have truly been regenerated, and are serving God, then we would do well.

Good point!

 

[agedman]

So, you affirm that God ordained something He didn't actually desire, right?

How do you figure considering that God didn't ordain for him to resist and thus didn't grant him that which was needed to willingly resist?

Actually the question is phrased so that to answer yes or no should be followed by a qualifier as to just what yes or no meant.

Do I affirm that God ordained something He didn't actually desire?

He does. He has no desire that men spend eternity in the second death, but God ordained all that are not saved to be right there with the fallen angels.

Christ wept over the Jews rejection. He desired that they come to him, but He ordained that the city would be destroyed and it was.

No, I don't think that God desires to punish, but Yes He will ordain the results of ignoring God's desires.

I didn't desire my son to ever be hurt, but he did get hurt and sometimes I even let him pick himself up and brush himself off.

 

[agedman]

You are correct. My mistake.

I've never heard someone actually say that God wanted his child to continue in a sinful addiction before...caught me off guard.

I never said that either. What I do state is that God doesn't always remove and perhaps never removes the addictive tendency that a person with an addictive personality may battle.

I would point to Paul's "besetting sin" as an example. We do not know any of the conditions or just what the sin was, but that it was reoccurring, was a sin, and brought Paul to repeatedly seek God's help because he was too weak to battle the condition on his own. These observations from afar would show us that it was no doubt an addictive problem.

I am not saying Paul was an addict, I am saying that God might just desire (as He told Paul) for a person to do battle their whole life in such a matter for His purpose.

He doesn't want robots, he wants those who choose to worship Him in spirit and in truth. If he just wanted to make creatures to worship he could have just stuck with angels and made them immutable. Clearly His purpose in creating free moral creatures is to allow for free moral choices....

I disagree. The whole plan of God is to destroy the enemy. The enemy destroyed and polluted all that God made. So, God did not create man merely to allow for free moral choices. There were far greater reasons.

But, clearly the HS wasn't enough now was it? And if God hadn't ordained it then clearly Joe wasn't granted what was needed for him to resist the temptation. How can a man resist that which God has ordained to come to pass? He can't.

It isn't a matter of whether the HS is enough or not.

God granted Joe a mind and intelligence. If Joe had used all God has given in both the spiritual and medical sphere he may not have ever had complete conquering victory over the addiction, but he would certainly not feel helpless within the power of it.

It isn't a matter of "resisting that which God has ordained to come to pass" for God does not tempt with evil, nor does God place evil in a person lives to test them.

Will he allow evil to test and temp? Of course - all understand that.

But allowing and then "provide a way of escape" may just as much be a matter of turning to modern medical help that God has provided as much as spiritual help that He has also provided.

 

[agedman]

Allow me to help get you started on engaging in an actual debate. You might say, "Skan, you have misrepresented Calvinism by saying, 'XYZ,' when in reality we believe, 'ABC,' as evidenced by these quotes from scholar X and scholar Y."

Then I could actually engage your argument and the reasons you have made it. Otherwise, all you are virtually saying is that you disagree, which we all already know. Okay?

I very much like this post on how to engage in actual debate.

We can all disagree with someone, but it is really important to lay out specifics of disagreement.

Would that in my own posts I would remember this standard!

Thank you

 

[preacher4truth]

I very much like this post on how to engage in actual debate.

We can all disagree with someone, but it is really important to lay out specifics of disagreement.

Would that in my own posts I would remember this standard!

Thank you

I find it interesting that a person puts a totally subjective story together (filled with generalities, idealisms, and opinionated conclusions) in an OP, with no scholarly support and then requests that he requires "scholars" to be used against this. Seriously? Come on!!! :laugh:

Basically this is what has happened: "I am going to put a totally subjective chimerical story together (the part where he allegedly represents Calvinists), it is begging the question, I know I am right already, and I will only accept quoted scholars who support your view as evidence or proof against it."

This is totally absurd and ridiculous. There was nothing scholarly or objective about the OP itself as was admitted (generalities/subjectivism), other than the objective to present Calvinists as having a theology that has a negative impact, and to present his own theology as if it has a positive impact.

Furthermore, I've addressed skan twice, once before his request for scholars, and one time afterwards, and in both showed him exactly how he has misrepresented Calvinists. He has not addressed either post, and in fact then not practicing good debate procedures himself. :wavey:

 

[agedman]

Now, I gave you a broad area of discussion in the Psalms and there are many incidences where David was waiting on deliverance from God. This is also what Calvinists do. Pretty Biblical, isn't it? He wasn't waiting on free will was he? No. He was waiting on deliverance from God. Some of these incidences mention his iniquities and sins, which is exactly what addictions are. He was owning up, yet still waiting, he blamed himself, he awaited deliverance of God. This is what Calvinists do.

My point is that until God delivers we wait, and this against the idea of your theology that believes free will does it. It doesn't.

To put it in perspective for you, the Calvinists probably have a better grasp of this in knowing that we in fact do have to wait and depend upon God for deliverance. Much of this is due to the fact we reject for the most part any "power" in mans free will, especially so in any kind of deliverance it brings. This doesn't mean, as you've implied, that Calvinists sit idly by waiting and excusing themselves. Instead they are prayerfully trusting God.


It is God who delivers, not mans free will. I don't see ones Calvinist theology making a person make excuses and sitting back idly and not accepting blame. That's a misrepresentation altogether. But this is exactly what you are attempting to present and do here in your thread and OP.

Now, I've presented how I believe a Calvinist theology positively deals with these things (addiction, sin) by seeking and depending upon God and God alone for deliverance, and also how I believe a non cal theology deals with them, that in non cal camps greater dependence is upon mans ability/free will.

Thanks.

I agree with everything except the one part, "God alone for deliverance."

I have posted multiple times about the medical side. God provided medical help. It is part of his goodness toward man. Can you imagine standing before Christ (the great physician) and say, "Sorry, my Lord. I didn't get help for this problem because I was blaming you. After all, this is the way you made me."

A true believer Calvinist or Arminian that ignores the medical issue in dealing with a personality disorder (in this case an addiction) is not allowing God to use all the available tools in helping the person.

The statement, "It is God who delivers, not mans free will. I don't see ones Calvinist theology making a person make excuses and sitting back idly and not accepting blame." is exactly right.

God provides the way of escape, man needs to quit being so weak as to blame God for not removing the test or temptation. But, that is also part of the addictive behavior pattern.

Learning to blame others and make excuse is learned extremely early by a child who has the addictive behavior tendency. A child with an addictive behavior tendency and especially those who manifest ADD learns that scheme is necessary to save face and get out of trouble. How many times I have heard, "That is just the way God made me..."

Really?

Blame God.

 

[preacher4truth]

I agree with everything except the one part, "God alone for deliverance."

I have posted multiple times about the medical side. God provided medical help. It is part of his goodness toward man. Can you imagine standing before Christ (the great physician) and say, "Sorry, my Lord. I didn't get help for this problem because I was blaming you. After all, this is the way you made me."

A true believer Calvinist or Arminian that ignores the medical issue in dealing with a personality disorder (in this case an addiction) is not allowing God to use all the available tools in helping the person.

The statement, "It is God who delivers, not mans free will. I don't see ones Calvinist theology making a person make excuses and sitting back idly and not accepting blame." is exactly right.

God provides the way of escape, man needs to quit being so weak as to blame God for not removing the test or temptation. But, that is also part of the addictive behavior pattern.

Learning to blame others and make excuse is learned extremely early by a child who has the addictive behavior tendency. A child with an addictive behavior tendency and especially those who manifest ADD learns that scheme is necessary to save face and get out of trouble. How many times I have heard, "That is just the way God made me..."

Really?

Blame God.

I am not speaking of medical, nor is the OP. I haven't delved into the medical part. I am sticking to the addictive behaviors/sins in which God can deliver men from Himself. I hope that helps.

And you are correct, it is not Calvinist theology that one uses or holds to and thus due to this one refuses to take the blame. This is what is being suggested in the OP, and "arminianism" being subsequently presented as a theology that does not do such.

Not accepting blame is subjective to the individual. To attempt to blame this on ones theology, particularly Reformed theology, and especially toward a theology that one disagrees (skan), is unfortunate, accusatory, unfounded, false, and is exactly what is going on in the OP. Calvinism is being cast as a theology that has a negative impact on ones behavior, and of course his theology, again, as one that has a positive impact.

I have stayed to the OP and thread subject at hand throughout my responses.

 

[Skandelon]

I find that there are two extremes to the issue that is founded in our sinful state. I think it is a more balanced to say that Calvinists tend to "wait" for God and allow their issues to beat them up while non-cals tend to be more self-reliant. I think this was the thrust of your OP although I added the non-cal side of the issue. It isn't to bash either side but these are natural consequences to both systems.I would not assume you are using this as a rant against Calvinism, but simply conversation on practical applications of our theological beliefs.

Yes, thank you for objectively addressing the 'tendencies' without making it unnecessarily combative. Few here have that ability it seems.

It is similar to the studies you see on those who tend to be more politically liberal and those who tend to be more politically conservative. Certain personality types 'tend' toward one view but there are certainly other factors involved. There are also clearly different ways that liberal approach hardships from what a more conservative thinker would. That is the type of thing I was attempting to discuss here. How does our theological views practically play out when confronting addiction? It doesn't need to be combative and accusatory, so again, thank you!

To keep in line with your post...Every situation is different and God's timing is never the same. We will never perfectly get this down and will fail frequently. As we grow I am confident we learn how to communicate and trust God more consistently.

I hear what you are saying and think I'm in agreement with most of what you have said. My experience is similar.

But, FOR ME, and I'm not attempting to say this is true of everyone who goes from being Calvinistic to non-Calvinistic. I'm ONLY speaking for my experience and it is NOT intended as an attack, only MY observation. But, now I tend to take more responsibility for my choices. In other words, I find myself taking a more ACTIVE role in my sanctification process, if that makes sense?

Like before, as a Calvinist, if I were struggling with a particular sin, I would have prayed about it, asked for forgiveness and asked God to change that part of me. Now, however, I would still do all that but I'd also take more active steps to change my behavior; like talk to a pastor/get accountability/confess to friends and put up barriers in my life to keep me from making those sinful choices again. Now, that may just be maturity because I was younger when I was a Calvinist and now I'm older, but in self reflection I also think it has to do with my theological perspective about free will and my role in the sanctification process. I know I'll take heat on this one but I do believe there is SOME element of truth in the old statement that 'God helps those who help themselves.' It's like the passage in James about faith and works. It means nothing to say "I'm praying for you, go and be well fed," but if you back up your words with ACTION there is power. As a Calvinist I tended to be less about ACTING, but again I KNOW that may have just been ME.

 

[zrs6v4]

Yes, thank you for objectively addressing the 'tendencies' without making it unnecessarily combative. Few here have that ability it seems.

It is similar to the studies you see on those who tend to be more politically liberal and those who tend to be more politically conservative. Certain personality types 'tend' toward one view but there are certainly other factors involved. There are also clearly different ways that liberal approach hardships from what a more conservative thinker would. That is the type of thing I was attempting to discuss here. How does our theological views practically play out when confronting addiction? It doesn't need to be combative and accusatory, so again, thank you!

I hear what you are saying and think I'm in agreement with most of what you have said. My experience is similar.

But, FOR ME, and I'm not attempting to say this is true of everyone who goes from being Calvinistic to non-Calvinistic. I'm ONLY speaking for my experience and it is NOT intended as an attack, only MY observation. But, now I tend to take more responsibility for my choices. In other words, I find myself taking a more ACTIVE role in my sanctification process, if that makes sense?

Like before, as a Calvinist, if I were struggling with a particular sin, I would have prayed about it, asked for forgiveness and asked God to change that part of me. Now, however, I would still do all that but I'd also take more active steps to change my behavior; like talk to a pastor/get accountability/confess to friends and put up barriers in my life to keep me from making those sinful choices again. Now, that may just be maturity because I was younger when I was a Calvinist and now I'm older, but in self reflection I also think it has to do with my theological perspective about free will and my role in the sanctification process. I know I'll take heat on this one but I do believe there is SOME element of truth in the old statement that 'God helps those who help themselves.' It's like the passage in James about faith and works. It means nothing to say "I'm praying for you, go and be well fed," but if you back up your words with ACTION there is power. As a Calvinist I tended to be less about ACTING, but again I KNOW that may have just been ME.

I completely understand. As a Calvinist it is easy and natural for me to not take responsibility. I think I agree with you for the most part with all you said. Its like your house catching fire and instead of running or trying to do something about it just standing there and asking God to stop the fire and bring you to safety. Yet, you stand there and wait without running. That is of course not going to work. There are some situations where I am sure that the answer is not so simple and the person is so deep that they need God's grace to pull them out. I see how someone who is focused more on mans responsibilities from a bon cal view would naturally fight harder. Yet, I have seen some warriors fight blindly and in vein without Gods hand. I really think Paul captures how our sanctification looks:

But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me. (1 Corinthians 15:10 NASB)

 

[Skandelon]

Agedman and ZRS,

I'm simply attempting to address the manner of dealing with addiction from ones particular theological perspective. Some want to make that into a combative attack, but I assure that is not my intent.

While clearly I prefer the non-Calvinistic perspective and thus hold to a non-Calvinistic perspective my views should be able to be addressed objectively and without the unnecessary combative tones, as you both have done thus far. Therefore, I'll limit my conversation to you two:

As asked before, if you as a Calvinists, come to address some addictive sinful behavior in your own life doesn't the fact that you believe the addiction was ordained by God and can only be removed by God's decree affect the manner in which you approach healing?

As the illustration before noted: A prisoner in a jail cell would SEEM to be passive IF he believed that the only way out of the cell was by the decision and work of the guard. See my point? This is not an argument regarding salvation since we are talking about the addiction of a believer. This is an argument about someone who has already been born again who finds himself in a sinful addiction. If God has never ordained for that individual to be freed from that particular sinful addiction then He never will be freed regardless of any effort on his part, and vise versa, if God has ordained for that individual to be freed from that addiction then He will certainly be freed regardless of any effort on his part, right? So, doesn't such a belief tend to passivity?

How is that belief not consistent or correctly representing the view of Calvinistic belief regarding God's ordination of all things that come to pass?

 

[glfredrick]

Interesting (but wrong!) concept, Skandelon. My church in Louisville is Reformed to a point that would make you puke, yet we hold people accountable for their sins. To the point where one of the elders was asked to resign this week because he violated the Scriptures and church covenant concerning giving.

Imagine that -- in a church where the Doctrines of God and God's sovereignty are preached week in and week out from the exegesis of Scripture... :smilewinkgrin:

Brother, in all sincerity, you have been twisting and turning Calvinism this way that that in an effort to prove that it is either false, wrong, sinful, or otherwise not of God. Yet, at the end of the day, I find your efforts to be at odds with the very Scriptures you claim to hold, i.e., you have made it a point of personal vendetta of one sort or another to become an accuser of the brethren.

Edit to add this video (and note that several of the persons featured in this video are now elders/pastors):

http://vimeo.com/10529836

 

[zrs6v4]

As asked before, if you as a Calvinists, come to address some addictive sinful behavior in your own life doesn't the fact that you believe the addiction was ordained by God and can only be removed by God's decree affect the manner in which you approach healing?

As the illustration before noted: A prisoner in a jail cell would SEEM to be passive IF he believed that the only way out of the cell was by the decision and work of the guard. See my point? This is not an argument regarding salvation since we are talking about the addiction of a believer. This is an argument about someone who has already been born again who finds himself in a sinful addiction. If God has never ordained for that individual to be freed from that particular sinful addiction then He never will be freed regardless of any effort on his part, and vise versa, if God has ordained for that individual to be freed from that addiction then He will certainly be freed regardless of any effort on his part, right? So, doesn't such a belief tend to passivity?

How is that belief not consistent or correctly representing the view of Calvinistic belief regarding God's ordination of all things that come to pass?

I don't think the belief leads to passivity. Passivity would cast all responsibility on God. I think a better way to look at it is to say that that belief leads to complete reliance on God and humility in climbing out of a pit. I think if looked at in an unbalanced view (which is part of what I meant earlier when we try to box things up to precisely) then it will lead to passivity, which I have experienced personally as also stated above.

The question is: Can we have a Calvinistic view on God's ordaining of all events including my sinful habits, struggles, and so forth and still be active in our overcoming sinful habits (or sanctification, etc...).

I believe the answer is not a simple one to understand but it still remains a "yes". In response to the first question I quoted God does have control over all things that come to pass including my addictions that I face (I assume we agree here as this relates to previous discussion on God's will). Therefore, when a struggle comes God has brought it, most often by secondary means such as through others or through the consequences of sin or something like that. He could have taught me, gave me wisdom, gave me different thoughts, desires, or anything that could have stopped me (That is where the intricacy of God's work becomes foggy). Yet, in any case God has given it to me and chose that I have to deal with it. Now, a physical illness struggle is different than a sinful struggle I presume. Say I struggle with a lack of communication with God or a constant struggle with materialism. God can enlighten my eyes to overcome materialism by revealing something far greater, that is, something eternal. I also could seek for something far greater that is eternal and of course the reality of God and all He has revealed (heaven, love, life, hell, return of Christ, the cross of Christ, etc..). I find that my active seeking (not usually passive, although that may happen) is where God begins to work and change my mind (fellowship, prayer, Scripture, events, etc). Yet, there are times where I may struggle with materialism and I read the Scripture and pray and my mind is just simply blind and dull. I have found that it is God behind the scenes that we trust to bring seasons of understanding and seasons of struggle. "Where are you God". It may be that we seek a feeling or that we desire a sin more than we desire God without knowing. There are thousands of reasons. Sorry if I spent a lot of time here.

So I do not believe Calvinism's logical end to dealing with struggles is passive, although it can be, and God might perform an instant miracle.

Now, because God is in control of our sins, our struggles and is the ultimate source of our deliverancs, ups, downs, highs, and lows I believe we can rest in him and learn to deal with these things with this understanding that He is in control.

You are correct to say that if God wills that we be trapped in a sin or a bad habit then we will not escape or if He wills that we be delivered that we will be delivered. No matter what He chooses, it will be done. I think looking at that in our little theological box can be deceiving because in practical application of Scripture (not Calvinism ) that is a narrow way to see it. We know, love, trust, and grow with and in Christ so we don't sit back disconnected with what He is doing in and through us. We do it with Him and through Him and for Him. Yet, when we can't lift ourselves up (when we see it passively and maybe rightly so at times?) He is obviously still there because He has purchased us. The idea is that we have a proper balance between God's sovereignty and our responsibility. Both work together and we dont want to fall off either side of the horse. Unfortunately one must overule the other therefore God's sovereignty is the ultimate facotr at hand unless we try to uphold an illogical view that both are true (Not to say that logic binds God, but I have not seen reason in Scripture to think illogically on this subject).

I know I kind of went out of the bounds of your question to explain some things I thought to be important so feel free to re ask any good questions I might have appeared to skip over.

 

[preacher4truth]

Interesting (but wrong!) concept, Skandelon. My church in Louisville is Reformed to a point that would make you puke, yet we hold people accountable for their sins. To the point where one of the elders was asked to resign this week because he violated the Scriptures and church covenant concerning giving.

Imagine that -- in a church where the Doctrines of God and God's sovereignty are preached week in and week out from the exegesis of Scripture... :smilewinkgrin:

Brother, in all sincerity, you have been twisting and turning Calvinism this way that that in an effort to prove that it is either false, wrong, sinful, or otherwise not of God. Yet, at the end of the day, I find your efforts to be at odds with the very Scriptures you claim to hold, i.e., you have made it a point of personal vendetta of one sort or another to become an accuser of the brethren.

Edit to add this video (and note that several of the persons featured in this video are now elders/pastors):

http://vimeo.com/10529836

Yes.

Which is why I addressed his misrepresentation, and now I understand why he won't address me. He can't. Nothing in my response is out of hand, and as a matter of fact my address to him is Scriptural and factual.

The entire BB could support him in this against cal brothers, I don't care. The bottom line is he has made a statement in the OP to draw cals as unable to be responsible for their sins, and to paint them as having a theology that negatively impacts their behavior. Then of course, he paints himself in his theology as a better person in comparison.

In addition, a subjective scenario is given in the OP, his own personal story, and in answering him, he requires me to use scholars to substantiate against his subjective personal story? LOL!!!! Ridiculous.

And of course, isn't it so easy to celebrate the ones who agree with your false representation, and call them as being cooperative? :laugh:

Look, I won't sit back idly while he misrepresents Calvinists. No calvinist I know of acts as he claims. He is merely attempting to paint his theology as superior, and Cal theology as inferior.

 

[agedman]

Agedman and ZRS,

I'm simply attempting to address the manner of dealing with addiction from ones particular theological perspective. Some want to make that into a combative attack, but I assure that is not my intent.

As asked before, if you as a Calvinists, come to address some addictive sinful behavior in your own life doesn't the fact that you believe the addiction was ordained by God and can only be removed by God's decree affect the manner in which you approach healing?pass?

Short answer, yes.

Part of God's decree is providing modern medical helps that affects the approach taken in the healing process to addiction.

To embrace God's providence only and shun medical and group help(s) is to ignore God's decree of grace and good will.

But I don't the issue as an Arminian vs Calvinian (is that a word?) way of handling addiction, but common good spiritual and physical sense.

 

[Skandelon]

Interesting (but wrong!) concept, Skandelon. My church in Louisville is Reformed to a point that would make you puke, yet we hold people accountable for their sins. To the point where one of the elders was asked to resign this week because he violated the Scriptures and church covenant concerning giving.

Please go back and re-read my previous posts and you will see that I specifically explained that the Calvinists don't believe that their doctrine "dismisses one's obligations" and I specifically explained:

"Claiming you are responsible for your choices is fine. I know that is what Calvinists believe. But I'm not questioning that point..."

Yet, you rebut my post as if I'm attempting to argue otherwise. Why is that?

Brother, in all sincerity, you have been twisting and turning Calvinism this way that that in an effort to prove that it is either false, wrong, sinful, or otherwise not of God. Yet, at the end of the day, I find your efforts to be at odds with the very Scriptures you claim to hold, i.e., you have made it a point of personal vendetta of one sort or another to become an accuser of the brethren.

And yet I can have a cordial, objective, and sincere conversation with a brother, like ZRS who is also Calvinist, without either of us resorting to ad hominem even once.. That is revealing.

It reminds me of that Sesame Street game "Which one of these is not like the other?" I guess I have to play that game when I decide who to engage in conversation on this board.

 

[Skandelon]

And of course, isn't it so easy to celebrate the ones who agree with your false representation, and call them as being cooperative?

They didn't agree with my soteriological views. They objectively and cordially responded to my question and my perspective in a brotherly manner. They didn't resort to ad hominem and they didn't become combative. They simply engaged in a discussion from their different perspective. In short, they were the opposite of you. That is what I am celebrating!