I don't see how I could go wrong, do you?

[kyredneck]

OPTION 1: If I, as a non-Calvinistic believer, am wrong about my soteriology, then I could only be wrong because God so decreed it, right? God must have decided, for His own secret self-glorifying purposes, not to grant me enough grace to see my error and adopt Calvinism. So, if I am in error then I'm in error by God's unchanging divine decree and it ultimately must be a decision God made for his highest glory. Right so far? Or not? If not, then do you affirm the contra-causal free choice of believers?

OPTION 2: If, however, I am right and Calvinism is false, then I have judged the Word of God correctly as a 'response-able' free moral agent and I would be defending the truth of God's glory against false Calvinistic teaching. And the Calvinists, also as free moral agents, would be held responsible for their errors.

CONCLUSION: So, my conclusion is that non-Calvinism is the best position to hold, because you really can't go wrong either way given that in either option I'm fulfilling the highest purpose of bringing God the greatest amount of Glory. However, if you, as a Calvinist, are wrong; just consider the damage, disunity and potential consequences of your error in distracting from God's glory and His gracious provisions for the entire world.

Is that conclusion logically incorrect? If so, how so? Be specific.

From the gitgo this thread had a 'personal' aspect to it, the original post is immersed in the first person.

 

[Skandelon]

From the gitgo this thread had a 'personal' aspect to it, the original post is immersed in the first person.

Giving personal analogies or suppositions to make a point for discussion is not what 'being personal' means. You know what "ad hominem" is and it just isn't necessary.

Just address the topic. Very few have actually attempted to explain why the logic of this point is not true.

 

[Skandelon]

IMO, you REGRESSED doctrinally when you left DoG.

Of course. Why wouldn't you think that? We disagree on these points so it wouldn't make much since for you to believe I'm progressing, so doesn't that kind of go without saying?

I reiterate I'm glad I'm not where you're at doctrinally. Never would I trade the joy and repose I've found through Sovereign Grace to go back to entry level.

Likewise. Calvinism was 'entry level' in my journey. The idea of God having to 'play both sides of the chess board to ensure victory' (i.e. sovereignly control not only his choices but the choices of his enemies as well) is a very small and limiting view of a infinite sovereign God, but to each his own. I know, I know, that's a straw man, but no amount of second or third causes stuffed between God's determinative decree and man's action can insulate and differ divine culpability. It undermines His holiness AND HIS SOVEREIGNTY, in my opinion. It is what it is and its a very tiny view of the divine IMO.

And I'll take that rebuke and repent.

Thanks. That is honorable.

 

[kyredneck]

...You know what "ad hominem" is and it just isn't necessary....

For the record, at no point was I intentionally 'attacking' your person. It was a subliminal response to the 'first person' of the original post.

 

[Skandelon]

For the record, at no point was I intentionally 'attacking' your person. It was a subliminal response to the 'first person' of the original post.

I read your second post before your first, so once you acknowledged the error it should have been dropped. All is good.

I understand your intent now. No worries.

 

[kyredneck]

Don't misconstrue this as being 'divisive', or, 'ad hominem', just my personal opinion, a participating moderator on a forum such as this needs to have a thick skin.

 

[Skandelon]

Don't misconstrue this as being 'divisive', or, 'ad hominem', just my personal opinion, a participating moderator on a forum such as this needs to have a thick skin.

And that comment is likewise PERSONAL as it implies my skin is thin. Trust me, I lost no sleep over your comment. Don't misinterpret my calling you out for wrongdoing as being unable to stand under its crushing, overwhelming, all consuming weight....after all they are just 'words' and a Calvinist, of all people, certainly knows that words have little inner power or ability to provoke the will of man. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[kyredneck]

Again, you misconstrue, NOT talking about your PERSON, it's your POSITION as moderator.

As a moderator, DHK has my respect. HE has a thick skin and I've no 'worries' of him dropping the hammer on me whenever I do engage him. Can't say I feel that way on this forum.

 

[Skandelon]

Again, you misconstrue, NOT talking about your PERSON, it's your POSITION as moderator.

As a moderator, DHK has my respect. HE has a thick skin and I've no 'worries' of him dropping the hammer on me whenever I do engage him. Can't say I feel that way on this forum.

A couple of things, and we need to get off this rabbit trail. And I say that as the author of OP, not a moderator.

1. I don't moderate this forum. Squire is the only mod here.
2. It's against the rules to 'get personal' with any participant, even moderators regardless of the 'thickness of their skin.'
3. Some might interpret your construing of my very simple 'rebuke' as a dropping of a 'hammer on you' as a bit 'thin skinned,' not to mention that you don't seem able to let it go. I didn't officially moderate you, give you warning points or anything. I just called you out by expressing MY OPINION of your OPINION.
4. I like DHK too, but openly playing favorites by contrasting us in this manner only further reveals your intent on this ad hominem rabbit trail. I'll gladly engage you on the topic, not on this rabbit trail.
5. Your point has been made, you don't like me much. I'll get over it somehow. Now, would you mind if we actually discuss the OP?

 

[OldRegular]

Now, if only Calvinists could be so gracious. :smilewinkgrin:

I will give that a :thumbs::thumbs:. I would give it 3 or 4 but you have already used one. I am sure that both Calvinists and Arminians could be more gracious on this Forum. Since I am neither I am sure your comment does not apply to me!:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Yeshua1]

OPTION 1: If I, as a non-Calvinistic believer, am wrong about my soteriology, then I could only be wrong because God so decreed it, right? God must have decided, for His own secret self-glorifying purposes, not to grant me enough grace to see my error and adopt Calvinism. So, if I am in error then I'm in error by God's unchanging divine decree and it ultimately must be a decision God made for his highest glory. Right so far? Or not? If not, then do you affirm the contra-causal free choice of believers?

OPTION 2: If, however, I am right and Calvinism is false, then I have judged the Word of God correctly as a 'response-able' free moral agent and I would be defending the truth of God's glory against false Calvinistic teaching. And the Calvinists, also as free moral agents, would be held responsible for their errors.

CONCLUSION: So, my conclusion is that non-Calvinism is the best position to hold, because you really can't go wrong either way given that in either option I'm fulfilling the highest purpose of bringing God the greatest amount of Glory. However, if you, as a Calvinist, are wrong; just consider the damage, disunity and potential consequences of your error in distracting from God's glory and His gracious provisions for the entire world.

Is that conclusion logically incorrect? If so, how so? Be specific.

How ABOUT AN OPTION 3?

that you strain in a mighty fashion against calvinistic straw men theology, and yet seem to have a problem with IF it is true, that makes Godunjust, not fair, we are his robots etc then?

 

[quantumfaith]

That is very gracious of you!

Is this grace among brothers or sarcasm? Sometimes hard to tell.

 

[InTheLight]

Now, would you mind if we actually discuss the OP?

Yes, I would like to hear a rebuttal. And one that does not appeal to the "mystery".

 

[Skandelon]

Yes, I would like to hear a rebuttal. And one that does not appeal to the "mystery".

Having read several notable scholars on this subject, if they are objective they will eventually have to appeal to mystery on this point...or adopt the 'all Christians will inevitably become Calvinists view,' which is becoming increasingly more popular due to its logical necessity within that system...a ditch similar to other hyper tendencies that typically follow.

 

[BobRyan]

I'm not blaming God for being the author of sin, I'm blaming a SYSTEM for teaching things that lead to that erroneous conclusion.

In the Calvinist model when you find a problem in its logic or reasoning - you are claiming to find a problem in God - not in Calvinism.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, possibly incorrect as you may not have all the information in one or both of your options.

You have drawn a conclusion from two options which IMO do not fully explain the mind of God and in fact the scripture declares we can't know anyway:

Isaiah 55

8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.​

You cannot claim the "God defense" when it is merely the assumptions and inferences of Calvinism that are found to be illogical.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[OldRegular]

Is this grace among brothers or sarcasm? Sometimes hard to tell.

In this case it was sarcasm. I simply find it hard to believe that a Christian would post the following:

I'm not blaming God for being the author of sin,

 

[Skandelon]

In this case it was sarcasm. I simply find it hard to believe that a Christian would post the following:

I was responding to that accusation...come on brother, you know better than this...