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

[Skandelon]

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.

 

[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?.....

I'm not 'predestinarian' as you would paint all DoGs, but I do somewhat agree with the above in that it is indeed a gift to be shown and to know these precious truths from the scriptures. Thank you LORD. I don't know why you're stuck at the low level you're at, I'm just glad I'm not you. Not being sarcastic or facetious in the least, this is genuinely my thoughts on this.

 

[webdog]

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.

Actually as coming to faith as a non cal (as we all do...ironically), then a cal, and now back to non cal...how does that fit into #1? What did Jesus say about a house divided?

 

[webdog]

I'm not 'predestinarian' as you would paint all DoGs, but I do somewhat agree with the above in that it is indeed a gift to be shown and to know these precious truths from the scriptures. Thank you LORD. I don't know why you're stuck at the low level you're at, I'm just glad I'm not you. Not being sarcastic or facetious in the least, this is genuinely my thoughts on this.

He was a cal at one point and repented of his error, so at no point was he ever stuck at any level. God must have had one strange plan.

He would be 'stuck at the low level he is at' due to God's design, so why should you be glad His decree concerning you is different from him? If I'm a determinist I would be glad for Gods plan for everyone.

 

[kyredneck]

I don't know what 'brand' of Calvinism he held to, or if there were some very hateful characters within that 'brand' that drove him away, but he sure manages to often misrepresent Calvinism as I understand it. Some of them must have done some very bad things to him for him to carry the grudge or the obsession or whatever it is that he does.

 

[webdog]

I don't know what 'brand' of Calvinism he held to, or if there were some very hateful characters within that 'brand' that drove him away, but he sure manages to often misrepresent Calvinism as I understand it. Some of them must have done some very bad things to him for him to carry the grudge or the obsession or whatever it is that he does.

You sound like he had the contra-causal free will to choose otherwise

 

[Skandelon]

I'm just glad I'm not you. Not being sarcastic or facetious in the least, this is genuinely my thoughts on this.

........wow, try to get some honest feedback on a recent point brought up in a discussion (which certainly seems valid if contra-causal freedom is in question) and this is the level of banter you get in response? This is one of the most personally demeaning bullying type comments I've heard in a while.

Revealing and sad...

 

[Skandelon]

You sound like he had the contra-causal free will to choose otherwise

lol

...and that is the point! The very existence of forums like this only go to validate contra-causal free will.

 

[Skandelon]

he sure manages to often misrepresent Calvinism as I understand it.

1. As I've quoted before, Calvinists are seriously divided among themselves and always have been. There is Supralapsarianism vs. Sublapsarianism vs. Infralapsarianism. 'The Supralapsarians hold that God decreed the fall of Adam; the Sublapsarians, that he permitted it' (McClintock & Strong). The Calvinists at the Synod of Dort were divided on many issues, including lapsarianism. The Swiss Calvinists who wrote the Helvetic Consensus Formula in 1675 were in conflict with the French Calvinists of the School of Saumur. There are Strict Calvinists and Moderate Calvinists, Hyper and non-Hyper (differing especially on reprobation and the extent of the atonement and whether God loves all men), 5 pointers, 4 pointers, 3 pointers, 2 pointers. In America Calvinists were divided into Old School and the New School. As we have seen, the Calvinists of England were divided in the 19th century.

Whenever, therefore, one tries to state TULIP theology and then refute it, there are Calvinists who will argue with you that you are misrepresenting Calvinism. It is not so much that you are misrepresenting Calvinism, though. You might be quoting directly from various Calvinists or even from Calvin himself. The problem is that you are misrepresenting THEIR Calvinism! There are Calvin Calvinists and Thomas Fuller Calvinists and Arthur W. Pink Calvinists and Presbyterian Calvinists and Baptist Calvinists and many other sorts of Calvinists. Many Calvinists have never read Calvin’s Institutes of Christian Religion for themselves. They are merely following someone who follows someone who allegedly follows Calvin (who, by his own admission, followed Augustine).

Calvinists believe that they have the right to reject or modify some parts of or conclusions of Calvin. I agree with them 100%, and I say, further, that we also have the right to reject the entire thing if we are convinced that it is not supported by Scripture!

Some of them must have done some very bad things to him for him to carry the grudge or the obsession or whatever it is that he does.

You are reading a nefarious intent into my posts because we happen to disagree soteriologically. The fact is that my best friend is Calvinistic and so is my older brother, along with many other close friends I work with on a regular basis. We get along quite well. Maybe you missed it, but this is a DEBATE forum created for the purpose of DEBATING these issues.

How about you stick to the purpose and not make this personal as that is against the rules, and thus sinning, while I'm acting in accordance with the purposes and rules. So, who needs the rebuke here?

 

[The Biblicist]

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?

The problem with this kind of rationale is very simple. Your whole line of reasoning is that God is to blame for your sin. According to this line of reasoning you could put adultery, murder, or any other sin in the place of theological error and make God the author of your sins.

This line of reasoning does not represent our position at all but it does represent the straw man position you want to attribute to us.

The gnat in your ointment is that we beleive God decrees all sin permissively (Psa. 76:10) in conjunction with full accountability by the sinner wherein the choice to sin is also the choice to forfeit ability to please God - Rom. 5:12-19; 8:7-8.

 

[HankD]

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.

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.​

Ecclesiastes 8:17 Then I beheld all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun: because though a man labour to seek it out, yet he shall not find it; yea further; though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it.​

So I believe we can say from these two scriptures that neither Calvin or Arminius had the complete answer though they laboured to seek it out they found it not (which is not to say they were reprobate).​

True, we now have the complete revelation from God but the present confusion and divisions both inter and intra-camp of these human theologies prove we are no better off now than when these two scriptures above (and there are others) were given.

My advise for what it's worth or needed: Relax, forget the writings of Calvin and Arminus (at least for a season), trust God, and walk in the free gift of the salvation He has given us through Christ the son of God, Jesus Christ, God the son come in the flesh.​

Psalm 46:10 Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth.​

Revelation 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.​

Revelation 21:6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.​

HankD

 

[OldRegular]

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.

I believe that God is Sovereign over all of His Creation. That being said if you have some distorted view of the Doctrines of Grace I do not believe you can blame it on God.

 

[BobRyan]

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. (as long as you are not Caivinist)

That is correct.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I believe that God is Sovereign over all of His Creation. That being said if you have some distorted view of the Doctrines of Grace I do not believe you can blame it on God.

Err... umm... because "that" is the part of the universe over which God is not sovereign??

 

[The Biblicist]

The problem with this kind of rationale is very simple. Your whole line of reasoning is that God is to blame for your sin. According to this line of reasoning you could put adultery, murder, or any other sin in the place of theological error and make God the author of your sins.

This line of reasoning does not represent our position at all but it does represent the straw man position you want to attribute to us.

The gnat in your ointment is that we beleive God decrees all sin permissively (Psa. 76:10) in conjunction with full accountability by the sinner wherein the choice to sin is also the choice to forfeit ability to please God - Rom. 5:12-19; 8:7-8.

No response yet?

 

[Winman]

No response yet?

Simply denying a logical conclusion of Calvinism does not make the problem go away. Some Calvinists have been bold enough to admit that Calvinism is illogical and ridiculous

“Over against these humanistic views, the Calvinist accepts both sides of the antimony. He realizes that what he advocates is ridiculous. It is simply impossible for man to harmonize these two sets of data. To say on the one hand that God has made certain all that ever happens, and yet to say that man is responsible for what he does? Nonsense! It must be one or the other, but not both. To say that God foreordains the sin of Judas, and yet Judas is to blame? Foolishness! Logically the author of The Predestinated Thief was right. God cannot foreordain the theft and then blame the thief. And the Calvinist freely admits that his position is illogical, ridiculous, nonsensical, and foolish…The Calvinist holds to two apparently contradictory positions.”

(The Five Points of Calvinism- pg. 85)

At least some Calvinists are bold enough to admit their system is foolish and illogical.

Simply saying, "We don't say God is the author of sin." does not negate the logical conclusions of Calvinism, just as a thief who was videotaped robbing a store who claims he never did it, doesn't negate that he actually committed the crime.

But if you try hard enough, you can rationalize away anything.

 

[Skandelon]

The problem with this kind of rationale is very simple. Your whole line of reasoning is that God is to blame for your sin. According to this line of reasoning you could put adultery, murder, or any other sin in the place of theological error and make God the author of your sins.

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. I understand that Calvinists would never say God is the author of sin, but in the same breath some would say he decrees the sinful desires of men (i.e. 'He decrees whatsoever comes to pass'), so what else are we to conclude? Authoring sin seems mild in comparison to unchangeably decreeing the sinful desires and thus choices and actions of men.

I also realize different Calvinists approach this at different degrees. Luke is a hard determinist, for example, where as you seem more mainstream and balanced in your approach.

The gnat in your ointment is that we beleive God decrees all sin permissively

Not all Calvinists actually believe that God merely permits evil as evidence on this very forum several times.

Nevertheless, how does that work exactly in your worldview? Does man originate the evil desire and then God comes to know of it after man originates it? Or did God know it prior to man originating it, thus meaning it actually began or originated in the mind of God rather than man?

I have my 'theories' about this (which is basically an appeal to mystery), but I'm curious as to your approach as compared to some others I've discussed this with over the years.

So, in the case of my rejection of Calvinism. Is God merely permitting me to remain in my 'ignorance' or 'stubbornness' and choosing to withhold from me some measure of grace given to you and the other enlightened children?

How are you supposing this works and how has what I've stated misrepresented what you really believe has happened?

 

[OldRegular]

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

That is very gracious of you!

 

[Skandelon]

That is very gracious of you!

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

 

[kyredneck]

You sound like he had the contra-causal free will to choose otherwise

lol

...and that is the point! The very existence of forums like this only go to validate contra-causal free will.

If you didn't pick up on it, I was inquiring/wondering as to what might have CAUSED Skandelon to leave the truths of Sovereign Grace.

........wow, try to get some honest feedback on a recent point brought up in a discussion (which certainly seems valid if contra-causal freedom is in question) and this is the level of banter you get in response? This is one of the most personally demeaning bullying type comments I've heard in a while.

Revealing and sad...

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1986587#post1986587

IMO, you REGRESSED doctrinally when you left DoG. 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.

How about you stick to the purpose and not make this personal as that is against the rules, and thus sinning, while I'm acting in accordance with the purposes and rules. So, who needs the rebuke here?

And I'll take that rebuke and repent. I should've never commented to begin with. Most of what you post I don't even relate with and I usually don't comment, but I somewhat agreed with the premise of your first sentence.

When your personal move from Calvinism to 'non-Calvinism' has been shared on the thread, it brings a personal aspect into the topic, don't you think?