middle ground

Schools of theology should be viewed in a spherical construct and not linear. The linear method produces a false spectrum resulting in two systems being spotted on each end and everything in between. Of course this isn't correct. The correlation between varying systems cannot rightly be measured in a linear fashion. Hence the strong recommendation that it be view spherically or an "in between".

Think about a globe, the earth for example. In Oregon there are houses and in Australia there are houses. Do we say the houses in Oregon are "semi-Australian" or the ones in Australia are "semi-Oregonian" simply because there are similarities in structure? Not unless there is a DELIBERATE use of PROPRIETARY design is such a comparison warranted. Instead we recognizes while similarities exist unless deliberate, we see view them on their own merit.

But with many in theological circles they effort to limit labels in a linear fashion really is simply an effort to minimize the value of other contributions and force a false comparison and relationship to other systems. While sometimes it is true often it is not. Hence the recommendation for a spherical model and not a linear spectrum.

 

Neither side is saying that those who are saved don't have to believe in order to be justified, so really, both sides are saying that we must obey a command of God—the command to believe—in order to be justified.

The sticky point is not whether that step is necessary in order for us to experience spiritual life, but whether, left in our stubbornly disobedient condition, we will ever choose to obey that command. Are fallen people in their natural born state hostile to God, and thus unwilling to trust him? In our natural condition, do we all want other things more than we want to be reunited with God? Do people, in their natural condition since the fall, want to experience spiritual life if it involves submitting to God?

 

Interesting, but I prefer to look at scripture from the perspective of a Holy and Righteous God as compared to a fallen and depraved man.

For instance, If I look at scripture from God's perspective I see God is just and man deserves nothing. So, since man deserves nothing then what will God allow? Will anyone be saved?

Now if I look at scripture from mans perspective I see a fallen man who believes God is love and will not send anyone to hell. Everyone will be saved.

Since I know God will judge the unsaved according to their sin then I know that looking at this picture from mans perspective is looking in the wrong direction. So the only other way to see God's plan is from His perspective and believe in a God whose will cannot be anything other then what He says. There cannot be any in betweens, nor lines or fences.

Ro 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

 

In that case, there is lots and lots and lots of middle ground. The two sides agree on lots of things.

But from the opening post, I understood middle ground to be referring to something halfway between on the points on which the two sides disagree. On the points on which they disagree, there are really no options except coming down on one side or the other, or remaining undecided.

 

I've never said I knew how God thinks. If I did, I wouldn't need to use scripture to show where my belief comes from. In every thing I say, I say because I believe it to be true. If anyone should think I speak pridefully, I am sorry. I do take scripture literally though. And don't think I am unmoving in my beliefs, because I have on several occasions changed my position on several areas of study when I have found I was wrong.

 

This is the point where the fight breaks out and name calling starts.

I'm going to avoid that and just leave.

If you can't understand to Just nature of God and the Fallen nature of man then there is really nothing more to say.

 

I think the middle ground here is "what is election."

If election = sanctification -- then both Calvinists and free willers believe the same thing!

If "election" = justification -- then Calvinists are wrong and unscriptural.
skypair

 

I remember the days when I was ignorant and had never heard the terms "Calvinists" and "Arminians."

Ignorance is bliss.

I prefer to be known as a plain ol' Christian. I usually don't even like to be known as a Baptist, quite honestly.

Some would say I'm still ignorant.

 

Whew! I'm gonna have to pray harder for you, bro!

Middle ground: He unconditionally chooses them to salvation in this life (sanctification) but He doesn't unconditionally choose them to salvation in the next life (justification)! There! You have your way and I have mine! :thumbsup:

But it is! You insist that He chooses to elections -- elects the elect. Right on! I insist that WE choose whether we are "elect" and we do by choosing to trust Christ.

Here's the 'rub' Lar --- you're not really being sanctified until you have been justified. You may think you are being sanctified but you are just being 'sanctimonious.' Another way to look at it -- you can serve Jesus whether or not you have received Christ as your Savior (at least you can think you are serving Him.). But you and I both know you're not really serving, not really being sanctified in that case, are you.

Yes, God predestinated the 'chosen ones' but they had already, foreknown to God, chosen Him.

skypair

 

Broken record... record... record...rec...

We've already debunked your interpretation of that passage -- get over it.

skypair

 

Quite the opposite, my dear. If He "elected" you, your bragging -- your saying so -- would be the only real assurance you would have that you are saved! That's why it is good to take a knee, bow your head, and pray the sinner's prayer of repentance and receiving Christ -- so you will know in your heart that there was a day when you "made your calling sure" by receiving God's Promise!!

skypair

 

One can get "twisted up in knots" just thinking about it, russ! :laugh: It's "the chicken or the egg" argument in another setting, isn't it? How would we resolve that?!

Let's start with this -- God has to determine WHO it is He's going to predestine before He predestines them, right? How does scripture say He determines WHO?

Rom 8:29 notwithstanding, God says that "whosoever will" is the WHO that He'll save and predestine.

So does the Bible suggest a way that God can make this open-ended promise to just anyone and still know WHO to predestine? Sure! He foreknows them! Rom 8:29! First item in the "Golden Chain of Salvation" as you call it!

I mean, if God is going to do everything He promises for "whosoever" will believe, that's the only way to do it. Otherwise, there can be no "whosoever will" promise, can there?! "Whosoever will" would have to be a lie, would't it.

skypair

 

The real Shania Twain (Eilleen Edwards) is into new age stuff, last time I heard, and she's married. So I'd have to settle for a look-alike (as if anyone like that would give me a first look, let alone a second). I happen to think she's drop dead gorgeous, but regardless, you totally missed my point.

 

That's incoherent. Salvation in this life as you call it sancitification stems from having chosen them to justification. The longer you talk, the less sense you make.

The Bible says that God elects.

Yes, in terms of post salvation sanctification. But the bible does talk about the setting apart unto salvation.


Again, your position just continues to be incoherent and unable to deal with the plain statements of Scripture.