middle ground

[Mr.M]

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.

 

[russell55]

If it took action by man to separate us from God, why do you think it wouldn't take an action by man to reunite us with God? Lest anyone get the wrong idea of what I'm thinking, let me restate it another way:

If it took disobedience by Adam (ie he chose to disobey) for us to experience spiritual death, why would it then not take obedience on our part (chose to obey the step God has set forth) in order to experience spiritual life.

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?

 

[menageriekeeper]

Mr. M, interesting way of looking at things. I may even have to agree that would be a better way of comparing views. Getting everyone else to agree, well......

Lazarus, I was NOT calling into question God's will or power. Even if I were you must still provide context for your additions to the scripture or it does NOT provide clarity!

Russel, we must then find examples to provide claification. Why did Abel choose to obey God and properly sacrifice and Cain not. Obviously, God was still walking the earth and talking in "person" at that time. Did He (God) not tell Cain that if he would only obey he would also be accepted?

 

[Lazarus]

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,

 

[russell55]

I'm thinking anything that both sides agree on is middle ground!

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.

 

[menageriekeeper]

Lazarus, how do you know your view of God's perspective is correct?

Is it not prideful to declare, I know how God thinks? Does not the Bible say "no man knows the mind of God"?

It is not up to you to say "this is God's thought". God has given us what He wanted us to know. We call His information the Bible. If you want to say, "this is how I believe God sees man" then say it as an opinion and give scripture references to back up your point.

However to simply state that you see things from God's perspective and this is it........well, sounds pretty prideful and does nothing to convince me that you actually have any idea of what God thinks.

 

[menageriekeeper]

Russell, if there are things that both sides agree on, why can certain issues not be resolved within the context of scripture?

 

[Lazarus]

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.

 

[menageriekeeper]

On the off chance you didn't understand what I was trying to convey:

If I look at scripture from God's perspective I see God is just and man deserves nothing.

How do you know you are looking at scripture from God's perspective, knowing that those same scriptures say "know man knows the mind of God".

It is prideful to say such but not back up from the scripture where you found God's perspective.

 

[Lazarus]

How do you know you are looking at scripture from God's perspective, knowing that those same scriptures say "know man knows the mind of God".

It is prideful to say such but not back up from the scripture where you found God's perspective.

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.

 

[menageriekeeper]

I'm going to avoid that and just leave.

Chicken! :laugh:

Seriously, no name calling or fighting allowed! This does get down to the nitty gritty though. It calls us to question why we believe what we believe and that is a hard thing to do.

The problem is not in understanding the concept of a Just God or a fallen man, the problem is in reconciling everyone different perspectives on the matter.

If one places a quarter on a table in the center of a group of people and asks them what they see, you'll probably get the answer "a quarter". But if you ask that same group to get down to specifics about that quarter you are going to get various answers such as, "I see George Washington", "I see an eagle", "I see a serated edge" and from those who are looking it from an angle you are going to get something very different from the first three.

So which person is correct? They all are!

In the same way, we are all describing what we "see" in a different manner. But there must be a view that will turn the disparate into the cohesive. That is why I'm asking for a more solid foundation for our (those participating) views. It is simply not enough to say this is how I think God views man. We need to know why we think such.

And I repeat, no fighting or name calling is allowed or I will ask that the thread be shut down.

 

[skypair]

The question is whether election, not salvation, is unconditional. One side says it is unconditional, and the other says it is not unconditional. Where is the middle ground between unconditonal and not unconditional election?

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

 

[menageriekeeper]

Tell us why on both, please Skypair?

And hesitate before you use the words wrong and unscriptural as adjectives in this thread. See my previous post for why.

 

[booklady]

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.

 

[skypair]

I have an actual life. Unfortunately it has recently involved a herniated disk in my back that has me flat on my back and unable to do much. Plus my renewed dedication to worthwhile acccomplishment at my current stage of life and ministry has caused me to cut back on the amount of time I spend here.

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

So where is the middle ground between God unconditionally chooses individuals to salvation and God doesn't unconditionally choose individuals to salvation?

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:

That's incoherent. To "elect" is to "choose." (Look it up.) It is not both unconditional and conditional.

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

 

[skypair]

No, that's not what the Bible says.

All the Father gives Me will come to Me. It doesn't say, "may come to me if they so decide", after which I'll call them the elect/chosen. We WILL come. And we come because we have been chosen and given to Him.

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

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

skypair

 

[skypair]

If God called me because He knew I would except, would'nt I then be able to brag about it?

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

 

[skypair]

Everyone, on both sides agrees that God foresees who will come to him. The question is: Does God elect (or choose) them because he foresees they will come? Is their foreseen choice to come the determining factor in God's choice of them? Or is God's choice of them the determining factor in their being willing to come?

Or to put it in a slightly different way: Did God foresee them coming because he chose to bring them to salvation, or did he choose to bring them to salvation because he foresees them coming?

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

 

[npetreley]

Cute, but it since I don't happen think Shania Twain is all that, being forced to endure spending time with someone who only looks like her, doesn't appeal to me. Find a better way to explain why God wants to force us to accept Him, when He didn't bother to force Adam to obey.

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.

 

[Pastor Larry]

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!

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.

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.

The Bible says that God elects.

Here's the 'rub' Lar --- you're not really being sanctified until you have been justified.

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.