My Approach to Calvinism

On one hand I can see your point, but on the other hand I think it is a dangerous thing to shut our hearts and think we have "arrived". If it were so easy as to just "work out the 5 points against Scripture" there would be no debate in the first place, and everyone would ether be a cal or non cal. When I work out the 5 ponts against Scripture, I see some truth...but much that is not truth. That is why after seriously considering the calvinist position a few years back, I cannot accept the system as soteriological truth.

 

What specific arguments do you find misleading?

 

But that is NOT what Paul prods us to do in Eph 4?? Is that what you are saying? That I am willing for "unity" but you are not and, furthermore, you don't believe that the Bible exhorts believers to UNITY?

Or are you saying that your wrong theology and my right theology will not be an issue at the Bema??

I have a real problem, though, with one who dogmatically sticks to arguments that he/she KNOWS are both "misleading" and divisive. I should think that such an one would like to clear up the "misleading" aspects of their own theology in order to bring unity than he/she would like to start threads knowing that they will be divisive.

Would you not like to "unencumber" yourself of either the theology or of the specific arguments that "taint" all the rest of your constant adherence to DoG? What kind of theologian would you say I was if I told you -- which I never have -- that there were elements of free will that were misleading of the truth? Do you want to be called a Calvinist in spite of the faults that even you see in it? How many points have to be wrong before you say, "Know what? I give up. I can't keep saying I am a Calvinist and keep 'voting' with the free willers?"

At just what extent of correctness-incorrectness do you divest yourself of false theology? Do you think it not worth abandoning for the fact that it has TOTALLY misread prophecy? dispensations? sin nature? predestination?

Well, that's a start. :laugh: And I'm not saying (which you seem to be fearing) that our unity ought to be "ecumenicism." I am calling for unity of true believers. Do you not feel drawn from Calvinism (though for the tenor of your posts lately, I think I know your answer)?

IOW, if you were to change YOUR "working model" even slightly from Calvinism, what would you change?

Lesson in model building: Calvin was "working off of" a previous model, Catholicism. For all his "alterations," many of us believe it wasn't so much of a "reformation" as it was a "repositioning" of a few of the "deck chairs" on the Titanic -- a "revision," a "repackaging." Sure, the "model" was changed, but it was neither qualitatively nor quantitatively enough!

They're invalid, right? What are they? Why do you have trouble with them? Is it scriptural trouble? emotionaly trouble? logical trouble?

How about this: Free will is all over scripture. I have NO trouble with ANY arguments used because both grace and free will are comprehended by it.

Friend, YOU made Calvinist the topic of this thread. If you had said, "My Approach to Mormonism," then Mormonism would be the "great antagonist!" The truth is that any theology that puts itself at odds with gospel of Jesus Christ is "the antagonist."

TC, I love ya to death, man. You're starting to show some interest in reasoning together rather than the dogmatic positions you used to put on display daily towards your brothers and sisters. And I, too, have been dogmatic for the truth BUT I have been pragmatic where we could clearly agree IF we would just be using the same terminology.

Another brother of yours tries to talk about love as if it had many definitions depending on who the object of the love is (elect or world). Love is love! It ain't the same as lust or respecter of persons or yada/intercourse or any of that! Jesus didn't love Judas any less nor more than He loves you and me -- saved children of God! The more responsive we are, the more He will BLESS us but His love is an absolute quality! It's either there (God loves everyone) or it's not (God hates sin)! He "foreloves" everyone if that is what you want Rom 8:29 to say OR He foreknows everyone but predestinates BELIEVERS as His omniscience and omnipotence would tell us is also true!

skypair

 

So you believe that Christ died for every person in the world? Only those who believe are the elect?

I agree with you.

That doesn't sound like Calvinism.

 

Did Christ take God's wrath for every person in the world upon himself on the cross?

 

Well maybe you have worked out the five "ponts";but you're missing the larger point.

You can't accept the system as soteriological truth although your pastor does.You willingly sit under his ministry.

 

Christ was the propitiation for our sins. This means that He satisfied God's requirement of justice.

Rom 3:25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed,
Rom 3:26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Christ's sacrifice of Himself satisfied God's wrath against sin, but it is through our faith that we are justified.

 

So is that a yes or a no?

 

As far as the propitiation goes, yes. But faith in that propitiation made by Christ, is essential for salvation.

 

So all men had their sins propitiated at the cross.

 

1Jo 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

So, yes.

 

Yes, if one understands what propitiation is.

The propitiation is that sacrifice made toward God that has satified judicially the penalty of and for SIN. However, this was not imparted to any man yet - the propitiation r offering was made and God found it completely acceptabel. And scripture states that the propitiation is only received or imparted 'by faith' - Rom 3:25

Thus the sacrifice of Christ is made for sin toward all men but is only applied to whosoever believes that God is satified with Christ's work and receives that sacrifice on his behalf - will be be justified, sanctified, and made righteous - saved!

 

Your point? Being the member of a local church entails more than the exact soteriological beliefs of the pastor, does it not?

 

I didn't say nor did I imply that one must follow the "exact soteriological beliefs of the pastor".Thos are your words.No one follows anyone -- exactly.But you knew that when you typed it didn't you?No,an individual should be in general agreement with one's pastor upon the subject.Otherwise you should not be a part of that body of believers.

 

You are the one guy to have the gall to come up with such absurd stuff.Do have even a clue that Calvinists cover the spectrum regarding eschatology?I think they have a pretty good handle on the sin nature and predestination.

You are in dire need of Church History lessons among your other privations.Could you please type something of substance once in a while?Why don't you refrain from typing on a subject when you don't have an iota of knowledge about it?When you do have a speck of data you spout-off such biased tripe it is beyond the pale.You have benefited from the Reformation in ways that you can't appreciate.It was a God-ordained Revival of mammoth proportions.By that I am not suggesting that sin didn't enter at any point.Even the Great Awakening was affected by sin despite God's undeniable Hand in the events.

It's certainly foreloved.The Lord has set His love in eternity past on His own elect ones.The Lord is the one who turns the hearts of His people and draws them to Himself.The Lord doesn't have to prognosticate.He doesn't have to wait on the will of man to decide "Well,yeah -- I think I have the capacity on my own to turn to God."Then in that silly view of yours God thinks "Good! That one is just the fellow I will foreknow."