The difficulty in accepting these two posts as other than opinion is that in my earlier post I specified exactly what the problem post was and the reason for the reaction.
This was a very good post agedman....and I appreciate it's reasonableness and candor. The problem is, that there is a miscommunication obviously.....mainly I think it is this: I decidedly believe God is Sovereign...I also believe God is Just...In short, myself, and all others (I think) on this board assume all of the premises of "Theology proper" to be true. All of the basic and assumed attributes of God such as Sovereignty, Justice, Love, Omniscience et. al. are ASSUMED....therefore, my objection was about the logical consequences of Calvinist thinking...I understand if one mis-understands the intent...I have even previously posted that I believe that Calvinist doctrine actually robs God of, of all things.... SOVEREIGNTY!!! Thus, to state then that one's post "denies" the Sovereignty of God is truly problematic. It is problematic because, the poster (we can just say me from now on) completely confesses Sovereignty. It is Hard sometimes to strictly delineate between someone making a distinction between what is viewed as the logical consequence of a system of belief, and the confessional standpoint of a system of belief...My original post was indeed "vehement" and due to it's harsh nature...some might very quickly take umbrage at it. But your initial post claimed that it was a "denial of the Sovereign God" That is simply not the case. Conversely, I no more deny God's Sovereignty than any other obvious attribute. In fact....the obsession we seem to have in the whole Cal/Arm debate is that "Sovereignty" is in a sense an "over-played" idea...God is the only "Omnipotent" being in the Universe....Thus, by default (unless one subscribes to deism) he is "Sovereign" by default....One might as well accuse someone of not believing in God's Omnipotence, as they might the buzz-word of "Sovereign".
I further attempted (obviously in vain) to clarify how that particular selection misconstrued the various Calvinistic thinking on threads.
Then, it must be debated upon those grounds...what one should not say, though, is that another poster "denies" the Sovereignty of God. (Confessionally). Sometimes we talk past each other, because of the distinction between what is confessionally believed and what the logical consequences of a system are.
Why it is that Calvinistic thinkers generally come at a passage from various angles of application.
I do not know what this means
Another interpretation to the first part of the post could have been that the poster hasn't encountered very many Calvinistic thinkers in his sphere of interaction;
Truth is...."the poster" (we can say HoS now) has, in fact encountered many, and I am indeed quite familiar with all of the argumentation....My post is about what I believed to be Calvinism's logical consequences....not it's professed belief. The same understanding must exist when one speaks of a non-Cal P.O.V. One must distinguish...Sometimes there is confusion, and perhaps, my original post was ill-thought out....I can accept that, as it obviously created far more problems than it solved....My own foolish failure....But similarly....It was no opportunity to begin questioning another's salvation, which, Icon does regularly and repeatedly.
God has done this purposefully. We all can learn from each other.
I am not positive about the first part of the statement...but as for the second..."iron sharpeneth iron" Indeed!!
There will always be a general undercurrent of sharp tone, words of biting edge, and volatility that lays just under the surface. Even a thread on periods, that bring a smile, show how that the form of generating an argument is part of the board.
True....I often say.. that as far as the Cal'Arm debate goes...One side believes that the other disparages God's Sovereignty, and the other believes it slanders His Character. It will always have an undertone due to this. Both sides generally LOVE God, and react quite strongly, because well, quite frankly, both sides see the other as guilty of slander. It is thus hard to work around that. My initial post belies that latent issue....I Love God, and yes, I Love the same God as you do...sometimes, when his Character seems questioned...(as I tend to think Cal thought does)...I react, much like Cals sometimes do. It takes maturity and patience indeed to debate these issues irenically.
This was (over-all) a good post Aged...and I thank you for it.
Last edited by a moderator:
