PDL/PDC and Calvinism

This statement if not funny, must be looked at as sad.

Arminianism says...
mans will, mans freewill, i will, i will, iwill...me me me..Human will
Calvinism says no...
God saves...Its Gods will.

Arminianism says...
Calvin limits God with election..God does not choose...Its HUMAN WILL
Calvinism says....
Its mans will that is limited...so God can do as he wants...its Gods own will that we get saved


Arminianism says...
No God loved the whole world..and calls all men to Him....man must only come...Its Human will
Calvinism says...
Yes God did invite all to Him.....But no one comes..So God chooses....Gods will


Arminianism says...
If you say God only choose some...that means God does not love the whole world when he passes over others..and that also means God hates. My God would never hate.
Calvinism says...
What was the picture of the "passover" in the OT? God past over those without the blood. And what happen to those that were past over? Who was told about putting the blood over the door..all of mankind or just a choosen nation? Did those that did not know to put the blood over the door have death come to their house? Was that fair..if they did not know? Christ did come for all mankind...YES But ..mankind said no thanks....turned its back on God and choose "mans will" over Gods will. Man choose sin over a Holy God. God hates sin. So....Never say God CAN NOT choose who He wants. When you say this..you place God in a box..and limit God.


Look at both views side by side.
Now which one would you call a human system??


In Christ...James

 

Both. They are both human explanations to try and understand a divine reality. They are both a human articulation of an issue that cannot be grasped fully by human minds.

And because they are both human systems, they both fall short of answering all the questions. That is why there is still a C/A debate forum in 2005.

Calvinism is a human system that tries to articulate in a limited fashion God's sovereignty and human freedom. Guess what? It falls short. That is why we are humans and God is God.

By the way, I am more "calvinistic" than "arminian". Another tendency of hypers is to link anyone who believes in culturally relevant ministry to Arminianism. Not going to happen in this case.

 

So in the end, my motive to evangelize is that God has "other sheep" out there and I am "hopeful" I get to be a part of the process.

My question remains: for what reason should I evangelize? As Piper says, the other sheep are out there. My participation is irrelevant.

By the way most NT scholars would disagree with Piper's interpretation here, so what does that do to the overall argument?

 

You have yet to meet someone who would profess to being a hyper -- just as I have never met someone who would profess to be racist.

Hypers are those who allow their theological focus or beliefs to hamper their evangelistic zeal. After all if I can blame it on God when few, if any, people are coming to Christ as a result of my witness, then I can at least cloak my lack of fruit in spiritual sounding garb.

You cannot limit the label "hyper" to a belief. There are many hypers who are hyper in practice.

Hypers also maintain a spirit of superiority to anyone who does not embrace their particular beliefs regarding application. For example, I believe strongly in God's sovereignty in salvation, yet I am often criticized and attacked because of my aggressive evangelistic methods. Is my theology any less "spiritual" or "right" than a 5-pointer? No. Yet in my dialogues with hypers, you would think their view of Scripture and God was "higher" than my own. Hypers allow little room for diversity in the body. They have sold out to a system.

Calvinism is definitely a grid by which many Calvinists interpret the whole of Scripture. As I said before, Calvinism is a human invention. It is a human system applied to a divine mystery.

Let me say this as clearly as I know how: there are simply some verses in the Bible you cannot explain within a human system such as Calvinism (or Arminianism). It is often amusing to watch C/As try and fit their system on the Scriptures. I have witnessed some semantic gymnastics by Calvinists who operate from a systematic foundation that forces them to redefine simple words and phrases in the Bible. How many definitions of "all" have Calvinists created to make certain verses fit in their system?

I agree with your first sentence and I chuckle at the second. The strongest opponents to reaching the unsaved in "better ways" can often be the most Calvinistic.

Like it or not, at the end of the day Calvinism has to justify evangelism. It is not a logical step in their system, which is why Piper says above that their evangelism is "hopeful."

When one allows the system to supplant the mystery element of this discussion, they are left with evangelism with no real motive other than I might be the means God chooses to use.

Please remember -- I am very God-centered in my theology. I have just come to the place I have stopped trying to articulate my beliefs within a human system. All human systems have limitations (Calvinism and Arminianism included).

 

All.....


I would have to agree that some do change the meaning of all with each verse. That goes with both sides. One way will be shown..

Calvinism...No one seeks God...Arminianism...well..you can't mean no one as in one person.

Arminianism...God died for ALL men...Calvinism..well..really not all men.

You hear this a lot on here. But it is also wrong for someone to read that last statement and say.."see joe said it...and james is a calvinist..so james MUST think the same"

I spend most of my time telling people that i DO NOT have to believe as they tell me i MUST. We all have reasons why you up hold our faith. My reason why i like it, may not be the same reason you hate it.

Again..you laugh at what i see in calvin. It maybe you do not see the same end as I. To you, Calvinism is justify evangelism and you go on and tell me i must like this, fact or not.

I disagree with you sir. I see the lost man as needing God. Have you ever been to the mission field? Man does not flock to God. I have many stories i could share with you. When you see it 1st hand it breaks your heart. Man is lost..does not care...finds no need of God. This is why i share...that is the whole point. You can go to downtown NYC and see this 1st hand.

All human systems have limitations ...i agree. I'm not a calvinist because calvin said it. You seem to think others just follow a man when they say..I'm a calvinist. some may...but i do not. TULIP has done just as much harm as good. When the outline is set, people read the headings and blast the heading yet show in their reasoning that they do not understand the meaning of the heading.

You pull in piper and act as if i must believe each word he says. Hey..piper is fine. But piper is only a man. If piper gets out of line one needs to stop listen to his point that follows.

I do think evangelism is a logical step sir. Please do not say i can think this way. You should understand this for you said...

"I believe strongly in God's sovereignty in salvation, yet I am often criticized and attacked because of my aggressive evangelistic methods"

I ask you also..not to attack my reason to evangelize. I'm glad you are God-centered in my theology. I also feel this way. I do not view calvinist as a human doctrine. yet you have attack my faith for believeing it.

I do not call you a any points person. Points are for gamblers and Bob. I never use the points game. That is pointless and only hurts the debate. So..i could never think of you as less spiritual for i do not know how many points you have. Nor do you know my points i carry..so you can not say my calvinism is only human based faith. BTW the last time this came up..i posted a list of the 57 points i hold to. so going by points i guess i am the winner. But points do not count, do they?

For you to laugh at my ways of reaching the lost..is flat out wrong sir. As you put it..

"The strongest opponents to reaching the unsaved in "better ways" can often be the most Calvinistic."

They maybe for you, but the burden i have for the lost comes from my relationship i have with God. For you to laugh at this shows you have set ways you look a calvinism and say all must be in the same boat.

In Christ...james

 

JA001,

My words are directed at the theological system known as Calvinism. It is a human invention to try and understand God's sovereignty in salvation. Like ANY system, it falls short.

I don't know or care how much of the system you embrace or don't embrace. I am simply saying that the system Calvinism, as properly defined, has some gaps.

I am sure your motives are pure and laudable. That is not my point. My words are directed at the system itself and not a hybrid form of Calvinism that you and I may or may not embrace.

If you are not in the boat, perhaps you should change your title. To say you are a Calvinist automatically implies certain things.

 

All about...

Thanks for your reply. This is a good idea, however it does not work. My 1st month posting i said i'm not a calvinist..i just believe in these few things calvin said.

As soon as you say ELECT...many people lable you a calvinist. Election vs freewill is the fighting grounds of the debate. So i see many throwing out the word election and taking a word not fround in the bible...freewill. that is wrong ALL about....but if i correct them on passing over a word (ELECTION)...BAMMMM..Calvinist

i then see others changing the meaning of election...that too is wrong too. try to correct them..here comes that lable again...CALVINIST!!!

Then i hear others saying If you believe in predestination...you are calling God a lair. Well as you know All about, predestination is in the bible. I correct those that say this and BINGO..calvinist.

Well..call me what you want...but the point is..you are wrong for throwing out the word predestination.

I show where predestination is NOT election...then i'm told..no you are hiding from your faith...you must be CALVINIST.

Well..if i were calvin then MOST calvinist teach election 1st...and then predestination. they are not the same words..they are linked...but not to be viewed as one...so lable me what you want.

In my reading of others, if they say something i disagree with..but it is supported..i let it go. if they say something that is out of line..and not supported in the bible...i line with the bible. More then just a few times i corrected calvinist that tried to push the wrong meaning of the passage. It was not that i disagreed with their point..but i disagreed with there support passage..and i told them.

Yet to MOST arminian believers..you say the word ELECTION..and they go off the wall.

If this one thing.."ELECTION"...is what a calvinist is...then call me a calvinist. No matter what you lable me...its in the Bible...context gives us understanding of the word....and it means what it says...do not throw it out

As i said many times before...i think i'm a jamesist


In Christ...James