Poll on Doctrines of Grace and Free Will

[glfredrick]

That's rich. You are the one confused...yet it is our theology that is not cohesive. It would do you a world of good to learn opposing views to your own.

I have yet to see you address the story of Hezekiah. Curious as to why.

No... I've asked you before to pin down what you actually hold, and as I recall, you refused. I'm not confused because of what I believe, I have a reasonably worked out theology that is biblically driven, but I cannot find the same in you. You move the goal posts whenever it becomes convenient, and you also trot out cherry-picked verses to prove your points.

Hezekiah? I've not addressed it because there is nothing to address. God is sovereign -- ultimately and completely. He did what He did knowing the plan all along. It is not I that makes God out to be a liar. If He caused Hezekiah to pray to change circumstances, then He already had a plan in the works to deal with that.

 

[menageriekeeper]

I'm going to leave off the fact you think I don't have a cohesive belief system in favor of a better discussion. Since you are confused by what I write, I'm going to refer you Ituttut's post #79. He and I seem to agree quite well.

It is not I that makes God out to be a liar. If He caused Hezekiah to pray to change circumstances, then He already had a plan in the works to deal with that.

There are only two logical assumtions here:

1) God told Hezekiah he was going to die in order to make him pray, which means God lied to Hezekiah cause Hez wasn't really going to die.

or

2)God told Hezekiah that he was going to die and then, upon seeing hezekiah's sorrow, changed His mind, thus rearranging His own plans out of love, yet being great/powerful enough to keep this change from affecting His "end game".

Which view really shows the sovereignity of God?

 

[webdog]

No... I've asked you before to pin down what you actually hold, and as I recall, you refused. I'm not confused because of what I believe, I have a reasonably worked out theology that is biblically driven, but I cannot find the same in you. You move the goal posts whenever it becomes convenient, and you also trot out cherry-picked verses to prove your points.

Hezekiah? I've not addressed it because there is nothing to address. God is sovereign -- ultimately and completely. He did what He did knowing the plan all along. It is not I that makes God out to be a liar. If He caused Hezekiah to pray to change circumstances, then He already had a plan in the works to deal with that.

Your recollection is lacking. I've never refused to answer anything. I have over 17k posts on this forum, if you actually cared to know what I believe you could instead of creating your own strawmen and falsely accusing me and others. Besides, you claim my theology is not biblically driven so obviously you do know what I believe. Were you just lying then to get a response? Mighty Christ-like!
As is becoming quite prevalent here on the BB, the calvinist talks all graceful, sweet and kind to their own, but then become quite vitriolic to anyone who dares question them, sets them straight on what they actually believe and not what they want to hear. The "good ole boy club".

Did you just accuse me of "moving the goal posts whenever it becomes convenient" and then had the gall to say "If He caused Hezekiah to pray to change circumstances"?!? How many feet does your cherry picker go up? If God had His fingers crossed behind His back while winking and telling Hezekiah he was going to die just to get Hez to pray...that is LYING or He was merely kidding especially if "He planned it all along" as you maintain. Like I said, you can twist it (and you did) anyway you like, but the fact is finite beings like us cannot know exactly how an infinte God deals with man within and outside of the confines of time given the immutable truths found in Scripture. If you disagree with that notion, you must have an awfully high opinion of your biblical knowledge.

 

[Havensdad]

It lifts my heart to see that more than half the people on this thread (well over!) affirm all of the Doctrines of Grace! Soli Deo Gloria!

Also, when you take out Limited Atonement, that number jumps to almost three quarters. Yee-Haw!

 

[webdog]

It lifts my heart to see that more than half the people on this thread (well over!) affirm all of the Doctrines of Grace! Soli Deo Gloria!

Also, when you take out Limited Atonement, that number jumps to almost three quarters. Yee-Haw!

What does that mean exactly...that this forum is highly calvinistic? That more calvinists voted on this poll (or have even seen it)?

What kind of data can you receive from a poll like this that can lift your heart? Besides, I'll give you the 4 and 5 pointers...but you cannot claim "victory" on that alone. A 3 pointer cannot be considered a DoG'er. Actually all 5 points stand and fall together, so 3 and 4 pointers are either confused on 2 and 1 point respectively, or the 3 and 4. I see it as almost half (43 - 42)

As you can see, you can spin data any way you wish.

 

[menageriekeeper]

It lifts my heart to see that more than half the people on this thread (well over!) affirm all of the Doctrines of Grace! Soli Deo Gloria!

Also, when you take out Limited Atonement, that number jumps to almost three quarters. Yee-Haw!

Are you sure that is something to brag about?

Mat 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Mat 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

 

[glfredrick]

I'm going to leave off the fact you think I don't have a cohesive belief system in favor of a better discussion. Since you are confused by what I write, I'm going to refer you Ituttut's post #79. He and I seem to agree quite well.



There are only two logical assumtions here:

1) God told Hezekiah he was going to die in order to make him pray, which means God lied to Hezekiah cause Hez wasn't really going to die.

or

2)God told Hezekiah that he was going to die and then, upon seeing hezekiah's sorrow, changed His mind, thus rearranging His own plans out of love, yet being great/powerful enough to keep this change from affecting His "end game".

Which view really shows the sovereignity of God?

Both... Stop attributing to God human issues.

 

[webdog]

Both... Stop attributing to God human issues.

So you agree that God lied to Hezekiah?!? Wow...

Besides, if both view really show God's sovereignty, how dare you tell us our views are man centered!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Are you sure that is something to brag about?

Mat 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Mat 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Im not sure I understand, so help me out here. Are you relating the Doctrine of Grace to the broad gate & free will to a narrow gate? Is that what your saying?

 

[glfredrick]

So you agree that God lied to Hezekiah?!? Wow...

Besides, if both view really show God's sovereignty, how dare you tell us our views are man centered!

Note that you said that, I did not.

Do we KNOW the motives of God based on that verse? Or are we trying to reason through them with very human logic in order to make some theological hay?

 

[Havensdad]

Are you sure that is something to brag about?

Mat 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Mat 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Not "bragging" about anything. Is it bragging to rejoice that more than half of the people in this thread have a God-centered theology, with a high view of His Mighty Sovereignty, rather than the wishy washy garbage in most churches? I think not.

The "broad path" is definitely not Calvinism (considering that Calvinists are in the vast minority). It is only HERE that they seem to be in a majority, which is why I am rejoicing.

And, No, Webdog, the 5 points do not stand and fall together. One can believe in a non-Calvinist view of Atonement (non-particular) and still believe in the other 4 points, with no logical contradiction.

 

[glfredrick]

Im not sure I understand, so help me out here. Are you relating the Doctrine of Grace to the broad gate & free will to a narrow gate? Is that what your saying?

Hence my continued confusion over where some of the posters in this thread are headed... :BangHead:

 

[webdog]

And, No, Webdog, the 5 points do not stand and fall together. One can believe in a non-Calvinist view of Atonement (non-particular) and still believe in the other 4 points, with no logical contradiction.

Many calvinists (some on this very board) will disagree with you including Sproul. They are at least consistent in their understanding. Each point of TULIP are like bricks, each one stands on the other. The "Chrismas Calvinist" (No-L) is a confused calvinist on the doctrine as a whole.

Four-point Calvinists who reject Limited Atonement but embrace irresistible grace must consider this: Irresistible grace is not some abstract doctrine but must be seen in relation to Jesus Christ, specially in relation to the grace purchased by Christ upon the cross. The Spirit of Christ illuminates, regenerates and effectually brings to faith his elect. And this enabling, effectual grace is, from first to last, Christ-centered. It does not come out of a void, nor from some hidden source of grace in God the Father. Therefore Christ must have died for the elect so as to purchase that grace in a way – a redemptive way – that he did not die for the non-elect.

http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Bad-Theology/FourPoint-Calvinism/

 

[webdog]

Im not sure I understand, so help me out here. Are you relating the Doctrine of Grace to the broad gate & free will to a narrow gate? Is that what your saying?

I believe her point was that being in the majority is not always a good thing.

 

[webdog]

Note that you said that, I did not.

Actually it is what you agreed to.

Do we KNOW the motives of God based on that verse? Or are we trying to reason through them with very human logic in order to make some theological hay?

I'm not trying to do either. I have already admitted the tension in the passage, and it seems you would view my understanding as "open theism" based on the past few pages of interaction while allowing for the possibility that God lied to Hezekiah.

 

[Havensdad]

Many calvinists (some on this very board) will disagree with you including Sproul. They are at least consistent in their understanding. Each point of TULIP are like bricks, each one stands on the other. The "Chrismas Calvinist" (No-L) is a confused calvinist on the doctrine as a whole.

Four-point Calvinists who reject Limited Atonement but embrace irresistible grace must consider this: Irresistible grace is not some abstract doctrine but must be seen in relation to Jesus Christ, specially in relation to the grace purchased by Christ upon the cross. The Spirit of Christ illuminates, regenerates and effectually brings to faith his elect. And this enabling, effectual grace is, from first to last, Christ-centered. It does not come out of a void, nor from some hidden source of grace in God the Father. Therefore Christ must have died for the elect so as to purchase that grace in a way – a redemptive way – that he did not die for the non-elect.

http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Bad-Theology/FourPoint-Calvinism/

Yet, again, this is one man's opinion. I love Sproul, but there are many, Calvinist, and non-Cal alike, that would disagree with him. I am one. The statement above in no way shows that the five points stand or fall together, from an argument of logic, or scripture.

Historically, many creeds and confessions, even within reformed Baptist traditions, have seen the "L" as non-mandatory.

 

[webdog]

Yet, again, this is one man's opinion. I love Sproul, but there are many, Calvinist, and non-Cal alike, that would disagree with him. I am one. The statement above in no way shows that the five points stand or fall together, from an argument of logic, or scripture.

Historically, many creeds and confessions, even within reformed Baptist traditions, have seen the "L" as non-mandatory.

...then technically, the non elect can be redeemed. How does that fit into the big picture?

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

My theologian friends call me an “in-the-closet Calvinist”! (so maybe I’m more of one than I realize). Although I voted for the 5-point Calvinist view-I’d personally re-word Limited Atonement & irresistible grace. While the atonement of Christ was sufficient for all, it will only be applied to those who have faith—so maybe I’d call it the unlimited sufficiency of Christ’s atonement that is limited to the elect. As far as irresistible Grace is concerned, I certainly believe that man cannot thwart God plan, but to call it irresistible gives off the notion that man plays no role at all, when human responsibility is part of the salvation process. I think the best way I can explain it is by saying— I am saved b/c God's plan of salvation included me in His electing process! He gave me the gift of faith & I accepted it! Besides that my salvation is totally from the Father's plan, the Son's accomplishment, & the Spirit's application. This being said—the human responsibility factor of having faith can only happen b/c of the Holy Spirit’s action of drawing me to God. So only God can get any credit for the fact that I am saved. So instead of irresistible grace—I’d call it the gift of faith that is my responsibility to accept, although I really had nothing to do with it-lol.

 

[webdog]

My theologian friends call me an “in-the-closet Calvinist”! (so maybe I’m more of one than I realize). Although I voted for the 5-point Calvinist view-I’d personally re-word Limited Atonement & irresistible grace. While the atonement of Christ was sufficient for all, it will only be applied to those who have faith—so maybe I’d call it the unlimited sufficiency of Christ’s atonement that is limited to the elect. As far as irresistible Grace is concerned, I certainly believe that man cannot thwart God plan, but to call it irresistible gives off the notion that man plays no role at all, when human responsibility is part of the salvation process. I think the best way I can explain it is by saying— I am saved b/c God's plan of salvation included me in His electing process! He gave me the gift of faith & I accepted it! Besides that my salvation is totally from the Father's plan, the Son's accomplishment, & the Spirit's application. This being said—the human responsibility factor of having faith can only happen b/c of the Holy Spirit’s action of drawing me to God. So only God can get any credit for the fact that I am saved. So instead of irresistible grace—I’d call it the gift of faith that is my responsibility to accept, although I really had nothing to do with it-lol.

I can agree with all of that (possibly except the "gift of faith"), and trust me...based on what you have said you would NOT be called a calvinist here

Welcome to the BB, btw.

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

I can agree with all of that (possibly except the "gift of faith"), and trust me...based on what you have said you would NOT be called a calvinist here

Welcome to the BB, btw.

Lol- thank you very much for the warm welcome & its good to see other Christians who desire a deeper understanding of God's Word like you do!