Question About Cals/Non Cals

[Don]

A humanist? :smilewinkgrin:

How do you deal with this Scripture?

Hbr 2:6-13 (ESV) It has been testified somewhere, "What is man, that you are mindful of him, or the son of man, that you care for him? 7 You made him [Jesus] for a little while lower than the angels; you have crowned him with glory and honor, 8 putting everything in subjection under his feet." Now in putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control. At present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him. 9 But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. 10 For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering. 11 For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one source. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers, 12 saying, "I will tell of your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation I will sing your praise." 13 And again, "I will put my trust in him." And again, "Behold, I and the children God has given me."

Seems to fly in the face of all things other than the Calvinist interpretation...

How so?

I remind you of the example conversation between a calvinist and an arminian:

Sir, I understand that you are called an Arminian; and I have been sometimes called a Calvinist; and therefore I suppose we are to draw daggers. But before I consent to begin the combat, with your permission I will ask you a few questions. Pray, Sir, do you feel yourself a depraved creature, so depraved that you would never have thought of turning to God, if God had not first put it into your heart?

Yes, I do indeed.

And do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by anything you can do; and look for salvation solely through the blood and righteousness of Christ?

Yes, solely through Christ.

But, Sir, supposing you were at first saved by Christ, are you not somehow or other to save yourself afterwards by your own works?

No, I must be saved by Christ from first to last.

Allowing, then, that you were first turned by the grace of God, are you not in some way or other to keep yourself by your own power?

No.

What then, are you to be upheld every hour and every moment by God, as much as an infant in its mother's arms?

Yes, altogether.

And is all your hope in the grace and mercy of God to preserve you unto His heavenly kingdom?

Yes, I have no hope but in Him.

Then, Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election, my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is in substance all that I hold, and as I hold it; and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things wherein we agree.

 

[Don]

How about a Christian who has a hard time with sovereignty of God ?

If you're claiming that an arminian should be called someone who has a hard time with the sovereignty of God ... may I suggest you go do some more research on what Arminius actually wrote and believed?

 

[glfredrick]

If you're claiming that an arminian should be called someone who has a hard time with the sovereignty of God ... may I suggest you go do some more research on what Arminius actually wrote and believed?

The discussion is actually about non-cals. Arminian is a noted soteriology that has in fact a set of articles that largely define it, and yes, God is seen as sovereign, if only by His previnient grace that extends to all men, but He does come first.

In the non-cal position God is, in a manner of speaking, held captive to the decision of an individual, which He must then "see" and modify His stance accordingly based on that decision. THEY have problems with the soverignty of God and with the Hebrew passage I shared.

 

[webdog]

Let it be known glfrederick is clueless pertaining to the non cal position which is very similar to arminianism except the linear view of foreknowledge (he wrongly ascribes the non cal position when in actuality it is the arminian) and eternal security, both of which trump even the sovereignty of calvinism and arminianism.

 

[glfredrick]

Let it be known glfrederick is clueless pertaining to the non cal position which is very similar to arminianism except the linear view of foreknowledge (he wrongly ascribes the non cal position when in actuality it is the arminian) and eternal security, both of which trump even the sovereignty of calvinism and arminianism.

You cannot equate the two positions and get away with it, for they are NOT one and the same.

If so, your own personal theology is set aside for a sovereign God who MUST come first in all things, for that is what Classical Arminianism dictates.

About being clueless... Not sure why you always resort to that particular ad homenim. I'd have to let the rest of the board chime in -- they may not always like my perspective but do they see me as "clueless"?

Perhaps I'll start a poll to find out... :thumbsup:

Edit... I started a poll. Let's find out.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=77438

 

[InTheLight]

In the non-cal position God is, in a manner of speaking, held captive to the decision of an individual, which He must then "see" and modify His stance accordingly based on that decision. THEY have problems with the soverignty of God and with the Hebrew passage I shared.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1814655&postcount=24

 

[glfredrick]

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1814655&postcount=24

Not everyone...

 

[mandym]

In the non-cal position God is, in a manner of speaking, held captive to the decision of an individual, which He must then "see" and modify His stance accordingly based on that decision. THEY have problems with the soverignty of God and with the Hebrew passage I shared.

You speak out of ignorance and foolishness. Your sophomoric attempt at trying to describe the positions of those you disagree with is irresponsible.

 

[webdog]

You cannot equate the two positions and get away with it, for they are NOT one and the same.

What two positions are you talking about, the non cal / arm...the arm / cal, the non cal / cal?

If so, your own personal theology is set aside for a sovereign God who MUST come first in all things, for that is what Classical Arminianism dictates.

What do you know...that's EXACTLY what I believe Per your poor reading comprehension, you do recall I stated the non cal position to be VERY SIMILAR, don't you?

About being clueless... Not sure why you always resort to that particular ad homenim. I'd have to let the rest of the board chime in -- they may not always like my perspective but do they see me as "clueless"?

Perhaps I'll start a poll to find out... :thumbsup:

Edit... I started a poll. Let's find out.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=77438

Commented on that thread already.

 

[JonC]

Yes. That seems to be the issue. I know it was for me.

Yep…If you have never had a hard time reconciling God’s sovereignty with human free agency, there is probably a good chance you have it wrong or just never thought about it.

 

[glfredrick]

You speak out of ignorance and foolishness. Your sophomoric attempt at trying to describe the positions of those you disagree with is irresponsible.

I COMPLETELY AGREE!

THEY don't even know what they believe, and any attempt by me to describe it is in fact pre-ordained and predetermined to be, at best, a sophomoric attempt!

Thanks for pointing out the obvious.

Now, I can go back to wondering if I am clueless or not... :wavey:

 

[DaChaser1]

Quote from the Canons of Dordt.

"While the death of Christ is abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world, its saving efficacy is limited to the elect."

"The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin, and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world."

"And whereas many who are called by the gospel do not repent nor believe in Christ, but perish in unbelief, this is not owing to any defect or insufficiency in the sacrifice offered by Christ upon the cross, but is wholly to be imputed to themselves."

The 5 points of Calvinism do not limit the sufficiency of the atonement, but the intent and efficiency.

So IF 5 pointers support the concept of jesus death sufficient to be able to cover the sin debt of All in its effectivesness, but JUST the elect are actually paid for by it...

isn't that the 4 pointer position?

 

[DaChaser1]

Calvinism by nature carries a certain amount of ambiguousness. First, it is an amalgamation of Church doctrine that has developed over time. Second, it is a culmination of theological presentations of these doctrines refined to ameliorate misconceptions or variants from orthodoxy that arose within the Church. My point is that it is not absent from human reasoning. Even within Calvinism there are variants, places where Calvinists disagree. Apart from this, mutual acceptance of specific doctrine does not constitute mutually identical understanding. Granted, it is only through reasoning that we comprehend Scripture – but it is also through this same reasoning that we should realize the limitations of these inferences.


My understanding of God's work in salvation is Reformed, not because I have accepted Calvinism, but because Scripture has led me to affirm many of the reformed soteriological perspectives. My soteriological understanding is in line with Reformed Theology, but there are aspects of Calvinism that I do not accept. Although the Calvinistic view of Covenant theology logically supports paedobaptism, I do not view it as biblical. I am also a premillennialist and lean towards pre-rapture theory. The “five-points of Calvinism” identify Calvinistic soteriology; it does not summarize the system as a whole. (I have a few round pegs that don’t fit into the square holes). I realize that many have modified Calvinism as some accept only the soteriological implications and some even modify these aspects. The problem is that “Calvinism” is not the same for every Calvinist, much less for those outside looking in.


I have absolutely no doubt that when I can use my theology as a nickname for the Gospel and accept that understanding as absolute truth I am standing on my own understanding and am personally far from Truth, regardless of how accurate my theology may be. To me, passages like 2 Cor 5:20-21 and John 3:16-18 more adequately conveys the Gospel because it constitutes what saves. Calvinism, Arminianism, Baptist Theology, Methodist Theology, etc. are peripheral to salvation - although each should have a presentation of the Gospel.

Do I have another like minded here brother?

I am a 4 pointer, pre mil pre trib?

 

[DaChaser1]

The discussion is actually about non-cals. Arminian is a noted soteriology that has in fact a set of articles that largely define it, and yes, God is seen as sovereign, if only by His previnient grace that extends to all men, but He does come first.

In the non-cal position God is, in a manner of speaking, held captive to the decision of an individual, which He must then "see" and modify His stance accordingly based on that decision. THEY have problems with the soverignty of God and with the Hebrew passage I shared.

MUCH of what is called 'classic Arminian" theology on the BB is actually more of open theistic leanings, with dash of eternal security thrown in it for good measure!

MANY who oppose cal views even bristle/balk suggesting that God STILLS needs to prior grace in arm theology to allow one to even be able to come to chrsit and get saved, as they see us with 'free will' enough apart rom god!

 

[DaChaser1]

Yep…If you have never had a hard time reconciling God’s sovereignty with human free agency, there is probably a good chance you have it wrong or just never thought about it.

actually , once realise that ONLY God is Really sovereign , and that we do not have 'full free will" as others assign us having, due to the fall!

 

[glfredrick]

MUCH of what is called 'classic Arminian" theology on the BB is actually more of open theistic leanings, with dash of eternal security thrown in it for good measure!

MANY who oppose cal views even bristle/balk suggesting that God STILLS needs to prior grace in arm theology to allow one to even be able to come to chrsit and get saved, as they see us with 'free will' enough apart rom god!

Problem is, open theism and eternal security are diametrically opposed and contradictory. Cannot have one and also have the other.

 

[jonathan.borland]

Problem is, open theism and eternal security are diametrically opposed and contradictory. Cannot have one and also have the other.

I don't think Clark Pinnock ever gave up eternal security, but I am not an open theist.

 

[JonC]

Do I have another like minded here brother?

I am a 4 pointer, pre mil pre trib?

I believe so. From reading your posts we do seem like minded on this issue.

I still cannot divorce atonement from faith, so I see the limited vs universal atonement debate as somewhat hypothetical (depending on one’s definition, of course).

I do not believe that Christ was the atoning sacrifice for only the elect, but for the sins of the world – but this is sufficiency. I also do not believe that He atoned for the sins of everyone – but for those who would believe. As far as the logical order - well, I doubt the sufficiency of our logic.

If I called myself a Calvinist (only in regards to the five points), it’d either be 4 point, or 5 point with explanations.

 

[glfredrick]

I don't think Clark Pinnock ever gave up eternal security, but I am not an open theist.

Whether or not someone "gave up" an incoherent theological stance is not the point. That it IS an incoherent theological stance is the point.

And, if one suggests that God must "learn" or that He does not know the free actions of an individual -- as you have suggested in one manner or another -- then that one is indeed an open theist.

At the end of the day, God is either sovereign or He is not. He either knows ALL THINGS, including the actions, thoughts, words, and deeds (even attitudes) of the free moral agents He created or He does not.

I suggest that God does know all things, including all of the above listed actions of His creation, and including the very quantum movements of the particles that make up this universe. ALL THINGS are under His jursidiction and within His pervue. To say otherwise is to lift SOMETHING or SOMEONE higher than the MOST HIGH GOD.

 

[jonathan.borland]

Whether or not someone "gave up" an incoherent theological stance is not the point. That it IS an incoherent theological stance is the point.

And, if one suggests that God must "learn" or that He does not know the free actions of an individual -- as you have suggested in one manner or another -- then that one is indeed an open theist.

At the end of the day, God is either sovereign or He is not. He either knows ALL THINGS, including the actions, thoughts, words, and deeds (even attitudes) of the free moral agents He created or He does not.

I suggest that God does know all things, including all of the above listed actions of His creation, and including the very quantum movements of the particles that make up this universe. ALL THINGS are under His jursidiction and within His pervue. To say otherwise is to lift SOMETHING or SOMEONE higher than the MOST HIGH GOD.

Brother, I assume your post was directed at me. I believe in the absolute omniscience of God, even that he knows not just actual outcomes but also every infinite possible outcome. I don't think Calvinists would hold to such an omniscient God since I think they suppose that God only knows was actually occurs instead of what could occur even though it won't occur, but I could be wrong. Where have I ever suggested that God doesn't know every free action of an individual or has to "learn?" I know I've never posted that because I don't believe that, but prove me wrong so I can openly recant!