Sermon tomorrow - C vs. A!! Can't wait for it!

I have a thought . Contradictions will always be contradictions . There aren't two sides of truth that will intersect in eternity .

 

YOU were building a testimony!!!:wavey: raying:

 

They already intersect.. it doesn't happen in the future.. it has already happened... I was saved before the foundation of the world at the same time I received Jesus in 1978....

Remember there is no past or future in eternity... only present...
And without past and future, present exists always...

 

You were elect before the foundation of the world -- not saved then .

Contradictions do not intersect . One is true and one is false .

 

I've always wondered if Spureon really thought that analogy through. The definition of parallel lines are "lines that remain equidistant through a defined plane, or inifinitly." They aren't parallel if they ever meet.

But what Spurgeon was illustrating is true - there are ways of God that are beyond our understanding.

Some of you don't seem to be aware of the doctrine of compatibilism, which IS the "middle ground" that includes both God's Sovereignty and man's free will. BTW compatibilism is a tenent of Calvinism. Only "hard" determinists and Pelagian/Arminian systems reject compatibilism. Hard determinists can explain how they both exist, but differently. P/A cannot muster any explanation without dinegrating the omniscience of God.

 

Compatablism (which is a variation of determinism) I THINK, is not so much a 'tenent' of the calvinstic veiw but an aspect of the Calvinistic view. Now Determinism itself is considered a 'tenent' of Calvinism (and it encompasses the various different forms) just as it is one of the tenents of the Non-Cal view. We must remember that it is more a philosophical view! But that is just my thoughts.

BTW - Our Arminian brethren do not reject compatablism, I thought you knew that. In fact it is the principle point of the their argument.

The two polar opposites are Libertarian free-will (God has no say in ANY matter of man - Peleganism) and Hard determinsim (man has no say in matter therefore no responsiblity - Hyper Calvinism (I believe)). Capatablism being a variation of determinism allows for mans resposibility while confirming Gods soveriegnty. Yet the very nature of Compatablism being a variation itself, necessitates there are also variations with it. Within the Compatability view we set up a generic grid to which we view a persons understanding as leaning more one way (responsibility) or more so the other (sovereignty) even though it is still compatablistic which in essence simply means - Gods soveriegnty working in conjunction with Mans Resposibility.

Peleganism on the other hand does deny sovereignty and in fact must do so.

Again BTW - Hard determinists hold that responsibility for our actions is an illusion. (Hutchinson
encyclopedia)

 

Go dback to post #6 in which I quoted Spurgeon's sermon "A defence of Calvinism" and you will see that quote and all that surounds it as well.

I also love this part of the sermon just prior to the portion I quoted in #6:

.

 

I can accept that refinement of what I said, but it seems largely semantic.

That's not the way I understand it, but I'm willing to research it. Even though A's have a doctrine of enablement (prev. grace), man remains the final arbitrar of his salvation. My understanding of compatibilism is that inability is the static condition of all men without exception, and sin by there own free will, but God sovereignly enables some to repent. This is true compatibility, for free will points to sin while sovereignty points to salvation, reflecting the Biblical model. The A version of compat'y would have free will pointing to both sin and salvation, with sovereignty only pointing to universal enablement but not actual salvation (thereby limiting sovereignty). But like I said, I'm willing to give it some more study.

I'll basically agree with the rest of your post. But being a former hard determinist, I never thought of responsibility as illusional. For me, it was a simple matter of authoritarian decree. Man is responsible for sin because God said so - end of discussion. Notice I said FORMER hard determinist. Speaking of HD, I miss JohnP. Wrong or wright, he was an entertaining guy IMO. Of course, he was never hammering MY head with those quick replies of his.

 

LoL. That is not what I meant (credit). I was speaking more to the point of all that lead up and that which came after 'that' quote. it more scope to the quote.

 

I KNOW both are right -- the disagreement is on what their various terms mean.

Here seems to be the primary one: Belief vs. faith. Calvinism says they mean the same thing -- same word. They will no allow context to suggest that belief is "hope." It is faith before there is any proof thereof.

If we could all believe in this -- belief > repentance > regeneration > faith -- we would all be on the proverbial "same page!"

Instead, under Calvinism, men are allowed personally to believe anything under the sun OTHER THAN THE GOSPEL! Can you just imagine where we would all be if we trusted the formulation "[You] believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved?" :jesus: Then regeneration WOULD come before faith. BOTH would be gifts of God. And yet, as Rom 4:5 says, "But unto him that worketh not but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith [which God gives him] is counted for righteousness."

But I would suggest that Calvinism is not in the "business" of reconciling brothers but of being right. In fact, like Baptist preachers, they insist that every one of the "hairs" of their theology be kept "in place." :laugh:

skypair

 

Here's an example of what I just posted! :tonofbricks:

skypair

 

I like to think of this problem this way:

From God's perspective we are elect.

From our perspective we have free will.

Since we can only really experience life through our own perspective, we should live like we have free will.

A professor friend of mine said it well: live like you have free will, believe like you are elect.

 

Skypair, since you are always comparing salvation to the marriage covenant, I found an article for you about OT Jewish marriage arrangements. It seems the bride was "chosen" for the groom by the groom's parents and the "father" had authority over her.
How do you think this compares to the "elect" who were "chosen" before the foundation of the world?

 

Yes, the bride was chosen but let us not forget the 'potential' bride to be had to 'choose' to be that bride desired like it references in your quote. I think that is what Sky is refering to.

When a marriage took place it was either because the bride wanted to wed that individual or because they did it out of their perception of their duty to their family and or family name but not because they desired to. So in both cases they still had a choice. However, they did not always marry the one who sought them either. They could and did at times refuse.

 

So, now you are calling into question our salvation? You wrote:

Galatians 1:6-9
6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

Problems:

1. You assume your position is absolutely correct and that Paul was not a "Calvinist" (Since the reformers were basically Augustinian and Augustine was essentially Pauline).
2. You are telling everyone that Calvinists believe another gospel than "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved" which is patently false.
3. Because points 1 and 2 are in evidence you are then, ipso facto, calling into question our salvation.

Again, the communication process has broken down because you simply refuse to listen to what we actually believe. Speaking for myself (and I'll state it again), I believe we must believe on Christ in order to be saved. Many, many other Calvinists believe this to. Again, you are either unable or unwilling to understand this...perhaps it is because you have no interest in discussing things and would rather spend your time deriding people. I don't know what it is, but this I do know: You chronically misrepresent the Calvinist position and have, in the post above (as well as other places), called our salvation into question--very sad.


Archangel

 

Ann, how was the sermon?