Shifting the Blame

[DHK]

These particular soteriological doctrines have been known as Calvinism for more than 450 years, but all of them can be found in Holy Writ --their source. Jesus and the Apostles were very Calvinistic. See John chapters 10 and 17,Romans 8 and 9, Ephesians 1 to start your way back to Truth. I'll give you more medicine once you master these.

Let me give you an example from another poster, now banned, who was a Charismatic. Your post resembles hers. It was pointed out to her that the Charismatic movement started in 1905, and what goes on in the name of tongues today was unknown before that date except in cults and paganism.
She replied:
There was a great moving of the Spirit in 1905. Before that time, from the Apostles until 1905, the Church has been dead. They have been quenching the Holy Spirit until that time. Only in this last century has the Church come alive releasing the Spirit and once again believing in "The Manifestation."

Your post is similar. Now, once again we have the truth that the Apostles had. It was hidden. A few people had it at the Reformation, but the Apostles taught it. Not much difference than the other poster is there? Not much difference than a gnostic view of the Bible when expressed that way, either.

 

[agedman]

Depravity is total: Arminius states "In this [fallen] state, the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace."[11]
Atonement is intended for all: Jesus's death was for all people, Jesus draws all people to himself, and all people have opportunity for salvation through faith.[12]
Jesus's death satisfies God's justice: The penalty for the sins of the elect is paid in full through Jesus's work on the cross. Thus Christ's atonement is intended for all, but requires faith to be effected. Arminius states that "Justification, when used for the act of a Judge, is either purely the imputation of righteousness through mercy… or that man is justified before God… according to the rigor of justice without any forgiveness."[13] Stephen Ashby clarifies: "Arminius allowed for only two possible ways in which the sinner might be justified: (1) by our absolute and perfect adherence to the law, or (2) purely by God's imputation of Christ's righteousness."[14]
Grace is resistible: God takes initiative in the salvation process and his grace comes to all people. This grace (often called prevenient or pre-regenerating grace) acts on all people to convince them of the Gospel, draw them strongly towards salvation, and enable the possibility of sincere faith. Picirilli states that "indeed this grace is so close to regeneration that it inevitably leads to regeneration unless finally resisted." [15] The offer of salvation through grace does not act irresistibly in a purely cause-effect, deterministic method but rather in an influence-and-response fashion that can be both freely accepted and freely denied




Depravity is total: Arminius states "In this [fallen] state, the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace."[11]
Atonement is intended for all: Jesus's death was for all people, Jesus draws all people to himself, and all people have opportunity for salvation through faith.[12]
Jesus's death satisfies God's justice: The penalty for the sins of the elect is paid in full through Jesus's work on the cross. Thus Christ's atonement is intended for all, but requires faith to be effected. Arminius states that "Justification, when used for the act of a Judge, is either purely the imputation of righteousness through mercy… or that man is justified before God… according to the rigor of justice without any forgiveness."[13] Stephen Ashby clarifies: "Arminius allowed for only two possible ways in which the sinner might be justified: (1) by our absolute and perfect adherence to the law, or (2) purely by God's imputation of Christ's righteousness."[14]
Grace is resistible: God takes initiative in the salvation process and his grace comes to all people. This grace (often called prevenient or pre-regenerating grace) acts on all people to convince them of the Gospel, draw them strongly towards salvation, and enable the possibility of sincere faith. Picirilli states that "indeed this grace is so close to regeneration that it inevitably leads to regeneration unless finally resisted." [15] The offer of salvation through grace does not act rresistibly in a purely cause-effect, deterministic method but rather in an influence-and-response fashion that can be both freely accepted and freely denied


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminianism#Classical_Arminianism

And this proves what?

I am glad that you have knowledge of both views, but you didn't really answer the post.

Again, I point you to the Ephesians passage that I posted.

Look for yourself at the two views you that posted, above, and then see which aligns with Ephesians.

Do that consistently with the Scriptures as the final authority.

I am not encouraging you to choose one over the other; rather, I am encouraging you not to disparage without Scriptural support one view over another.

If you can support your view with Scriptures, then that is very good.

Again, I turn your attention to the post which I placed a passage from Ephesians.

Show by reasonableness and honesty which view is supported. If neither, then that is good, too.

 

[Alive in Christ]

The material I posted answerd yours just fine.

You must be stumped. :laugh:

 

[Yeshua1]

Let me give you an example from another poster, now banned, who was a Charismatic. Your post resembles hers. It was pointed out to her that the Charismatic movement started in 1905, and what goes on in the name of tongues today was unknown before that date except in cults and paganism.
She replied:
There was a great moving of the Spirit in 1905. Before that time, from the Apostles until 1905, the Church has been dead. They have been quenching the Holy Spirit until that time. Only in this last century has the Church come alive releasing the Spirit and once again believing in "The Manifestation."

Your post is similar. Now, once again we have the truth that the Apostles had. It was hidden. A few people had it at the Reformation, but the Apostles taught it. Not much difference than the other poster is there? Not much difference than a gnostic view of the Bible when expressed that way, either.

Actually, there is a BIG difference between saying that the Church on the whole lost sight of the real gospel message, as that got buried by Roman Catholic Church to a large extent until reformation era, and the Charasmatics claiming pretty much as Mormons do, that the Chirch went shortly after Apostles to being bad, and the Lord restored 'real christianity" back thru them now!

Both Cals and Arminians affirm that we are saved by gace alone, thru faith alone, correct?

 

[saturneptune]

Doesn't surprise me one bit that you would use a van full of pot smoking mysticists to attempt to prove your point

Never knew Scooby Doo cartoon characters smoked pot. By the way, if I had to explain myself to the Lord, I will take smoking pot any day of the week over your dishonest antics.

 

[Rippon]

Let me give you an example from another poster, now banned, who was a Charismatic. Your post resembles hers.
There was a great moving of the Spirit in 1905....

Your post is similar. Now, once again we have the truth that the Apostles had. It was hidden. A few people had it at the Reformation, but the Apostles taught it. Not much difference than the other poster is there? Not much difference than a gnostic view of the Bible when expressed that way, either.

You are lost in your absurd analogies. There is a world of difference between Azusa Street and the Protestant Reformation,even other Arminians would give some credit where credit was due.

Do you even know that the Dark Ages were called that due to the spiritual darkness that was rather pervasive for a thousand years with just some glimmers of light here and there?

Even you stand as a recpient of the Protestant Reformation. To deny it is to deny the obvious. No competent historian would draw a comparsion where you have and demean the spiritual awakening of that era.

 

[MB]

Never knew Scooby Doo cartoon characters smoked pot. By the way, if I had to explain myself to the Lord, I will take smoking pot any day of the week over your dishonest antics.

If anyone is dishonest here it's you. And I suppose we should figure you haven't a clue to what honesty is since you'd rather be smoking pot. Most pot heads don't know which end is up. It maybe you have just explained a lot about your self.
MB

 

[agedman]

Do you even know that the Dark Ages were called that due to the spiritual darkness that was rather pervasive for a thousand years with just some glimmers of light here and there?

And here all this time I thought the hollywood folks got it right. You know nearly every film showing scenes of the dark ages has dense overcast skies, cold, heavy clothed characters and animals.

Now to find out there were actual "glimmers of light" is causing great conflict with long held beliefs.

I posted a question on the board one day.

"How do you spell Tchaikovsky?"

You would not believe how many students turned in papers that had all kinds of spellings and some that said, "I don't know."

Just thought I would add a "glimmer" of humor to the BB on a day that seems to be darkened.

 

[saturneptune]

If anyone is dishonest here it's you. And I suppose we should figure you haven't a clue to what honesty is since you'd rather be smoking pot. Most pot heads don't know which end is up. It maybe you have just explained a lot about your self.
MB

Never smoked it, and you fit right in with the doctor. Please put me on ignore, as you have nothing to contribute. Most of your posts come to the aid of those posting false and misleading doctrine. As was pointed out in the other thread, those that post a lot, never cite Scripture, are here to stir the pot, not debate.

 

[MB]

These particular soteriological doctrines have been known as Calvinism for more than 450 years, but all of them can be found in Holy Writ --their source. Jesus and the Apostles were very Calvinistic. See John chapters 10 and 17,Romans 8 and 9, Ephesians 1 to start your way back to Truth. I'll give you more medicine once you master these.

I wonder who first called these writings holy writ. Must have been a Catholic to call the writings of some man 450 years ago holy writ.

The whole problem is though The passages you presented do not support Calvinism. They support Christ coming to saved His people and Gentiles cannot be His people until they are adopted. The Jews are who He came to save but the Jews rejected Him. So the Lord sent the gospel to the Gentiles and they believed it.
You weren't His before Salvation. You belonged to Satan then just like the rest of us. You are not elect as is the Jew. Gentiles are always adopted so you should be calling your self chosen but not elect. You were not chosen over anyone as was the Jew.
MB

 

[DHK]

You are lost in your absurd analogies. There is a world of difference between Azusa Street and the Protestant Reformation,even other Arminians would give some credit where credit was due.

The gospel is not hidden in Calvinism. Calvinism is not the gospel. Calvinism did not start and is not found in the teachings of either Christ or the gospel. You can say it started at the Reformation, but not earlier than that.
Thus my analogy.

Do you even know that the Dark Ages were called that due to the spiritual darkness that was rather pervasive for a thousand years with just some glimmers of light here and there?

True enough, but there was light. God has never left himself without a witness.

Even you stand as a recpient of the Protestant Reformation. To deny it is to deny the obvious. No competent historian would draw a comparsion where you have and demean the spiritual awakening of that era.

I am not a Protestant. I never "protested" against the RCC, neither did the Baptists. They existed alongside and before the RCC. The RCC persecuted the Baptists both during and before the Reformation.

 

[Rippon]

Calvinism did not start and is not found in the teachings of either Christ or the gospel.

Of course it is. Don't try to deny the obvious. As a non-Arminian (wanna' accept that term?) you have landmines to navigate through in John 6,10,17;Eph. 1;Romans 8 and 9 among others.

You can say it started at the Reformation, but not earlier than that.

It was highlighted at the Reformation --it began in the New Testament.

I am not a Protestant.

Yes you are. You are not merely a Gentile. You are not a Jew. You are not Roman Catholic or Anabaptist --you are a Protestant. And what's more you actively oppose (protest) against RCC doctrine much of the time on the BB.

Baptists existed alongside and before the RCC.

You have no reliable historical documentation for that assertion.

 

[DHK]

Of course it is. Don't try to deny the obvious. As a non-Arminian (wanna' accept that term?) you have landmines to navigate through in John 6,10,17;Eph. 1;Romans 8 and 9 among others.

I don't find any Calvinism in these verses. There may be verses on election and other similar themes, but nothing on Calvinism.

It was highlighted at the Reformation --it began in the New Testament.

No, as its namesakes is, it started in the Reformation.
It may have had some general principles before then. But it started in the Reformation. The same goes for Luteranism.

Yes you are. You are not merely a Gentile. You are not a Jew. You are not Roman Catholic or Anabaptist --you are a Protestant. And what's more you actively oppose (protest) against RCC doctrine much of the time on the BB.

Lutherans have Luther to their credit as their founder, as the Calvinists and Presbyterians in general have Calvin.
But who do the Baptists have? You cannot point to any one founder. Their existence can be traced back to the apostles.

You have no reliable historical documentation for that assertion.

You need to read some good Baptist History books.

“History of the Baptists” by Thomas Armitage
“A History of the Baptists” by J.T. Christian
“History of the Waldenses” by J.A. Wylie

Here is a good reference for you:
http://www.pbministries.org/History/index.htm

 

[Thomas Helwys]

I don't find any Calvinism in these verses. There may be verses on election and other similar themes, but nothing on Calvinism.

No, as its namesakes is, it started in the Reformation.
It may have had some general principles before then. But it started in the Reformation. The same goes for Luteranism.

Lutherans have Luther to their credit as their founder, as the Calvinists and Presbyterians in general have Calvin.
But who do the Baptists have? You cannot point to any one founder. Their existence can be traced back to the apostles.

You need to read some good Baptist History books.

“History of the Baptists” by Thomas Armitage
“A History of the Baptists” by J.T. Christian
“History of the Waldenses” by J.A. Wylie

Here is a good reference for you:
http://www.pbministries.org/History/index.htm

While I am not a Landmarker, I do believe there is some evidence for Baptist perpetuity, or, more accurately perhaps, perpetuity of Baptist-like beliefs.

 

[Van]

Calvinism is defended by attacking those who present alternate views, rather than discussing the view.

Here is a typical ploy:

He cannot answer the question I have posed four times, "why do you think God is obligated to impart 100% understanding of His ways to you personally for the doctrine to be correct?"

This question simply asks if I think I am inspired? Of course not. So it is yet another absurd question to change the subject to my behavior and character flaws, rather than discuss Calvinism. This is all they have.

Do they believe the bible when it says God desires all men to be saved? Nope. But I do. Thus my beliefs are based on believing the entire bible and not nullifying any verse. Calvinism denies scripture after scripture after scripture, and all they offer is shuck and jive, change the subject, and introduce strawman arguments.

Here is a question of all the Calvinists, why if God predestines everything, i.e. whatsoever comes to pass, if God not the author of sin. They will talk about an opponent's rambling, but will run and hide and change the subject, rather than explain the absolute absurdity of Calvinism.

How about if God chose you for salvation through faith in the truth, why does Calvinism claim God chose you unconditionally. Does this not teach that Calvinism nullifies 2 Thessalonians 2:13.

How about God sets before us the choice of life and death and begs us to choose life. This verse must be nullified by Calvinism, because the choice of non elect is death only, Christ did not die for the non-elect.

On and on it goes, and the Calvinists run and run and hide and hide and seek pathetically to change the subject to some strawman or another. It boggles the mind that they believe they are teachers of truth.

 

[HankD]

And this proves what?

I am glad that you have knowledge of both views, but you didn't really answer the post.

Again, I point you to the Ephesians passage that I posted.

Look for yourself at the two views you that posted, above, and then see which aligns with Ephesians.

...

Again, I turn your attention to the post which I placed a passage from Ephesians.

Show by reasonableness and honesty which view is supported. If neither, then that is good, too.

A theological doctrine does not usually rise or fall upon one passage.

The whole council of God must be considered.

John 7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

The first "will" in the passage is of the same root as God's will.

The whole council of God shows that there is a co-operation of some kind between God's desires and man's ability to decide for himself or else the passage above as well as the following (among many others) makes no sense.

Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.​

I'm not saying I understand how this works but I just can't accept these "decrees" that have been attributed to God which ties the hands of both man and God.

Why does man having the free will ability to agree with God or reject Him somehow destroy His absolute sovereignty?

Look, Cain prayed to God and God answered his prayer and protected Cain.

But, for the sake of the debate, assuming that God has created man without free will - Let me ask this: Could He have created man with free will?

HankD

 

[DHK]

While I am not a Landmarker, I do believe there is some evidence for Baptist perpetuity, or, more accurately perhaps, perpetuity of Baptist-like beliefs.

I am not a landmarker either. We both probably have similar beliefs in this area.

 

[Batt4Christ]

I have been among those who have struggled between what is portrayed as two, distinct worlds of theology - Calvinism/Reformed Theology (Monergism) and Armenianism (Free-will/synergism). I have gladly shared in many debates, prayed, studied, prayed, studied, read, prayed, studied... discussed with my seminary professors, discussed among friends, and all with lots and lots of prayer.

While I consider myself to be leaning far more towards "Reformed"/Calvinistic thought, and I bristle when people make broad (and mostly inaccurate) statements and generalities about Calvinist theology (some of which were again repeated in the OP), I still have struggled. That is, until just a few months ago.

I again began comparing scripture verses that seem, both on the surface, and in the deeper context, to reflect one view or the other. There is no doubt, if one is honest, that there are passages, when taken totally IN context, that demonstrate a totally Sovereign God who "elects" those who will be redeemed - and indeed - even "predestinates" them - not just because of His perfect foreknowledge of who will and who will not.

Yet there are passages every bit as clear and direct, and taken IN context, that paint a vivid picture of mankind being responsible for his "choice".

There is no wonder there is so much debate - so much infighting, and even giant rifts in churches, associations of churches, and denomination/convention Baptists...

But - then, while again praying and really allowing myself to just drop my views and allow the Word of God speak to me - and I was drawn to several passages that we often think of as portraying the Trinity... i then walked my way back to the incarnation of Christ - and yet another area of confusion - how Christ could be fully God and fully man at the same time (hypostatic union). Both of these nearly inarguable theological areas that seem to be impossibly conflicting, yet we accept as absolute truth... and it just became so evident:

Why is it we can accept the seemingly impossible in the Trinity - God in three persons- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - all equal in deity, distinct, yet all ONE. Why is it we can accept that Jesus really was fully God while also being fully man..... yet we cannot come to the same balance in our minds and hearts regarding God's Sovereignty and man's "free will"?

And that is where I now find myself. When the "Calvinism" debate comes up, I simply share my "happy place" as I call it - I simply accept that, in God's economy, perfect wisdom, omnipotence, and utter Sovereignty - has "elected" those who will be saved, and yet at the same time, allows us to experience the concept of "choosing" to accept His grace through that amazing and wonderful concept of "Faith". I have lost no more sleep. I have not gotten hostile or frustrated, and I have truly found comfort in knowing that salvation is totally and completely of God (scriptural fact), yet he allows us to play the part out in exercising the faith that He gives us - bringing about a very similar situation as the Trinity and Hypostatic Union - seemingly contrary yet scripturally clear concepts that are, instead - perfectly in union.

Maybe one can explain it as "our view vs. God's view" (perspective). But that may be a gross oversimplification.

I have shared this "cathartic" experience with friends - many of which are far more educated, and have many more years of experience in ministry and in spiritual maturity who have paused, and said "that has to be the best way I have ever heard to describe it."

And this in no way affects one's evangelistic endeavors, it doesn't require making God out to create people with the specific purpose of populating Hell, and it doesn't take away from the most clear passage of all: "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." Ephesians 2:8-9.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

I am not a landmarker either. We both probably have similar beliefs in this area.

If anyone cares to study church history in an objective manner -- and that means apart from RC bias, Magisterial Protestant bias, and Landmarker bias -- he/she will find evidence of pockets of believers from early on and down through the centuries who held to what could be called baptistic beliefs.

I think you and I have similar beliefs in many areas. Apart from eternal security and your being more conservative than I am, otherwise I think we are fairly close. And when I first came here, I would not have believed that.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

I have been among those who have struggled between what is portrayed as two, distinct worlds of theology - Calvinism/Reformed Theology (Monergism) and Armenianism (Free-will/synergism). I have gladly shared in many debates, prayed, studied, prayed, studied, read, prayed, studied... discussed with my seminary professors, discussed among friends, and all with lots and lots of prayer.

While I consider myself to be leaning far more towards "Reformed"/Calvinistic thought, and I bristle when people make broad (and mostly inaccurate) statements and generalities about Calvinist theology (some of which were again repeated in the OP), I still have struggled. That is, until just a few months ago.

I again began comparing scripture verses that seem, both on the surface, and in the deeper context, to reflect one view or the other. There is no doubt, if one is honest, that there are passages, when taken totally IN context, that demonstrate a totally Sovereign God who "elects" those who will be redeemed - and indeed - even "predestinates" them - not just because of His perfect foreknowledge of who will and who will not.

Yet there are passages every bit as clear and direct, and taken IN context, that paint a vivid picture of mankind being responsible for his "choice".

There is no wonder there is so much debate - so much infighting, and even giant rifts in churches, associations of churches, and denomination/convention Baptists...

But - then, while again praying and really allowing myself to just drop my views and allow the Word of God speak to me - and I was drawn to several passages that we often think of as portraying the Trinity... i then walked my way back to the incarnation of Christ - and yet another area of confusion - how Christ could be fully God and fully man at the same time (hypostatic union). Both of these nearly inarguable theological areas that seem to be impossibly conflicting, yet we accept as absolute truth... and it just became so evident:

Why is it we can accept the seemingly impossible in the Trinity - God in three persons- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - all equal in deity, distinct, yet all ONE. Why is it we can accept that Jesus really was fully God while also being fully man..... yet we cannot come to the same balance in our minds and hearts regarding God's Sovereignty and man's "free will"?

And that is where I now find myself. When the "Calvinism" debate comes up, I simply share my "happy place" as I call it - I simply accept that, in God's economy, perfect wisdom, omnipotence, and utter Sovereignty - has "elected" those who will be saved, and yet at the same time, allows us to experience the concept of "choosing" to accept His grace through that amazing and wonderful concept of "Faith". I have lost no more sleep. I have not gotten hostile or frustrated, and I have truly found comfort in knowing that salvation is totally and completely of God (scriptural fact), yet he allows us to play the part out in exercising the faith that He gives us - bringing about a very similar situation as the Trinity and Hypostatic Union - seemingly contrary yet scripturally clear concepts that are, instead - perfectly in union.

Maybe one can explain it as "our view vs. God's view" (perspective). But that may be a gross oversimplification.

I have shared this "cathartic" experience with friends - many of which are far more educated, and have many more years of experience in ministry and in spiritual maturity who have paused, and said "that has to be the best way I have ever heard to describe it."

And this in no way affects one's evangelistic endeavors, it doesn't require making God out to create people with the specific purpose of populating Hell, and it doesn't take away from the most clear passage of all: "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." Ephesians 2:8-9.

Good post. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.