Sovereign Grace as it should be!

[TCassidy]

Synergistic sanctification... sounds like an oxymoron. I believe in Gospel-centered sanctification which means sanctification happens the same way as justification, by grace through faith in the work of Christ.

I too believe sanctification is immediate upon regeneration. But that perfect sanctification, given to us via the Grace of God, is in us but does not necessarily permeate every aspect of our lives. I believe that is what Paul meant when he said "work out your own salvation." He was saying "externalize (work out) that perfect salvation that God has put within you so that all may see God glorified in your life."

 

[TCassidy]

John Wesley was without understanding on these things.

John Wesley was not without understanding. He was of a different understanding. I believe he was wrong on election and perseverance. But I also think Calvin was wrong on several things including baptism, the Lord's Supper, and the place of the church in relation to government, and church government.

But my coming to a different conclusion than they did does not prove I am right and they are wrong. It just indicates we have come to different conclusions.

A staunch Calvinist once asked George Whitefield (also a staunch Calvinist) if he thought he would see John Wesley in heaven. George Whitefield answered, "No, I do not think I will catch a single glimpse of him in heaven."

The man said, "I agree. He won't be there."

To which Whitefield replied, "No, sir, you misunderstand me. What I meant was that John Wesley will be so close to the throne of God and I so far distant that I will not be able to catch a single glimpse of that great man in heaven."

 

[JonC]

Truth stands as objective not subjective. When satan said to Eve ...hath God said? he was suggesting that it is not indeed objective but we can never know for sure, or it is uncertain, or we can just question the clear statements that God makes.
So again you are free to disagree to your hearts content. I do not agree with you at all concerning this.
God reveals truth so that we can know and serve Him to the fullest our our strengths and abilities. I do not think we are left to wander around and wonder about everything and never feel we can go forth confidently , and that the bible is still "dark and mysterious sayings rather than open revealed truth.

I think that what I find most objectionable is the attitude that those who disagree with you are “confused” in doctrine. This is a misunderstanding. There are theological disagreements, and even theological disagreements within Calvinism itself, that have absolutely nothing to do with one party being confused. I disagree with your theology and I think that you are wrong in several of your views, but I do not think you are confused. We simply disagree.

Truth is objective. But it is an error to believe that theology is revealed truth itself. Theology interprets and applies revealed truth, but where truth is objective human reasoning limits theology to holding complete objectivity only as a laudable aspiration. We strive to keep our presuppositions out of our theological development, but in the end our doctrines are not uninfluenced by the human mind.

You see, the Bible does not answer all of our questions. It is not our “guide to God”. It is God’s revelation of Himself in the context of the redemption He has wrought. Scripture tells us that God made man, but it does not tell us if God first decreed to make or save man. The Bible speaks of covenants and dispensations, but does not prescribe a particular method in which to understand how God works with man. We work through Scripture and reason out these things in order to form doctrine. But when we do this, it is important to be able to identify Scripture and reasoning…and to tell the difference.

Calvinism is not revealed truth. It is an understanding, a theology (a study) of revealed truth. When you can't see the difference you run the risk of elevating theology to the level of divine revelation.

 

[Internet Theologian]

"JonC δοῦλος,



Such a statement is as foolish as saying that a JW "proved" there is no trinity.er know for sure, or it is uncertain, or we can just question the clear statements that God makes.

Agreed.

So again you are free to disagree to your hearts content. I do not agree with you at all concerning this. God reveals truth so that we can know and serve Him to the fullest our our strengths and abilities. I do not think we are left to wander around and wonder about everything and never feel we can go forth confidently , and that the bible is still "dark and mysterious sayings rather than open revealed truth.

The above is how I see sanctification post salvation as being synergistic in nature.

 

[JonC]

Such a statement is as foolish as saying that a JW "proved" there is no trinity.
John Wesley was without understanding on these things.

You have "proven" to yourself that Calvinism is true. Wesley "proved" to himself that it wasn't. We are talking about theology, not Scripture. Wesley was not without understanding, and neither was Whitfield. D.L. Moody, Spurgeon, Tozer, Barth, Sproul, Wright, Packer, Piper, Piccirilli....these men disagree but that does not mean that they are without understanding. You are not the criteria by which understanding is judged. Calvinism is not the criteria by which understanding is judged. I believe that you are confusing your theology with Scripture - your understanding of Scripture with God's Word itself.

 

[Internet Theologian]

Oh the irony, that the synergist could say the same thing about salvation and regeneration.

Not really. Scripture is quite clear that salvation is monergistic in nature.

In sanctification it is quite clear in Scripture that the converted are changed in their wills and are active in this process post conversion. This is one reason 1 John is so clear on the 'we/they' comparison. It shows what the uncoverted believe and do, and is also true of false converts.

 

[Internet Theologian]

I think that what I find most objectionable is the attitude that those who disagree with you are “confused” in doctrine. This is a misunderstanding.

He's right about the person being confused most of the time, but it is easy to dismiss that with a general broad brushing as you are doing above. There should be a perfect tangible example to go with your charge and allegation.

Scripture tells us that God made man, but it does not tell us if God first decreed to make or save man.

Not even close. You've missed a lot of revelation in Scripture.

Calvinism is not revealed truth.

Straw man alert. Who has made this statement?

It is an understanding, a theology (a study) of revealed truth. When you can't see the difference you run the risk of elevating theology to the level of divine revelation.

No one here is running that risk.

 

[JonC]

He's right about the person being confused most of the time, but it is easy to dismiss that with a general broad brushing as you are doing above. There should be a perfect tangible example to go with your charge and allegation.

Icon said that people who disagree with limited atonement are confused. You come back with “he’s right” and I’m broad brushing by not providing tangible evidence that disagreement does not mean confusion. This does not make sense to me, IT. Are you speaking of one person or in general?

Not even close. You've missed a lot of revelation in Scripture.

I have not seen where a dogmatic "logical order" of God's decrees are listed. So if indeed they are there, then yes, it is something I've missed. Please let me know what passage your speaking of.

Straw man alert. Who has made this statement?

You did, back in post #4 of this thread (you said that Calvin was linked to Paul and got his theology straight from Paul). This is what I am addressing. I do not think that Calvinism as an entire systematic theology is without the potential for error because of the human element.

 

[SovereignGrace]

And the anti-Cal jihads say 'a-meeen'!

 

[JonC]

And the anti-Cal jihads say 'a-meeen'!

I think that you may need to translate that one, brother SG.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Your anti-Cal agenda is plain to see. All the anti-Cal Jihads can say 'a-meeen'!

 

[Rob_BW]

Your anti-Cal agenda is plain to see. All the anti-Cal Jihads can say 'a-meeen'!

I believe the word you are looking for is "jihadis." Or maybe "jihadists."

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Nobody is going on a jihad this thread. So, he's a non-Cal.

And the anti-Cal jihads say 'a-meeen'!

 

[Internet Theologian]

Icon said that people who disagree with limited atonement are confused.

Really? I looked at the post you quoted of his and didn't see that mentioned.

You come back with “he’s right” and I’m broad brushing by not providing tangible evidence that disagreement does not mean confusion.

Yes, you do this so often in your confusion and straw man arguments that it is the norm for you.

This has to be the absolute stupidest reply I have ever read on the BB.

Wow, you even comment on your own replies before you send them? You beat me to it. You? You BIG WINNA! Congrats! Laugh Roflmao

It’s so dumb it does even make sense….

Uh...what? Freudian slip, perhaps? Yup!

where does one go from there?

Dunno, but I'm waiting for your next posting to show me.

 

[JonC]

Really? I looked at the post you quoted of his and didn't see that mentioned.



Yes, you do this so often in your confusion and straw man arguments that it is the norm for you.



Wow, you even comment on your own replies before you send them? You beat me to it. You? You BIG WINNA! Congrats!



Uh...what? Freudian slip, perhaps? Yup!



Dunno, but I'm waiting for your next posting to show me.

Learn to quote.

 

[Internet Theologian]

I'd disagree in part. It's all in perspective.

That said the RAIDERS drafted a kid named Jihad Ward. Now why a parent would name their child that I have no clue!

Nobody is going on a jihad this thread. So, he's a non-Cal.

 

[TCassidy]

I think that what I find most objectionable is the attitude that those who disagree with you are “confused” in doctrine.

Well, somebody must be confused. Two opposites cannot both be right.

There are theological disagreements, and even theological disagreements within Calvinism itself, that have absolutely nothing to do with one party being confused.

Most of the disagreements with Sovereign Grace, by those who deny Sovereign Grace, is that they are confused about what Sovereign Grace actually is. This is amply demonstrated by the many posts on this forum attacking the "Calvinist" straw man arguments of the attackers own invention.

That is caused either by confusion or dishonesty. As I am not prepared to label such persons as being dishonest I will have to continue to conclude their opposition is based on confusion of what Sovereign Grace actually teaches.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Jihad currently has a specific and bloody definition. So, far no one here has called for any Calvinist's death.

I'd disagree in part. It's all in perspective. SNIP

 

[Internet Theologian]

Jihad currently has a specific and bloody definition. So, far no one here has called for any Calvinist's death.

I agree, but am aware that murder starts with hatred, which starts with disdain.

 

[JonC]

Your anti-Cal agenda is plain to see. All the anti-Cal Jihads can say 'a-meeen'!

I do not have an anti-Cal agenda because I am not anti-Cal. I am, however, anti-ignorance.