Sovereign Grace as it should be!

[rsr]

I'm afraid it is Jon who is banging his head against the wall. Although I lean toward an Augustinian view of predestination in soteriology, even that great thinker did not attempt to plumb the depths of the mind of God to explain exactly the mechanics of predestination.

To further explicate what Jon argues (this is being presumptuous), I admit that part of the reason that I believe in the Doctrines of Grace is that position seems to me to be more logically coherent than the other approaches. (There's the human factor at work.) At the same time, I can see some validity in the arguments of the Armininians, though as a whole I find it unsatisfying. I often read a sermon by Spurgeon and then a sermon by Wesley; on the whole, I agree with Spurgeon but I do not reject out of hand Wesley's objections.

And, given the balance of the evidence, I have to accept double predestination. To try to draw fine distinctions on this matter seems to me to be sophistry. If God can choose who to save and chooses not to save some, then he has acted — by not acting.

 

[JonC]

I'm afraid it is Jon who is banging his head against the wall. Although I lean toward an Augustinian view of predestination in soteriology, even that great thinker did not attempt to plumb the depths of the mind of God to explain exactly the mechanics of predestination.

To further explicate what Jon argues (this is being presumptuous), I admit that part of the reason that I believe in the Doctrines of Grace is that position seems to me to be more logically coherent than the other approaches. (There's the human factor at work.) At the same time, I can see some validity in the arguments of the Armininians, though as a whole I find it unsatisfying. I often read a sermon by Spurgeon and then a sermon by Wesley; on the whole, I agree with Spurgeon but I do not reject out of hand Wesley's objections.

And, given the balance of the evidence, I have to accept double predestination. To try to draw fine distinctions on this matter seems to me to be sophistry. If God can choose who to save and chooses not to save some, then he has acted — by not acting.

I agree, and thank you for the insight (it was not presumptuous at all, but instead exactly what I have been trying to communicate). I also believe in the Doctrines of Grace because it seems to me more coherent than other approaches. I've dismissed other views using the same standard. But I recognize the human factor at work in my understanding. I can not say that someone who disagrees with me lacks understanding.

I used double predestination to illustrate this point (not really to argue the position). I hold my belief in the mechanics of predestination with the expectation that I do not fully understand the mechanics of predestination (with such doctrines it is easy for me to realize the limitations of human understanding).

 

[SovereignGrace]

I'm afraid it is Jon who is banging his head against the wall. Although I lean toward an Augustinian view of predestination in soteriology, even that great thinker did not attempt to plumb the depths of the mind of God to explain exactly the mechanics of predestination.

To further explicate what Jon argues (this is being presumptuous), I admit that part of the reason that I believe in the Doctrines of Grace is that position seems to me to be more logically coherent than the other approaches. (There's the human factor at work.) At the same time, I can see some validity in the arguments of the Armininians, though as a whole I find it unsatisfying. I often read a sermon by Spurgeon and then a sermon by Wesley; on the whole, I agree with Spurgeon but I do not reject out of hand Wesley's objections.

And, given the balance of the evidence, I have to accept double predestination. To try to draw fine distinctions on this matter seems to me to be sophistry. If God can choose who to save and chooses not to save some, then he has acted — by not acting.

I am surprised JonC has not put a 'dumb' under this wonderful post. [edited]

 

[JonC]

I am surprised JonC has not put a 'dumb' under this wonderful post. [Edited]

I think perhaps that is because you can't distinguish between disagreement and attack. RSR has interacted with what I have posted and has done so with integrity. He has not merely insulted me (or, offered kudos), but he engaged what I said and contributed to the post. I am going to revisit my understanding of predestination in general with the Augustinian view as this is something I have not really done in the past (I have not articulated the differences). I hold to a "double predestination", but I have not taken the time to study in depth the topic.

In other words, RSR has addressed both of my points without insulting me even if he sees misunderstanding in my view. That said, what RSR posted about the Doctrines of Grace is exactly my point. And he may very well hold a better understanding of predestination than my view (and I hope he does).

You, on the other hand, have proved unable to deal with one single point I have suggested and have yet to provide one shred of evidence towards your attacks against me. Look through the posts. Your comments have been but gossip. Gossip is a sin, brother SG. And accusation without evidence presented off topic is nothing but gossip. Which makes you....well...a gossip if Ray Comfort is right

With the predestination comment, I have made one claim and offered my belief on a doctrine. To refresh your memory:

1. I believe we have to be careful not to lean on our own theological understanding (which I distinguished from the gospel itself and provided examples of these "secondary" issues to orthodox Christianity).

2. I believe double predestination in some form a necessary part of election.

Your response? I have an "anti-Cal agenda". You have time, I think, to honestly address my points here. You may even have time to provide evidence to your claims. But do you have the integrity?

Since I believe you don't and this thread will close without even one evidence to support your accusations, or even one insight to one of my points, I'll quote this as it is a fitting end:

Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This thread is closed.

Six Hour Warning

Sometime after 1am Pacific this thread will be closed.