Stop misrepresenting my view!

[quantumfaith]

just following up your point, that God of open Theism NOT One have in the Bible!

Your outlined points pretty much confirms that!

What I am saying, is that from your comment, I wasn't sure if you understood my intent. I was simply offering some of the basic positions of Open Theists, which I am sure some of them would disagree with those exact characterizations.

 

[Skandelon]

Which brings up a point that I have argued before, and was largely ignored.

"Calvinism" is not necesarily the teachings of Calvin. Calvinism is more the teachings of those who came after Calvin, and who formulated the TULIP (Calvin DID NOT write that!) in opposition to the Remonstrants who offered the 5 Articles to counteract the teachings of Calvin that had come to be known as "Calvinism" after Calvin's own time.

The Remonstrants, arguing SOME of what Jacob Arminius presented have one large issue they need to deal with -- the Council of Trent -- which found the Roman Catholic Church arguing, for the most part, the SAME THINGS that the Remonstrants did. There is no coincidence between the timing of Trent and the timing of Arminius' response to Calvin, whom he knew well as a student, but was obviously swayed by the Catholic reasoning. The two match too well to be otherwise and many have seen the tie-ins.

But there is a larger problem in that many here argue something OTHER than Calvinism in one of its forms or Arminianism in one of its forms, and that is that some here disavow of ANY system of doctrine, and their responses to common issues are all over the map theologically. I'm not trying to be perjorative here at all, just stating a fact that is easily verified by reading posts -- some are far left of Arminius some far right of Calvin -- and sometimes at the same time depending on which doctrine is being discussed.

I think we are pretty much in agreement here, but the variety of views is just as diverse in the "Calvinistic" camp as it is the non-Calvinistic camp...and probably for the same reason.

 

[Skandelon]

A very sad and false characterization of those who believe in the Doctrine of Grace. Those of us who are saved are completely humbled, and perhaps awed, by understanding that God chose us to Salvation in Jesus Christ without any merit on our part.

Having been a Calvinist for some time I will objectively concur with this statement. The pride is not in believing that God chose you, because your thinking, "Why me!" And that aspect is quite humbling.

If there is pride that comes through it is in the fact that you understand these doctrines while others don't...its more like "Why can't you see this!?!" which comes across as prideful sometimes, but the doctrine itself doesn't instill pride from my experience.

 

[Skandelon]

If you will note my behavior since joining this board some 3000+ posts ago, you will recognize that I have never before made public a PM.

In this case, I felt that the issue was already a public issue and that the conversation behind the scenes needed exposure to the light of day so I posted it -- including my own remarks.

I understand the "private" nature of the PM system. But I also understand that some works are done in darkness on purpose and I resolved long ago in my ministry career to expose to light those who do so intentionally. Pastoral care and the private nature of individual conversations is one thing, public affairs on this board, and the covering of the PM system to take them from the public light is another, and I made the call.

Sorry, but this response seems to imply that my response to you was somehow "dark" and "secret" as if there is something there I wouldn't have stated in public to you. If that were the case I would have just deleted it as a violation. There is nothing secretive or hidden about my comments to you.

In fact, if you recall, I requested that you start a new thread so that your error could be more clearly seen.

You are the one quoting Winman and others out of context and labeling them heretical. Not me.

I think Winman's answer above is very biblically based and right on the money. He is a FAR CRY from being Pelagian based upon that post. I think you owe him an apology. He is not any more a Pelagian than you are a hyperist and I know you would want an apology if someone went around pulling your quotes out of context and calling you a hyperist, wouldn't you?

I think most of our misrepresentations stem from our neglect to define the terms of the debate. After looking over your discussion most of it could have been cleared up by defining 'sin', 'sin nature' and 'sinner.'

 

[Skandelon]

We should be careful when speaking about philosophers, as we are all one at one time or another. Philosophy is the endeavor by which one searches for "wisdom" (sophia) and we all do that. The way some see or use the term points more to a "secular" view of that wisdom instead of a view that suggests that our wisdom stems from the revelation of God, but that view that holds that wisdom stems from God does not have to be dismissed in order to do philosophy, nor are philosophers who do not even understand or regard God disqualified in their search, for they merely search according to the "other" revelation of God -- His creation (a general revelation versus the more "specific" revelation of His Word).

:applause: I hope Icon is reading this thread.

 

[mandym]

This is probably the number one complaint I hear on this forum. It comes from both sides of the soteriological debate and quite honestly is pretty common in any debate regardless of the subject. It's called a Straw-man fallacy and everyone is probably guilty of it on some level.

Both sides want to feel that their views are understood and correctly represented. No one wants to be mischaracterized or falsely labeled.

Some mistakenly assume that if their views were really understood then there would be perfect agreement, when in reality one may fully understand your views but simply not agree with them. That is okay, this is a debate forum after all.

As you all know, I'm not a Calvinist but was one about a decade ago. I have been railed upon as not understanding Calvinism or as misrepresenting Calvinism numerous times. To those I'd like to say this:

Which form of Calvinism have I misrepresented exactly?

As I've quoted before, Calvinists are seriously divided among themselves and always have been. There is Supralapsarianism vs. Sublapsarianism vs. Infralapsarianism. 'The Supralapsarians hold that God decreed the fall of Adam; the Sublapsarians, that he permitted it' (McClintock & Strong). The Calvinists at the Synod of Dort were divided on many issues, including lapsarianism. The Swiss Calvinists who wrote the Helvetic Consensus Formula in 1675 were in conflict with the French Calvinists of the School of Saumur. There are Strict Calvinists and Moderate Calvinists, Hyper and non-Hyper (differing especially on reprobation and the extent of the atonement and whether God loves all men), 5 pointers, 4 pointers, 3 pointers, 2 pointers. In America Calvinists were divided into Old School and the New School. As we have seen, the Calvinists of England were divided in the 19th century.

Whenever, therefore, one tries to state TULIP theology and then refute it, there are Calvinists who will argue with you that you are misrepresenting Calvinism. It is not so much that you are misrepresenting Calvinism, though. You might be quoting directly from various Calvinists or even from Calvin himself. The problem is that you are misrepresenting THEIR Calvinism! There are Calvin Calvinists and Thomas Fuller Calvinists and Arthur W. Pink Calvinists and Presbyterian Calvinists and Baptist Calvinists and many other sorts of Calvinists. Many Calvinists have never read Calvin’s Institutes of Christian Religion for themselves. They are merely following someone who follows someone who allegedly follows Calvin (who, by his own admission, followed Augustine).

Calvinists believe that they have the right to reject or modify some parts of or conclusions of Calvin. I agree with them 100%, and I say, further, that we also have the right to reject the entire thing if we are convinced that it is not supported by Scripture!

I'm sure there are similar feelings from the other perspective, and that is fine. But, instead of reporting posts that you feel misrepresent your view may I challenge you to engage in a debate over the views by seeking to understand and be understood before labeling and dismissing others as "heretics" or whatever other demeaning term you prefer.

Just my thoughts on the matter...

At this point we all know who these people are. If we reply or respond to their dishonest posts then it is our own fault.

 

[DaChaser1]

At this point we all know who these people are. If we reply or respond to their dishonest posts then it is our own fault.

what are the views held by "Fuller' calvinists?

 

[glfredrick]

I think we are pretty much in agreement here, but the variety of views is just as diverse in the "Calvinistic" camp as it is the non-Calvinistic camp...and probably for the same reason.

In a narrow sense that may be true, for instance, one Calvinist who confirms the TULIP may be a supralapsarian while another Calvinist who confirms the TULIP may be an infralapsarian (as I am). Yet, both confirm the TULIP, which places them actually closer in doctrine with themselves than with others who deny one or more aspects of the TULIP.

Within Calvinism, we disagree on the "logical order" of God's steps in the soteriological doctrine, but not that He did them, or that they are effectual and based PURELY on His grace and imputed righteousness.

External to Calvinism there is wholesale disagreement on virtually every doctrine of soteriology with one individual holding that man is born sinless and only needs to live the Law of God perfectly in order to gain access to God's eternal salvation, while another sees that God must first grace the individual with a "before" grace so that their own personal faith can be effective as they will themselves to God.

I understand that you are always working to find common ground, and that common ground is most often the cross of Christ and Christ Himself, there is a giant dividing line that must be crossed before any true common ground apart from the fact that we all claim Christ. That dividing line is the difference between monergism and synergism in the soteriological process and no wishing for or working together on the doctrines will ever -- actually -- cause that line to go away.

 

[DaChaser1]

In a narrow sense that may be true, for instance, one Calvinist who confirms the TULIP may be a supralapsarian while another Calvinist who confirms the TULIP may be an infralapsarian (as I am). Yet, both confirm the TULIP, which places them actually closer in doctrine with themselves than with others who deny one or more aspects of the TULIP.

Within Calvinism, we disagree on the "logical order" of God's steps in the soteriological doctrine, but not that He did them, or that they are effectual and based PURELY on His grace and imputed righteousness.

External to Calvinism there is wholesale disagreement on virtually every doctrine of soteriology with one individual holding that man is born sinless and only needs to live the Law of God perfectly in order to gain access to God's eternal salvation, while another sees that God must first grace the individual with a "before" grace so that their own personal faith can be effective as they will themselves to God.

I understand that you are always working to find common ground, and that common ground is most often the cross of Christ and Christ Himself, there is a giant dividing line that must be crossed before any true common ground apart from the fact that we all claim Christ. That dividing line is the difference between monergism and synergism in the soteriological process and no wishing for or working together on the doctrines will ever -- actually -- cause that line to go away.

To my views of the scriptures , as per the concept of salvation....

God has His divine election towards us, that causes us to place faith in Christ to confirm it!

To those bethren, man still has the capability to make a 'free moral decision" for Christ, as either NOT spiritually dead, or else woke up by the powe rof the Gospel alone!
others here see it as being their personal/inherit faith saves them, and God elects to confirm they are saved!

 

[Skandelon]

In a narrow sense that may be true, for instance, one Calvinist who confirms the TULIP may be a supralapsarian while another Calvinist who confirms the TULIP may be an infralapsarian (as I am). Yet, both confirm the TULIP, which places them actually closer in doctrine with themselves than with others who deny one or more aspects of the TULIP.

You may be right in that the Calvinistic system is more defined around a singular concept, but the opposite is true in that the unifying point of non-Calvinists is that we reject the Calvinistic belief that God preselects some to be effectually saved leaving the rest to certain condemnation due to the imputed sin nature from the Fall. That may be the only point that unifies us (except being Baptists).

External to Calvinism there is wholesale disagreement on virtually every doctrine of soteriology with one individual holding that man is born sinless and only needs to live the Law of God perfectly in order to gain access to God's eternal salvation

I could be wrong, but I think you misunderstood this argument. I don't believe anyone here was arguing that people have gained righteousness by keeping the law, or should attempt to do so. I think he was speaking theoretically as if to say, 'someone would have to live perfectly in order to not be considered a sinner.' I'm pretty sure he would say that feat would be impossible... but there I go again putting myself in the middle. I just don't think you are understanding his point. I think he is just rejecting the idea of calling someone a 'sinner' before they actually sin, which is quite defensible...I just don't see the point in it.

, while another sees that God must first grace the individual with a "before" grace so that their own personal faith can be effective as they will themselves to God.

You just described your view. Think about it. The 'before grace' is the 'irresistible calling' which changes the man's nature giving them the personal faith needed to willingly accept the gospel. The only real difference in our views is the effectual/irresistible nature of the so called 'before grace.'

 

[glfredrick]

You may be right in that the Calvinistic system is more defined around a singular concept, but the opposite is true in that the unifying point of non-Calvinists is that we reject the Calvinistic belief that God preselects some to be effectually saved leaving the rest to certain condemnation due to the imputed sin nature from the Fall. That may be the only point that unifies us (except being Baptists).

I have certainly seen that tendency here on the board (and elsewhere as well) and, if I read you correctly, the main unifying factor for the "non-cal" position is that it is "against Calvinism?" Seems a rather shaky foundation for a doctrine as critical as soteriology, but to each his or her own.

I could be wrong, but I think you misunderstood this argument. I don't believe anyone here was arguing that people have gained righteousness by keeping the law, or should attempt to do so. I think he was speaking theoretically as if to say, 'someone would have to live perfectly in order to not be considered a sinner.' I'm pretty sure he would say that feat would be impossible... but there I go again putting myself in the middle. I just don't think you are understanding his point. I think he is just rejecting the idea of calling someone a 'sinner' before they actually sin, which is quite defensible...I just don't see the point in it.

I don't misunderstand the argument at all. I know that what is argued is that while it is "potential" that some may indeed be born sinless and live a life of sinless perfection by wholly keeping the Law of God, most who argue that point do not see that any man, save Christ, was able to accomplish it. I use the word "most" because "some" have actually argued that there are those seen in Scripture that were "righteous" by their own actions and they HAVE argued that these remained in sinless perfection, and if so for some, possible for all.

There are those on the board who do indeed argue that we are born in a state of sinlessness and that we are not "sinners" until we consciously sin by a direct act of our will. They not only argue that, they argue it most vociferously and often. They simply see that we are born without sin and that we must "sin" to become "sinners."

That is precisely what drives their doctrinal framework that suggests that sinless perfection in the keeping of God's Law is possible.

I will also say very clearly... THEY ARE WRONG. So says every orthodox expression of soteriology since God gave us the Word. There is no salvation apart from the Cross of Christ. That is God's intent and no human escapes that by living a pure life. We are told over and again that our sins are as scarlet and our works as filthy rags. We are told over and again that we ALL suffer a state of separation from God because of our very birth into this world. We are told that we carry this sin-separation because we are the sons of Adam. We are told that "ALL" sin and fall short of the glory of God.

There is but one doctrinal view that even has the gall to suggest that we might achieve sinless perfection based on our own efforts and that is Pelagianism. Hence the call against those who say that we can indeed achieve sinless perfection, even if only in the potential. There is no way to argue the "potential" of a wrong doctrine in order to make it more right or palatable. It is still wrong, potential or actual.

You just described your view. Think about it. The 'before grace' is the 'irresistible calling' which changes the man's nature giving them the personal faith needed to willingly accept the gospel. The only real difference in our views is the effectual/irresistible nature of the so called 'before grace.'

Indeed I have, and so said Calvin, Augustine, and many others. It is in the particulars of the doctrine that we differ, however, for the doctrine called Calvinism attributes this grace purely to God's sovereign election while the other doctrines attribute this grace to the will of man operating within a "general" grace available to all mankind. The difference is in the details and there is yet no way to lump both positions together because of the great dividing line that I mentioned above between a monergistic and synergistic expression of soteriology.

If we turn a corner and think about the ontological argument of first cause, we will realize that even in cases that argue well for a preeminence of libertarian free will, that even that will is yet subject to God's sovereignty. There is nothing that is "before" or that is its "own cause" beside the fact that God is the only "always" and "necessary" and "first" cause, so that any aspect of human free moral agency (my preferred view of our will). The will is always and continually constrained by God first and cannot exist apart from God, so in essence, it always (ALWAYS) stems back to God no matter how much it is argued otherwise.

 

[Skandelon]

I have certainly seen that tendency here on the board (and elsewhere as well) and, if I read you correctly, the main unifying factor for the "non-cal" position is that it is "against Calvinism?" Seems a rather shaky foundation for a doctrine as critical as soteriology, but to each his or her own.

Well, if one group of Christians makes a false claim that the rest of the Christians disagree with then it only makes sense that they would unite behind that one point of contrast. Especially on a debate forum where that is the point being debated.

It's not as if we don't have our own affirmative statements of belief, but here we are debating against what we believe to be a false claim..."God preselects some to irresistibly save."

You have to remember that Jacobus Arminius respected Calvin and his desire was only to point out a few claims of Calvin with which he disagreed. He affirmed the rest of his teachings. We are doing the same. We feel Calvinists go beyond the revelation of the text and claim more than what is revealed.

I don't misunderstand the argument at all. I know that what is argued is that while it is "potential" that some may indeed be born sinless and live a life of sinless perfection by wholly keeping the Law of God

I still don't believe that is what he said, but I'll stay out of that one this time. The next time you THINK this is what he is saying just link it to me and I'll join you in correcting him.

I use the word "most" because "some" have actually argued that there are those seen in Scripture that were "righteous" by their own actions and they HAVE argued that these remained in sinless perfection, and if so for some, possible for all.

I find that hard to believe, but if you can just link to the post I'll look at it. That is certainly not Baptist doctrine.

There are those on the board who do indeed argue that we are born in a state of sinlessness and that we are not "sinners" until we consciously sin by a direct act of our will.

Well, I think this point can be argued in that we only become sinners by sinning, as Paul said, "in this way death came to all men, because all sinned." Just as righteousness is imputed through faith, some teach sin is imputed through sinning. This doesn't dismiss the fact that we are born with the nature to sin: We are selfish, prideful, enemies of God who will certainly sin at the first opportunity. That is the distinction you seem to dismiss between the Pelagian view and the one argued by Winman, IMO. It's not as if Winman is arguing that men are born naturally good or even neutral. He seems to me to be arguing that while we are born with the nature or propensity to sin, we are only called 'sinners' if we actually sin. Seems semantical to me.

That is precisely what drives their doctrinal framework that suggests that sinless perfection in the keeping of God's Law is possible.

I'd have to see where they claim this is 'possible.'

We are told over and again that we ALL suffer a state of separation from God because of our very birth into this world.

Right, and its that 'separation' or 'enmity' with God that leads to our inevitable sin. I think that is the only distinction and to me it doesn't seem like much of one. If a baby dies do they go to heaven because they haven't sinned and are seen a righteous because of their lack of sin? I'd say no. They are still born enemies of God and objects of wrath. They too need the cross and grace for salvation. I'm not sure how Winman or others would answer this question, but that is where I stand.

There is but one doctrinal view that even has the gall to suggest that we might achieve sinless perfection based on our own efforts and that is Pelagianism.

Again, I've never personally witnessed that here. Link it and I'll be glad to reconsider.

 

[DaChaser1]

I have certainly seen that tendency here on the board (and elsewhere as well) and, if I read you correctly, the main unifying factor for the "non-cal" position is that it is "against Calvinism?" Seems a rather shaky foundation for a doctrine as critical as soteriology, but to each his or her own.



I don't misunderstand the argument at all. I know that what is argued is that while it is "potential" that some may indeed be born sinless and live a life of sinless perfection by wholly keeping the Law of God, most who argue that point do not see that any man, save Christ, was able to accomplish it. I use the word "most" because "some" have actually argued that there are those seen in Scripture that were "righteous" by their own actions and they HAVE argued that these remained in sinless perfection, and if so for some, possible for all.

There are those on the board who do indeed argue that we are born in a state of sinlessness and that we are not "sinners" until we consciously sin by a direct act of our will. They not only argue that, they argue it most vociferously and often. They simply see that we are born without sin and that we must "sin" to become "sinners."

That is precisely what drives their doctrinal framework that suggests that sinless perfection in the keeping of God's Law is possible.

I will also say very clearly... THEY ARE WRONG. So says every orthodox expression of soteriology since God gave us the Word. There is no salvation apart from the Cross of Christ. That is God's intent and no human escapes that by living a pure life. We are told over and again that our sins are as scarlet and our works as filthy rags. We are told over and again that we ALL suffer a state of separation from God because of our very birth into this world. We are told that we carry this sin-separation because we are the sons of Adam. We are told that "ALL" sin and fall short of the glory of God.

There is but one doctrinal view that even has the gall to suggest that we might achieve sinless perfection based on our own efforts and that is Pelagianism. Hence the call against those who say that we can indeed achieve sinless perfection, even if only in the potential. There is no way to argue the "potential" of a wrong doctrine in order to make it more right or palatable. It is still wrong, potential or actual.



Indeed I have, and so said Calvin, Augustine, and many others. It is in the particulars of the doctrine that we differ, however, for the doctrine called Calvinism attributes this grace purely to God's sovereign election while the other doctrines attribute this grace to the will of man operating within a "general" grace available to all mankind. The difference is in the details and there is yet no way to lump both positions together because of the great dividing line that I mentioned above between a monergistic and synergistic expression of soteriology.

If we turn a corner and think about the ontological argument of first cause, we will realize that even in cases that argue well for a preeminence of libertarian free will, that even that will is yet subject to God's sovereignty. There is nothing that is "before" or that is its "own cause" beside the fact that God is the only "always" and "necessary" and "first" cause, so that any aspect of human free moral agency (my preferred view of our will). The will is always and continually constrained by God first and cannot exist apart from God, so in essence, it always (ALWAYS) stems back to God no matter how much it is argued otherwise.

Basically....

can a man , whose nature is sinful, be able to by act of his own will turn to Christ?

Or will he need to be turned by god Himself to Christ in order to get saved?

 

[glfredrick]

Well, if one group of Christians makes a false claim that the rest of the Christians disagree with then it only makes sense that they would unite behind that one point of contrast. Especially on a debate forum where that is the point being debated.

Isn't your use of the term "false" rather begging the question? You make a rather SERIOUS ASSUMPTION here and I expect that you know what the term "assumption" means when broken down the way some do.

It does make sense that some might rail against a view that DEMANDS that God be utterly sovereign. In fact, I can expect that we would see that sort of rebellion based on the intent of the devil to convince people that they can be "just like God, knowing good and evil" if they only dismiss God at His word and follow him instead.

But I will stop short, as you have not, from actually saying that persons who disagree with the Calvinistic stance are from the devil, for I do not believe it for one second. They profess Christ and at that I find that I must extend the right hand of fellowship and call them brothers and sisters because, if for no other reason, Christ.

It's not as if we don't have our own affirmative statements of belief, but here we are debating against what we believe to be a false claim..."God preselects some to irresistibly save."

And, if you recall, I have been CALLING FOR a POSITIVE EXPRESSION of the beliefs of those who stand apart from the Calvinist perspective SO THAT WE CAN ALL KNOW whether or not those who hold other beliefs are at least within the pale of orthodoxy instead of some of the heterodox expressions that have been demonstrated around here of late.

IF... If, you HAVE those affirmative statements of belief, BY ALL MEANS SHARE THEM PUBLICLY and let's stop all this talking past each other. What do you (all) fear?

You have to remember that Jacobus Arminius respected Calvin and his desire was only to point out a few claims of Calvin with which he disagreed. He affirmed the rest of his teachings. We are doing the same. We feel Calvinists go beyond the revelation of the text and claim more than what is revealed.

I not only "remember" that point, I was probably the last one who brought it up. We've also talked in the past about some of the reasons why Arminius may have disagreed with Calvin on some points -- the influence of the Council of Trent, which has language almost word for word exact as presented by Arminius. Many see the ties.

I wish that I could find some common ground where the people who strike out against Calvin's teachings ACTUALLY did affirm many of Calvin's teachings. I expect a public lynching for you for even bringing this point to the table. People around here HATE Calvin (actually, they hate the word that starts with C, whether Calvin, Calvinism, etc.). They call him an heretic, and a murder, when none of that is in fact true.

I still don't believe that is what he said, but I'll stay out of that one this time. The next time you THINK this is what he is saying just link it to me and I'll join you in correcting him.

I find that hard to believe, but if you can just link to the post I'll look at it. That is certainly not Baptist doctrine.

The posts are now closed like so many end up around here. About the time certain individuals are getting exposed for who they are someone closes the posts. I'd REALLY like to see you jump in against some of these posts. Won't hold my breath. You usually find a way to see the points in a way that casts the Calvinistic position in the worst possible light, even when others are off the reservation by way of orthodox doctrine. And, yes, that is an accusation.

Well think this point can be argued in that we only become sinners by sinning, as Paul said, "in this way death came to all men, because all sinned." Just as righteousness is imputed through faith, some teach sin is imputed through sinning. This doesn't dismiss the fact that we are born with the nature to sin: We are selfish, prideful, enemies of God who will certainly sin at the first opportunity. That is the distinction you seem to dismiss between the Pelagian view and the one argued by Winman, IMO. It's not as if Winman is arguing that men are born naturally good or even neutral. He seems to me to be arguing that while we are born with the nature or propensity to sin, we are only called 'sinners' if we actually sin. Seems semantical to me.

If I read you correctly here, you are in fact saying that you do not hold to original sin.

Right, and its that 'separation' or 'enmity' with God that leads to our inevitable sin. I think that is the only distinction and to me it doesn't seem like much of one. If a baby dies do they go to heaven because they haven't sinned and are seen a righteous because of their lack of sin? I'd say no. They are still born enemies of God and objects of wrath. They too need the cross and grace for salvation. I'm not sure how Winman or others would answer this question, but that is where I stand.

Winman, Webdog, Jerry S, Primitive Pastor and others would argue against you just as they argue against anyone who suggests that we are born in a state of separation from God. That IS my point in all of this.

Again, I've never personally witnessed that here. Link it and I'll be glad to reconsider.

You need to get out of the constant Calvinist threads and see what else is being posted on the board you moderate.

 

[Skandelon]

Isn't your use of the term "false" rather begging the question? You make a rather SERIOUS ASSUMPTION

Bro, you were asking about the views of the NON-Calvinist, so of course we are going to believe this claim is false, otherwise we would be Calvinists, right? That was my point. That is the unify agreement of NON-CALs.

It does make sense that some might rail against a view that DEMANDS that God be utterly sovereign.

Now, this begs the question by presuming: God being sovereign = Calvinistic determinism, while that is the point up for debate.

In fact, I can expect that we would see that sort of rebellion based on the intent of the devil to convince people that they can be "just like God, knowing good and evil" if they only dismiss God at His word and follow him instead.

Yeah, I'm sure that is Satan's goal, to get people to think they are truly responsible for decisions they make, and what they do does make a difference. Seems to me that Satan might be more interested in doing just the opposite by saying things like, "God doesn't really love you....you probably aren't one of his elect...I mean look at you...look at how bad you are, God couldn't possibly have chosen you...and nothing you do matters anyway because its all been predetermined..."

But I will stop short, as you have not, from actually saying that persons who disagree with the Calvinistic stance are from the devil, for I do not believe it for one second. They profess Christ and at that I find that I must extend the right hand of fellowship and call them brothers and sisters because, if for no other reason, Christ.

I agree, but if one view or the other were in error, my charge is that your view would do much more damage given the consequential results....

And, if you recall, I have been CALLING FOR a POSITIVE EXPRESSION of the beliefs of those who stand apart from the Calvinist perspective SO THAT WE CAN ALL KNOW whether or not those who hold other beliefs are at least within the pale of orthodoxy instead of some of the heterodox expressions that have been demonstrated around here of late.

IF... If, you HAVE those affirmative statements of belief, BY ALL MEANS SHARE THEM PUBLICLY and let's stop all this talking past each other. What do you (all) fear?

You could start with the POF of this board, or how about the Baptist Faith and Message? Hershel Hobbs even wrote a full theological book based on that which explains very well our "POSITIVE EXPRESSIONS." I assumed you knew that.

People around here HATE Calvin (actually, they hate the word that starts with C, whether Calvin, Calvinism, etc.). They call him an heretic, and a murder, when none of that is in fact true.

We agree on this point. I have much respect for Calvin... the dude was a theological genius. Arminius was just a little smarter...about 4 points smarter at least.

The posts are now closed like so many end up around here. About the time certain individuals are getting exposed for who they are someone closes the posts. I'd REALLY like to see you jump in against some of these posts. Won't hold my breath. You usually find a way to see the points in a way that casts the Calvinistic position in the worst possible light, even when others are off the reservation by way of orthodox doctrine. And, yes, that is an accusation.

An accusation that I'm sure could be turned back onto the accuser were he a Moderator as well...as if my being a moderator in anyway obligates me to challenge the errors of other non-Cals anymore so than any other poster. Our only charge is to respond to reported posts and help moderate disputes in accordance with the rules of the forum, which has nothing to do with theological differences. You might be surprised that I don't read many of the other non-Cals posts here. I typically reserve my limited time here responding to those engaging with my posts, which typically are Calvinists debating me. Sorry if I don't see and rebuke every random error of every non-Cal, that's not my job.

If I read you correctly here, you are in fact saying that you do not hold to original sin.

You read me incorrectly. I do in fact affirm the doctrine of Original Sin. I was speaking of Winman nuanced view and how it is sometimes defended. Look at these two definations of Original Sin side by side:

John Calvin defined original sin in his Institutes of the Christian Religion as follows:

Original sin, therefore, seems to be a hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature, diffused into all parts of the soul, which first makes us liable to God's wrath, then also brings forth in us those works which Scripture calls "works of the flesh" (Gal 5:19). And that is properly what Paul often calls sin. The works that come forth from it--such as adulteries, fornications, thefts, hatreds, murders, carousings--he accordingly calls "fruits of sin" (Gal 5:19-21), although they are also commonly called "sins" in Scripture, and even by Paul himself.[48]

The Methodist Church, founded by John Wesley, upholds Article VII in the Articles of Religion in the Book of Discipline of the Methodist Church:

Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and of his own nature inclined to evil, and that continually.[49]

Winman, Webdog, Jerry S, Primitive Pastor and others would argue against you just as they argue against anyone who suggests that we are born in a state of separation from God. That IS my point in all of this.

IF that is true, then they are incorrect. I find it hard to believe Winman or Webdog believe we aren't born in a state of separation from God, but I'm sure you wouldn't mind linking to a post where they make that claim....or would you?

You need to get out of the constant Calvinist threads and see what else is being posted on the board you moderate.

Again, I think you misunderstand the role of the moderator... You are making it about theology when that is not a factor...unless of course you are arguing they are not baptists and are teaching heresy, in which case you will have to report the actual post rather than make general accusations while posting random anonymous out of context quotes...

 

[seekingthetruth]

I do believe that God is sovereign....He is God after all.

But does believing in the sovereignty of God make me a Calvinist? NO!

Do I have to believe in unconditional election to understand that God is sovereign? NO!

Why do you Calvinists have it in your heads that us regular Christians don't believe God is sovereign just because He gave us a free will?

Crazy if you ask me

John.....the regular Christian

 

[David Lamb]

I do believe that God is sovereign....He is God after all.

But does believing in the sovereignty of God make me a Calvinist? NO!

Do I have to believe in unconditional election to understand that God is sovereign? NO!

Why do you Calvinists have it in your heads that us regular Christians don't believe God is sovereign just because He gave us a free will?

Crazy if you ask me

John.....the regular Christian

As I think Americans might put it: "What's with all this 'regular Christian' stuff?" Who says that to be a 'regular Christian', a person must be a non-Calvinist? And why should it apply only to this aspect of doctrine? Even among baptists, there exist countless differences on all sorts of matters - eschatology, cessation (or not), creation, even the exact details of the Person and Work of the Lord Jesus Christ. So which beliefs on these doctrines, and the many others on which genuine Christians differ, come into the ambit of being a 'regular Christian'?

You may say, "Those who hold the doctrines which best match what the bible says," which is good as far as it goes. By that I mean that the bible is our authority for belief and practice. I have had verbal "tussles", mainly on the "Other Christian Denominations" forum, with some who say that things like tradition and the teachings of the so-called "Early Church Fathers" are authoritative too, but amongst those who see the bible as their final authority, there should not be any who say, "I believe Doctrine X because Wesley/Calvin/Arminius/Any-Other-Human-Being taught it." Our beliefs differ because not one of us has perfect understanding of God's Word, but that doesn't prevent us being 'regular Christians'.

 

[glfredrick]

Bro, you were asking about the views of the NON-Calvinist, so of course we are going to believe this claim is false, otherwise we would be Calvinists, right? That was my point. That is the unify agreement of NON-CALs.

Okay, I will conceed the point that non-cals see Calvinism as false. Does that also mean that they see Calvinists as heretical? If their belief is false then one might also know that they are heterodox and heretical.

I'll let you make the call... You seem to be leaning in that direction. :wavey:

Now, this begs the question by presuming: God being sovereign = Calvinistic determinism, while that is the point up for debate.

So, let me make sure I understand you. Are you arguing that God is NOT sovereign and Lord over ALL (things, people, time, etc.)?

Yeah, I'm sure that is Satan's goal, to get people to think they are truly responsible for decisions they make, and what they do does make a difference. Seems to me that Satan might be more interested in doing just the opposite by saying things like, "God doesn't really love you....you probably aren't one of his elect...I mean look at you...look at how bad you are, God couldn't possibly have chosen you...and nothing you do matters anyway because its all been predetermined..."

Now you truly argue from a very human-logic perspective instead of arguing the Scriptures that say otherwise. Funny how that works once one divorces a sovereign view of God from the actions of man.

The Scriptures show us, pointedly, that God does indeed "love some" and "hate some." Many have tried to reason around that. It also shows that God "hardens some" and "softens soms." Also difficult to reason around. Above all, it shows that God's grace, God's mercy, and God's love are all abundant, but that does not hinder the fact that while He makes the rain to fall on the just and the unjust, that He does not also "elect" those whom He wills to be elected. In fact, just the opposite.

I agree, but if one view or the other were in error, my charge is that your view would do much more damage given the consequential results....

Again, let me make sure I understand what you are saying here... God's sovereignty is something that would cause MORE HARM than allowing man's libertarian free will to rule man's destiny?

Okay, but I'm not sure that you are helping your case... You seem to be getting farther and farther away from the God of the Bible with every word you write. Are you angry at God because of some issue or incident in your life or something? Seems that you lack a fundamental trust in God to be, well, God -- in control, knowing all, making PERFECT judgments, enacting those judgments so as to fulfill His divine will, etc.

You could start with the POF of this board, or how about the Baptist Faith and Message? Hershel Hobbs even wrote a full theological book based on that which explains very well our "POSITIVE EXPRESSIONS." I assumed you knew that.

Since Hobbs there have been other expressions of the BF&M and besides that is not pertinent, for it is not the standard of belief of most here, especially you, it seems, or is that what you are now claiming as your published doctrine? That would be odd, for you have argued most forcefully in other directions. Hobbs was not an Arminian (and neither are you, but you do like the label).

I would STILL like to see a positive expression of yours and everyone else's doctrines here. Most are afraid to post them and I have to wonder why... Perhaps they realize that what they truly hold in their hearts does not match up with Scripture, but then why hold them -- are we not "people of the Book" and seeking the truth of God at every turn, even if that means "repentance" of one's doctrinal views?

We agree on this point. I have much respect for Calvin... the dude was a theological genius. Arminius was just a little smarter...about 4 points smarter at least.

Arminius' effect on the larger doctrinal world suggest otherwise. Where are his exhaustive commentaries on the Word, etc.? All the teachings of Arminius eventually only brought the world rebellion against God and division among God's people as that group constantly attacks and harranges those who view God as Lord of ALL THINGS, including us, whether or not we actually like it or believe in it.

An accusation that I'm sure could be turned back onto the accuser were he a Moderator as well...as if my being a moderator in anyway obligates me to challenge the errors of other non-Cals anymore so than any other poster. Our only charge is to respond to reported posts and help moderate disputes in accordance with the rules of the forum, which has nothing to do with theological differences. You might be surprised that I don't read many of the other non-Cals posts here. I typically reserve my limited time here responding to those engaging with my posts, which typically are Calvinists debating me. Sorry if I don't see and rebuke every random error of every non-Cal, that's not my job.

You're doing a fine job of rebuking the errors of Calvinists... I'm sure there is a commendation in this for you somewhere. :love2:

You read me incorrectly. I do in fact affirm the doctrine of Original Sin. I was speaking of Winman nuanced view and how it is sometimes defended. Look at these two definations of Original Sin side by side:

IF that is true, then they are incorrect. I find it hard to believe Winman or Webdog believe we aren't born in a state of separation from God, but I'm sure you wouldn't mind linking to a post where they make that claim....or would you?

Love to... Will it stir up another flap like before? :laugh:

I am shocked that you cannot find them writing such things. They do OFTEN.

Again, I think you misunderstand the role of the moderator... You are making it about theology when that is not a factor...unless of course you are arguing they are not baptists and are teaching heresy, in which case you will have to report the actual post rather than make general accusations while posting random anonymous out of context quotes...

See above...

 

[glfredrick]

I do believe that God is sovereign....He is God after all.

But does believing in the sovereignty of God make me a Calvinist? NO!

Do I have to believe in unconditional election to understand that God is sovereign? NO!

Why do you Calvinists have it in your heads that us regular Christians don't believe God is sovereign just because He gave us a free will?

Crazy if you ask me

John.....the regular Christian

John, are Calvinists other than "regular Christians?"

And, are you saying then that Calvinists are, gasp, "heretical or heterodox?"

 

[webdog]

John, are Calvinists other than "regular Christians?"

And, are you saying then that Calvinists are, gasp, "heretical or heterodox?"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you just recently say you are tired of those around here misrepresenting others...yet you do so here? Where did he even HINT at calvinists being "heretical or heterodox"? Like was recently said to you, "thou dost protest too much".