The conflicted Calvinist

[quantumfaith]

Have you asked him his doctrinal position on this subject?

I think his statement is suggesting that HE (Herald) will decide for him.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

[/B]

I really got to ask you this......why does that matter so much to you?

Because historical and theological accuracy matter to me.

 

[Herald]

Have you asked him his doctrinal position on this subject?

Yes. Winman has admitted to holding to Open Theism, but then qualified that statement so as not to put himself in a corner. But the fact remains that his articulated theology is consistent with Open Theism and full Pelagianism.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Because historical and theological accuracy matter to me.

Heres how this appears to me & I will use "Reprobation" as a subject matter that matters to me.

1) anything I read of value about the subject is either bookmarked on my PC, saved in a file or copied & manually filed.

2) if I obtain information from a book Im reading I highlight it & tab it with a post-it note. I will go back to it for reference.

3) if I cant do any of that, like inf on a you tube, I will record the brief verbiage in a composition book.

4) I am contacting 3 pastors via phone to ask some puzzling questions I cant figure out & record them as well.

5) since the subject matter....in this case reprobation has commentary from the Dutch Reformed Great 'Abe Kuyper' I am personally meeting with a local Dutch Reformed Pastor to converse about it.....most Reform Baptists Pastors are not conversant in Kuyper.

See....what I am saying is that when it matters that much to me, I try to take it apart & record all references to it to make a good story to tell & to satisfy my understanding. It appears that you & a few others, though you claim to be very versed in your own subject, dont offer up adequate evidence to support your thesis. So what are we to conclude?

 

[MB]

You have read my testimony

Well I did read this recently;

You make your choices....if you make your wrong choice that is your own free will doctrine expressing its liberty in you messing up....hey, thats your choice. Right!

so again, why loose sleep over you exercising your own free will? Not going to happen. Your doctrine, not mine.

Actually all decisions are influenced by the pro's and con's of it. Submiting to the righteousness of God was a choice I made and it wasn't a mistake. It was according to scripture. Rom10:1-4. Confession is made unto Salvation Rom 10:10. The both of them require a decision. Didn't you make those decisions?
MB

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Well I did read this recently;


Actually all decisions are influenced by the pro's and con's of it. Submiting to the righteousness of God was a choice I made and it wasn't a mistake. It was according to scripture. Rom10:1-4. Confession is made unto Salvation Rom 10:10. The both of them require a decision. Didn't you make those decisions?
MB

As soon as the grace of the Holy Spirit regenerated me I cried Jesus Save Me A poor & retched sinner ....and I was saved.

Eph. 2: 8-9

 

[MB]

As soon as the grace of the Holy Spirit regenerated me I cried Jesus Save Me A poor & retched sinner ....and I was saved.

Eph. 2: 8-9

Sounds as if you were saved and didn't know it. You see to be regenerated means to be saved.
MB

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Sounds as if you were saved and didn't know it. You see to be regenerated means to be saved.
MB

Well if that gives you satisfaction MB, then go with it. I however do not agree that a person who is guilty of the sin of non-belief can be saved without Gods intervention. See that is exactly what the Holy Spirit accused me of....the terrible sin of unbelief. And for that I was ashamed. That is what it took.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Heres how this appears to me & I will use "Reprobation" as a subject matter that matters to me.

1) anything I read of value about the subject is either bookmarked on my PC, saved in a file or copied & manually filed.

2) if I obtain information from a book Im reading I highlight it & tab it with a post-it note. I will go back to it for reference.

3) if I cant do any of that, like inf on a you tube, I will record the brief verbiage in a composition book.

4) I am contacting 3 pastors via phone to ask some puzzling questions I cant figure out & record them as well.

5) since the subject matter....in this case reprobation has commentary from the Dutch Reformed Great 'Abe Kuyper' I am personally meeting with a local Dutch Reformed Pastor to converse about it.....most Reform Baptists Pastors are not conversant in Kuyper.

See....what I am saying is that when it matters that much to me, I try to take it apart & record all references to it to make a good story to tell & to satisfy my understanding. It appears that you & a few others, though you claim to be very versed in your own subject, dont offer up adequate evidence to support your thesis. So what are we to conclude?

I have always offered evidence to support my theses. I kind of got used to that during my education.

If others refuse to accept it or don't think it adequate, that's their problem, not mine. I have personally found that often when someone does that, it is because he or she has a problem with the evidence.

My personal opinions and beliefs are not infallible, but I try to distinguish between those and historical and objective facts, on and off this forum.

 

[Luke2427]

Many here engage with what I like to call "a conflicted Calvinist." They are a conflicted group of people because their angst is really inconsistent with what they claim to believe. They are actively engaged in rebuking you for doing or believing something that you could not have willingly done or believed otherwise. In other words, they are actively rebuking God's ordained and preset will for your life, all the while believing that their own rebuke is likewise God's ordained and preset will. So, according to their circular deterministic worldview (where God is the only actual agent/actor/chooser in existence) they are carrying out God's predetermined will for them by rebuking you for holding to God's predetermined will for you...and you are carrying out God's predetermined will for you by rebuking them for holding to God's predetermined will for them.

So far so good...

Confounding, I know. They ultimately have God rebuking God over and over again...

Here's where you miss it.

How does what you say above lead to "God rebuking God"?

 

[Luke2427]

I disagree to a certain extent with the OP. I believe that Calvinism is very consistent, within it's structure, I just don't agree with it. That being said, the only thing I think they're inconsistent with is the totality of their belief in God's sovereignity. If God is truly sovereign over every microorganism, movement, etc, then He's sovereign over our choices as well. Thus, whatever we did/will do, He actively caused us to sin. Or that's how I understand it.


But Calvinists are not conflicted, or confused. I don't agree with their belief system, but within in structure, it's very consistent.

Thank you.

I think most thoughtful non-cals would agree with your assessment.

I was a Free Will Baptist for years and I saw Calvinism as wrong but perfectly consistent.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Thank you.

I think most thoughtful non-cals would agree with your assessment.

I was a Free Will Baptist for years but I saw Calvinism as wrong but perfectly consistent.

Then as a ex- FREE WILL BAPTIST, please explain how a FW Christian cannot understand that a person can be regenerated prior to believing

Is this a Romans 3 thing?

 

[Luke2427]

Then as a ex- FREE WILL BAPTIST, please explain how a FW Christian cannot understand that a person can be regenerated prior to believing

Is this a Romans 3 thing?

It is a fundamental misappropriation of terms.

As an Arminian I used to make this common error. I thought that almost all terms related to salvation were simply synonyms of each other.

When I heard the term "regeneration" for example, in my mind I simply heard the word "salvation". I lacked the understanding that different terms mean different things even if they are RELATED to the same thing.

 

[MB]

Well if that gives you satisfaction MB, then go with it. I however do not agree that a person who is guilty of the sin of non-belief can be saved without Gods intervention. See that is exactly what the Holy Spirit accused me of....the terrible sin of unbelief. And for that I was ashamed. That is what it took.

Isn't it intervention when God draws man or convinces man or even convicts man. These are the influences that brought me to a submission to His righteousness and confession of Christ. Only after this was I regenerated or saved.
MB

 

[Luke2427]

Isn't it intervention when God draws man or convinces man or even convicts man. These are the influences that brought me to a submission to His righteousness and confession of Christ. Only after this was I regenerated or saved.
MB

You were regenerated SO THAT you could be saved.

 

[Skandelon]

As I already said to webdog, it depends on how you define determinism. Does God bring all things to pass? Yes. By doing so is He the author of sin, or suffer violence to the will of the individual? No. If you think about it both the Arminian and the Calvinist have the same difficulty in providing an answer to this dilemma. Individuals like Winman do not have a problem with it, because He is an Open Theist and a full Pelagian. But for the rest of us we come to the end of ourselves when trying to understand God's will of decree, and its relation to evil (sin).

But don't you know that libertarian free will is just that, an affirmation of both truths (God's sovereignty and man's freedom) while appealing to mystery as to how He accomplishes it? Determinists are the ones attempting an answer where mystery belongs, not us.

Suggesting that men can't willingly respond to God's revelation unless God first irresistibly regenerates them (as Calvinism does) denies Human Freedom, yet you are attempting to maintain that you affirm such freedom. In Calvinism man can't believe unless faith is irresistibly granted to him, yet you are attempting to maintain that men are free to believe or respond willingly to God's appeals for reconciliation?

How can it be that God hold's mankind responsible (able to respond) for a response that God himself has unchangeably ordained him unable to willingly respond to?

In our system, we affirm that every man can willingly respond and thus has no excuse not to. He is RESPONSE-ABLE. Yet, we also affirm God is Sovereign. We appeal to mystery regarding the finite reasoning of regarding God foreknowledge of man's choices, etc (i.e. if God knew it before creating it then he must have unchangeably caused it to be)

This is where systematic theology is helpful. We understand God through His nature, as it is revealed in the whole counsel of God. We have strong statements such as James' insistence that God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself tempts no one (Jas. 1:13). So, the difficulty enters in when we know that God cannot sin; does not cause anyone else to sin; yet still uses sin to accomplish His purpose (i.e. Pharaoh and Judas). The belief that God does not cause anyone to sin is tautological in nature.

Our views sound very similar...

 

[Skandelon]

[
How does what you say above lead to "God rebuking God"?

The better question is how does what I said above NOT lead to 'God rebuking God.'

Take the phrase that you just affirmed, "they are carrying out God's predetermined will for them by rebuking you for holding to God's predetermined will for you...and you are carrying out God's predetermined will for you by rebuking them for holding to God's predetermined will for them."

Let's use the same phrasing and just simplify it down to its base meaning: "Luke is carrying out God's will for him by rebuking Skandelon for believing what God willed for him to believe." (and vice versa)

Stated even more simply: God's will for Luke is rebuking God's will for Skand."

More simply: God (in vessel Luke) is rebuking God (in vessel Skand).

(change 'vessel' for 'puppet/robot' for more negative connotation, but that is the second cause caveat mentioned in the OP)

 

[MB]

You were regenerated SO THAT you could be saved.

Well you know if what you said is true you would think I would have known that. Still being regenerated is being saved and I know when it happened.
MB

 

[Winman]

Yes. Winman has admitted to holding to Open Theism, but then qualified that statement so as not to put himself in a corner. But the fact remains that his articulated theology is consistent with Open Theism and full Pelagianism.

Whoa cowboy, when have I ever said I believe in Open Theism? I challenge you to show where I have ever said such a thing, you cannot do it.

You need to retract this statement right now or show where I have ever said I believe in Open Theism.

 

[Bronconagurski]

Skandelon

you wrote, "they are carrying out God's predetermined will for them by rebuking you for holding to God's predetermined will for you...and you are carrying out God's predetermined will for you by rebuking them for holding to God's predetermined will for them."

I have never heard it put that way, and I don't see how to contradict it.