The High Priestly Prayer

[JonC]

I simply reject the Calvinistic interpretation of those Scriptures.

Have you found that Calvinists confuse their own theology with Scripture itself and are unable to grasp where Scripture ends and their understanding begins?

I ask because Dave is not the first Calvinist to accuse anyone who disagrees with him as rejecting Scripture.

 

[JonC]

Exactly.

That is my point. We affirm the same passages but disagree on interpretation (not necessarily you and I right here, but in general).

 

[Dave G]

I ask because Dave is not the first Calvinist to accuse anyone who disagrees with him as rejecting Scripture.

Jon,
I'm not accusing anyone who disgrees with me as rejecting Scripture.

I'm flat-out telling you what Scripture says...
That anyone who rejects God's word, is not saved.
Period.

There is a difference.
Do you understand the difference?

For example:

Two people profess Christ.
One is "teachable" and their understanding of Scripture increases and becomes clearer the more effort they put into studying His word.
The other never increases in their understanding no matter how much they study His word, never bears true spiritual fruit, and always fights against parts ( or all ) of God's word.

Which one is saved and has the Holy Spirit indwelling them?

 

[Reynolds]

Have you found that Calvinists confuse their own theology with Scripture itself and are unable to grasp where Scripture ends and their understanding begins?

I ask because Dave is not the first Calvinist to accuse anyone who disagrees with him as rejecting Scripture.

I used to never have that problem. The older generation of Calvinists knew what they believed and did not care what I believed. The New Calvinists, the Mohler followers in particular, see my theology as deficient, wrong, and they have appointed themselves as my teachers.

 

[JonC]

Jon,
I'm not accusing anyone who disgrees with me as rejecting Scripture.

I'm flat-out telling you what Scripture says...
That anyone who rejects God's word, is not saved.

There is a difference.
Do you understand the difference?

My apologies, I misunderstood what you were saying.

My argument here is that people hold different interpretations of Scripture. Scripture is objective truth - absolute and infallible. Men are not.

My comments were to try and correct @Iconoclast 's error in that he thought I was saying we cannot know right from wrong. I do not know how he stumbled on that error but it is the opposite of what I was saying.

I am not a Calvinist but I affirm the same passages as you. Where we disagree is in applied philosophy (especially judicial philosophy). Beyond that people have reasons for varying interpretations.

Profitable discussion among believers deals with the reasons behind our interpretation, not the validity of Scripture which we all affirm.

 

[Dave G]

My apologies, I misunderstood what you were saying.

Read my post again, I've edited it.

 

[Particular]

He is definitely not a "bully". He has a board of elders, but he founded the church and built it from the ground up. He calls the shots. The ones he kicked out were pressing him to teach Calvinism.

No one founds a church, builds it from the ground and calls the shots...except a person who has a controlling personality and sets up a dictatorship.
He may be honestly wanting to honor God, but his church setup will quelch the spiritual growth of his congregation by banning anyone who calls for the supremacy of Christ in all things.

Such a one ruler approach to church is a red flag for a possible cult. (Not calling your friend a cult leader, only stating that such a government is ripe for a possible cult.)

 

[Revmitchell]

Lets find out. I only know of one Arminian here and a a couple of non- Calvinists. Let's ask them.

@Reynolds, holding Classical Arminianism do you reject John 1, James 1, and Titus 3?

@Revmitchell, rejecting Calvinism, do you also reject John 1, James 1, and Titus 3?

Or do you reject the Calvinistic interpretation of those passages along with the Calvinistic philosophies associated with that position?

I ask because a member here has claimed that you do not reject their interpretation but Scripture itself.

Its dishonest, disingenuous, caustic, inflammatory and just plain wrong. Such an idea is not even logical. Honestly Im not sure why such accusations are allowed.

People are going to differ in interpretations on this board. If one cannot discuss those differences without such accusations then it shows the desperation of those who cannot defend their positions with reason and scripture.

 

[JonC]

Read my post again, I've edited it.

Two people profess Christ. One is a Calvinist and the other is a Free-Will Baptist.

Both are mature Christians who diligently study God’s word and live for Christ.

But they hold competing theologies.

I believe that each holds a human understanding of Scripture as well as a divine "spiritual" understanding as they are guided by God. But their understandings are subjective and imperfect because now “we see through a glass dimly”. Scripture itself is objective.

A Calvinist cannot claim his understanding is divine truth any more than the free-will Baptist. Otherwise they are fools blinded by their own tradition. That is the point. We examine doctrine by Scripture, not by our understanding.

 

[Dave G]

Such an idea is not even logical.

What does "logic" have to do with it?

People are going to differ in interpretations on this board.

Yet the problem remains in an infinite loop.
The same people make the same assertions over sometimes decades, and their thinking never changes.

How can they both have the same Spirit?

At some point you have to answer the question...
Who is saved and who is not?

The Bible actually does allow believers a modicum of determining that.
For example:

"Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away." ( 2 Timothy 3:5 )
" Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." ( Matthew 7:15 ).

" A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
11 knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself." ( Titus 3:10-11 ).

Regardless of what this board allows and does not allow, God's word does indeed allow believers the right to determine who is saved and who is not, after a fashion.

People are going to differ in interpretations on this board. If one cannot discuss those differences without such accusations then it shows the desperation of those who cannot defend their positions with reason and scripture.

I'm experiencing no desperation at all, and to me, you're acting as if reason and Scripture have not been tried.

They have.
Repeatedly.

 

[Dave G]

Two people profess Christ. One is a Calvinist and the other is a Free-Will Baptist.

Both are mature Christians who diligently study God’s word and live for Christ.

But they hold competing theologies.

I believe that each holds a human understanding of Scripture as well as a divine "spiritual" understanding as they are guided by God. But their understandings are subjective and imperfect because now “we see through a glass dimly”. Scripture itself is objective.

A Calvinist cannot claim his understanding is divine truth any more than the free-will Baptist. Otherwise they are fools blinded by their own tradition. That is the point. We examine doctrine by Scripture, not by our understanding.

Then we go our separate ways.
Denominationalism 101.

At some point truth has to be established, Jon.
Scripture is not relative.

 

[Particular]

Two people profess Christ. One is a Calvinist and the other is a Free-Will Baptist.

Both are mature Christians who diligently study God’s word and live for Christ.

But they hold competing theologies.

I believe that each holds a human understanding of Scripture as well as a divine "spiritual" understanding as they are guided by God. But their understandings are subjective and imperfect because now “we see through a glass dimly”. Scripture itself is objective.

A Calvinist cannot claim his understanding is divine truth any more than the free-will Baptist. Otherwise they are fools blinded by their own tradition. That is the point. We examine doctrine by Scripture, not by our understanding.

Can both be guided by God, yet conclude different understanding from God's word?

I agree that in both cases we want to see what we want to see in scripture and it is hard to overcome that bias. I read the book of Job and I see that very argument flowing from the antagonist and the protagonist in the dialogue.
Praise God that in the book of Job, God himself does not stay silent. Otherwise, I'm afraid all those men would have spent a lifetime at the Baptist Board bickering until God closed the thread...

 

[Dave G]

I'm going to bow out now, as this thread seems to be going exactly the same direction as every thread about this subject.

We keep re-hashing the same points, only to see the same people hold to the same perspectives, and nothing changes.
Again, there's a problem, and apparently no one seems to think that it's one.

No one seems to be making the connection that for people to remain not like-minded in doctrine for what amounts to their entire lives, then it's indicative of something far more serious "under the hood".



Good day to you all.

 

[Reynolds]

No one founds a church, builds it from the ground and calls the shots...except a person who has a controlling personality and sets up a dictatorship.
He may be honestly wanting to honor God, but his church setup will quelch the spiritual growth of his congregation by banning anyone who calls for the supremacy of Christ in all things.

Such a one ruler approach to church is a red flag for a possible cult. (Not calling your friend a cult leader, only stating that such a government is ripe for a possible cult.)

In general, I agree with you. He is not that way. He might get that way, but he is not that way now. He set tis church up this way because he was majorly stabbed in the back earlier in his ministry. He was not willing to come several hundred thousand out of pocket and get kicked out again. He baptized slightly over 900 last year so he is winning souls. I personally dont go to his church because his teaching is very shallow. By the same token, I am not going to go to his church and try to tell him what to preach.

 

[JonC]

Then we go our separate ways.

Denominationalism 101.
At some point truth has to be established Jon.

My point is that Scripture is not relative. Scripture is not subjective. Scripture is the absolute and objective standard. And Scripture says that we see now as though through a glass dimly. And Scripture warns against leaning on our own understanding.

Here is an example -

1 Timothy 3:2

Some say to be a deacon one must be married.
Some say one must have only one current wife.
Some say one can never have been divorced.

Which one is truly saved with the indwelling of the Spirit?

You cannot truly answer objectively. But there is a correct answer.

The question is whether or not the answer is a "spiritual truth".

You assume a Calvinistic idea of justice. But there are no passages affirming that presupposition. You could claim God gave you this conviction via divine intervention ad all others are wrong. Or you could recognize the reasoning and defend your conclusions.

Arguments fail because people (on both sides) ignore their reasoning or think it is a special and supernatural gift of discernment to see what is not actually there. In truth, Calvinism and Arminianism are far from "spiritual truths". They are both understandings of Scripture and both in debt to human reasoning.

 

[JonC]

Can both be guided by God, yet conclude different understanding from God's word?

I agree that in both cases we want to see what we want to see in scripture and it is hard to overcome that bias. I read the book of Job and I see that very argument flowing from the antagonist and the protagonist in the dialogue.
Praise God that in the book of Job, God himself does not stay silent. Otherwise, I'm afraid all those men would have spent a lifetime at the Baptist Board bickering until God closed the thread...

I would say yes. The "proof" for us is the evidence of the Spirit in these people - not their understanding of Scripture.

There was a reason Whitfield could say that he would not see Wesley in heaven because Wesley would be so much closer to the throne. Spiritual does not always mean "theologically accurate".

One of the most astute scholars I knew was a Calvinistic professor. He is a friend of mine, but he is not known for his kindness or Christian attitude. He is wealthy, a hard worker, and is known for his intelligence and biblical studies.

On the other hand, I knew a woman who was Pentecostal. She had horrible theology (her normal answer was "I don't know, but I know Jesus and that He loves me". She passed away a couple of years ago. She attended a Baptist church that was at odds with her theology. But on one could deny that she was a "prayer warrior" of amazing faith and walked in the Light. She was so much more spiritually mature than was my professor friend (and than am I).

For some reason we have reduced "spiritual truth" down to accepting the "correct" human understanding of Scripture.

 

[Revmitchell]

If ones purpose in being on this board or engaging in a particular thread is to change peoples mind then you are going to find yourself frustrated.

If your response to the personal frustration is posting a temper tantrum and declare one is bowing out or leaving cuz no one will see things as you do then that is exactly what one needs to do.

Having reasonable discussions requires respect for differing views and humility requires understanding that some portion or all of our view may be wrong.

If the only way to hold on to your view with confidence is to lack humility and to have respect for views other than your own then that says more about you than it does those with whom you disagree.

 

[atpollard]

I believe that each holds a human understanding of Scripture as well as a divine "spiritual" understanding as they are guided by God. But their understandings are subjective and imperfect because now “we see through a glass dimly”. Scripture itself is objective.

That is a possibility, but it is not a necessary truth. For example there are mature members of the JW who have studied the scriptures and hold the sincere belief that scripture teaches that the Father alone is God and Jesus is the greatest of his created beings “ho theos” ... a divine being, but not the great “I AM”. They actually are scripturally incorrect.

I am not qualified to make such a distinction about the “MONERGISM” vs “SYNERGISM” Sotierology debate, but it is not an absolute certainty that one is not correct and the other incorrect. That is actually a real possibility.

For me, there is too little to be gained by simply proving a position “correct” at the expense of things that Christ places a far clearer emphasis on (like Love for “one another” and “unity in essentials”). However, that is not the same as denying there is a TRUTH and that TRUTH is knowable.

 

[AustinC]

If ones purpose in being on this board or engaging in a particular thread is to change peoples mind then you are going to find yourself frustrated.

If your response to the personal frustration is posting a temper tantrum and declare one is bowing out or leaving cuz no one will see things as you do then that is exactly what one needs to do.

Having reasonable discussions requires respect for differing views and humility requires understanding that some portion or all of our view may be wrong.

If the only way to hold on to your view with confidence is to lack humility and to have respect for views other than your own then that says more about you than it does those with whom you disagree.

Is it possible that some or all of your view is wrong?

 

[JonC]

That is a possibility, but it is not a necessary truth. For example there are mature members of the JW who have studied the scriptures and hold the sincere belief that scripture teaches that the Father alone is God and Jesus is the greatest of his created beings “ho theos” ... a divine being, but not the great “I AM”. They actually are scripturally incorrect.

I am not qualified to make such a distinction about the “MONERGISM” vs “SYNERGISM” Sotierology debate, but it is not an absolute certainty that one is not correct and the other incorrect. That is actually a real possibility.

For me, there is too little to be gained by simply proving a position “correct” at the expense of things that Christ places a far clearer emphasis on (like Love for “one another” and “unity in essentials”). However, that is not the same as denying there is a TRUTH and that TRUTH is knowable.

I think this is where we go back to Scripture being objective and absolute.

But even here we end up having to make judgement calls on what is and is not fundamental.

It is good that we gather with those who are like minded and stand strong in their views. But at the same time I believe we have to realize what is our understanding and what is Scripture. Outside our church I preach Christ, not my view of election or sanctification.

I believe this a principle taught in Scripture. We guard our doctrine closely (constantly reevaluating our understanding with Scripture). But we are less inclined to impose our understanding on other churches. And we serve as witnesses of the gospel to the lost.