The rise of Calvinism?

[JonC]

Truth is not subjective, but rather it is objective.

Jesus came to bear witness to the truth.
Everyone who is of the truth heard His voice
Jn18:37-38....notice Pilate suggested it was subjective.

Calvinism does not put believers in opposition to God.
We can judge righteous judgment.

I agree. Calvinism does not put believers in opposition to God.

Neither does Arminianism or Free-will theology put believers in opposition to God.

Truth is objective, but our understanding of truth is subjective. We may believe God has led us to the theology we hold, but it would be foolish to believe God has not led other Christians to the theologies they hold. Our theology is (by definition) our study (human study) of God. The difference is not truth but human understanding (a diversity Spurgeon viewed as necessarily based on the finite human mind).

 

[Reformed]

Neither does Arminianism or Free-will theology put believers in opposition to God.

These theological positions pivot salvation on man's choice. So, from the Monergistic point of view, they are in opposition to God's sovereign decree.

 

[Yeshua1]

The doctrine of Andrew Fuller (closer to Jonathan Edwards than John Calvin)

Both Edwards and Calvin would be seen as "5 pointers" though!

 

[JonC]

These theological positions pivot salvation on man's choice. So, from the Monergistic point of view, they are in opposition to God's sovereign decree.

From a Monergistic point of view they do. But from a Free-will or Arminian point of view they do not (see, for example, the Five Articles of the Remonstrants).

From a Free will theology point of view Calvinism is in opposition to God's grace (and many would argue to His sovereignty as well).

And this is my point. The difference is not truth, or Scripture, but subjective understanding (personally I think both are wrong).

 

[Yeshua1]

When I think of irresitible grace the parable of the sower comes to mind where someone whose faith is shallow ". . . he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it; Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended. . . ." -- Matthew 13:20-21.
". . . when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away. . . ." -- Luke 8:13.
". . . when they have heard the word, immediately receive it with gladness; And have no root in themselves, and so endure but for a time: afterward, when affliction or persecution ariseth for the word's sake, immediately they are offended. . . ." -- Mark 4:16-17.

Also comes to mind Acts of the Apostles 7:51, "Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye."

And Titus 2:11, ". . . For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, . . ."

So the concept of God's sheep ultimately finding God's grace irresitible I believe.

But to simply claim God's grace is irresitible I do not believe. The gospel must be correctly undertood so its truth is not hid (2 Corinthians 4:3). Hmm . . . the reason God's grace is resisted.

Both cases that you cited though would be lost sinners refusing to get saved by God, as their sin natures and pride will not allow for that to happen....

 

[Yeshua1]

One way to look at irresistible grace is to not look at it in the negative. Opponents of Calvinism often look at irresistible grace as limiting man's free will. Man is saved kicking and screaming. Nothing is further from the truth. When God calls one of His elect, that individual desires nothing more than to come to God. There may be plenty of kicking and screaming before they are regenerated (made capable of belief), but when the Holy Spirit does His regenerating work in an individual's life, that individual wants nothing more than to come to Christ.

John 1:13!

 

[Yeshua1]

These theological positions pivot salvation on man's choice. So, from the Monergistic point of view, they are in opposition to God's sovereign decree.

there can only be ONE true view on this issue on who or what determines our salvation in the ultimate sense! the great news is that even though free will/Arminian Christians misunderstood that basis, God still does save them by that basis!

 

[Yeshua1]

From a Monergistic point of view they do. But from a Free-will or Arminian point of view they do not (see, for example, the Five Articles of the Remonstrants).

From a Free will theology point of view Calvinism is in opposition to God's grace (and many would argue to His sovereignty as well).

And this is my point. The difference is not truth, or Scripture, but subjective understanding (personally I think both are wrong).

What is the correct view by your understanding?

 

[JonC]

What is the correct view by your understanding?

I believe the issue is dependent on taking an anthropomorphic view of God and God's will. I believe it is beyond our grasp because if God is immutable, omniscient, and sovereign then God does not actually choose (there is no deciding between this or that).

Calvinism and Arminianism both tries to understand what God has not revealed to us in Scripture, I believe often at the expense of what has been revealed.

 

[Reformed]

The difference is not truth, or Scripture, but subjective understanding

I disagree. Why do you think I hold to my theological position on the will of man in salvation? I hold to it because I believe it is true and faithful to scripture. I understand Synergists may claim to believe the same about their view but I disagree with them. I do not accept their view has correct. That does not mean I treat them poorly or intentionally misrepresent them. I just believe their view is wrong. The fact that you say the difference is not truth but subjective is your opinion.

 

[JonC]

I disagree. Why do you think I hold to my theological position on the will of man in salvation? I hold to it because I believe it is true and faithful to scripture. I understand Synergists may claim to believe the same about their view but I disagree with them. I do not accept their view has correct. That does not mean I treat them poorly or intentionally misrepresent them. I just believe their view is wrong. The fact that you say the difference is not truth but subjective is your opinion.

I disagree. Why do you think I left Calvinism? I left because it was not true and faithful to Scripture.

Using the "opinion" argument is a logical fallacy. Opinions are only valid Insofar as they can be supported with evidence.

I maintain both Calvinists and non-Calvinists affirm the same objective texts (Scripture) while arriving at different conclusions via reasoning and interpretation (subjective).

What biblical text (not interpretation) do you believe the opposing view attribute as not being God's Word?

 

[Yeshua1]

I believe the issue is dependent on taking an anthropomorphic view of God and God's will. I believe it is beyond our grasp because if God is immutable, omniscient, and sovereign then God does not actually choose (there is no deciding between this or that).

Calvinism and Arminianism both tries to understand what God has not revealed to us in Scripture, I believe often at the expense of what has been revealed.

Lost sinners will not come to Christ to save them by themselves, as sin natures cannot submit to God and His ways, so what determines who gets saved and why? if God does not choose to be active in saving lost sinners, and sinners cannot will themselves to even want to get saved, how does it ever happen?

 

[Yeshua1]

I disagree. Why do you think I left Calvinism? I left because it was not true and faithful to Scripture.

Using the "opinion" argument is a logical fallacy. Opinions are only valid Insofar as they can be supported with evidence.

I maintain both Calvinists and non-Calvinists affirm the same objective texts (Scripture) while arriving at different conclusions via reasoning and interpretation (subjective).

What biblical text (not interpretation) do you believe the opposing view attribute as not being God's Word?

By what basis did you determine Calvinism was wrong though? If you say the scriptures, there would be many passages that would support Calvinism!

 

[Reformed]

I disagree. Why do you think I left Calvinism? I left because it was not true and faithful to Scripture.

That is your opinion. It is your opinion that Calvinism is not true and faithful to scripture. It is my opinion that it is. Labeling that a fallacy is also your opinion and it also wrong. In order for something to be a logical fallacy, there has to be an error in reasoning. How can studying the scriptures and considering the breadth of scholarship on a topic before coming to a conclusion be considered an error in reasoning? I certainly do not consider your opinion against Calvinism to be a fallacy. I am assuming you studied the issue and came to a similar conclusion for your belief. We just happen to disagree.

What biblical text (not interpretation) do you believe the opposing view attribute as not being God's Word?

Please do not put words in my mouth. I never said the other side of the debate does not consider the biblical text not to be God's word. I disagree with their interpretation even if I respect the work they put into studying the text. And what if I am wrong on a doctrine that I hold to? It will not be the first time. I used to be a Synergist. I used to be a Dispensationalist. I used to be a Trichotomist. I used to be... I can go on. Each time my theological position changed it was ultimately because I was convinced by the study of the scriptures.

I will tell you what the real problem is. It is having an unsettled theology. I am that way with eschatology. I bounce around between Amillennialism and Post-Millennialism, although my compass's default position points to Amillennialism. When it comes to eschatology the only thing I am willing to fall on my sword over is that Jesus will return visibly and then the final judgment. So, I do not have a settled position in this area and thus I will not dogmatically claim other views are wrong (except Dispensational Pre-Millennialism).

 

[Yeshua1]

That is your opinion. It is your opinion that Calvinism is not true and faithful to scripture. It is my opinion that it is. Labeling that a fallacy is also your opinion and it also wrong. In order for something to be a logical fallacy, there has to be an error in reasoning. How can studying the scriptures and considering the breadth of scholarship on a topic before coming to a conclusion be considered an error in reasoning? I certainly do not consider your opinion against Calvinism to be a fallacy. I am assuming you studied the issue and came to a similar conclusion for your belief. We just happen to disagree.



Please do not put words in my mouth. I never said the other side of the debate does not consider the biblical text not to be God's word. I disagree with their interpretation even if I respect the work they put into studying the text. And what if I am wrong on a doctrine that I hold to? It will not be the first time. I used to be a Synergist. I used to be a Dispensationalist. I used to be a Trichotomist. I used to be... I can go on. Each time my theological position changed it was ultimately because I was convinced by the study of the scriptures.

I will tell you what the real problem is. It is having an unsettled theology. I am that way with eschatology. I bounce around between Amillennialism and Post-Millennialism, although my compass's default position points to Amillennialism. When it comes to eschatology the only thing I am willing to fall on my sword over is that Jesus will return visibly and then the final judgment. So, I do not have a settled position in this area and thus I will not dogmatically claim other views are wrong (except Dispensational Pre-Millennialism).

What is interesting to me though is when one contrast and compares the Systematic theologies written by reformed/Calvinistic in church history to the works by non cals....
One side seems to have a better grasp of certain doctrines over the other side...

 

[ivdavid]

In order for something to be a logical fallacy, there has to be an error in reasoning.

These have been raised against calvinism, right? Contradictions have been pointed out in calvinism and each time this is done by a person holding to a different belief system, calvinists point out a contradiction in that other belief system and go "but what about that?". Not having alternatives still doesn't justify a contradiction, right?

And even if we get past this, calvinists end on the "mystery of God" card - where the explanation of the contradiction somehow exists but is beyond our reach now. By this standard, all other doctrinal systems are equally true, right?

 

[JonC]

That is your opinion. It is your opinion that Calvinism is not true and faithful to scripture. It is my opinion that it is. Labeling that a fallacy is also your opinion and it also wrong. In order for something to be a logical fallacy, there has to be an error in reasoning. How can studying the scriptures and considering the breadth of scholarship on a topic before coming to a conclusion be considered an error in reasoning? I certainly do not consider your opinion against Calvinism to be a fallacy. I am assuming you studied the issue and came to a similar conclusion for your belief. We just happen to disagree.



Please do not put words in my mouth. I never said the other side of the debate does not consider the biblical text not to be God's word. I disagree with their interpretation even if I respect the work they put into studying the text. And what if I am wrong on a doctrine that I hold to? It will not be the first time. I used to be a Synergist. I used to be a Dispensationalist. I used to be a Trichotomist. I used to be... I can go on. Each time my theological position changed it was ultimately because I was convinced by the study of the scriptures.

I will tell you what the real problem is. It is having an unsettled theology. I am that way with eschatology. I bounce around between Amillennialism and Post-Millennialism, although my compass's default position points to Amillennialism. When it comes to eschatology the only thing I am willing to fall on my sword over is that Jesus will return visibly and then the final judgment. So, I do not have a settled position in this area and thus I will not dogmatically claim other views are wrong (except Dispensational Pre-Millennialism).

I was hoping this would be your reply (sorry for "guiding" you here). The issue is not our different opinions (or conclusions).

There is a difference.

Your opinion is that the the difference between these views is not subjective but rather objective truth. This is a logical fallacy (an unsubstantiated opinion, a "red herring"). I say it is subjective and I provided evidence. You could argue I am wrong, but not that I have responded as you did with unsubstantiated opinion.

The objective part is Scripture, not Calvinism or non-Calvinistic views. Systematic theologies (which is what we are discussing) by definition contain a degree of subjective Ness in interpretation and reasoning.

The key difference is being able to recognize this in our own beliefs. It is what separates the indoctrinated from those who truly understand their own views within a greater Christian context.

 

[Yeshua1]

I was hoping this would be your reply (sorry for "guiding" you here).

There is a difference.

Your opinion is that the the difference between these views is not subjective but rather objective truth. This is a logical fallacy (an unsubstantiated opinion, a "red herring"). I say it is SUBJECTIVE AND provided evidence. You could argue I am wrong, but not that I have responded as you did with unsubstantiated opinion.

The objective part is Scripture, not Calvinism or non-Calvinistic views. Systematic theologies (which is what we are discussing) by definition contain a degree of subjective Ness in interpretation and reasoning.

The key difference is being able to recognize this in our own beliefs. It is what separates the indoctrinated from those who truly understand their own views within a greater Christian context.

The major difference between Calvinism and non Calvinism seems to be due to mon cals misunderstand the full effects of the Fall towards humanity, and failure to see the totality of the scriptures in regards to salvation. they also see the fallacy of real free will as being the guiding principle behind getting to how God operates in salvation proper!

 

[JonC]

Thread is closed. Please feel free to start another and continue.