To Non Cals here:Does Man Need Prevenient Grace or Not To Accept Jesus ?

[Skandelon]

So, you would advocate making the gospel something that it isn't so that it is more palatable to those who are perishing without it, right?

No. I wasn't "advocating" anything in that post. I was responding to your post about erring on one side or the other by pointing out the eternal implications IF Calvinism is wrong versus IF Arminianism is wrong. This has NOTHING to do with my point and it also happens to fall under the fallacy of question begging where one presumes a premise up for debate.

I prefer the true gospel of the Scriptures, whereby God is the sole author and finisher of salvation, and where God alone has the power, authority, and ability to elect whomever He (alone) chooses based on criteria known only to Him.

Another good example of question begging and a totally unrelated point.

I am dealing with the points we are discussing. If it is okay for you to jump off into some other topic not completely pertinent to the OP in order to make a case (as you just did on another thread, where you took to task the man who called you out for doing so) then I can as well.

Oh, you are referring to when Luke thought is was off topic to ask about one's belief in God's role in education in a thread about the need for Christian education? Yeah, that was a real stretch and I didn't bring up the subject, BTW. I just responded to another posters comment.

Do you often validate your error by referencing the perceived errors of others?

 

[webdog]

Huh?

I didn't type that. Which post? If I used the quote function and it set Skandelon's name in that fashion, that is not me doing it for some reason.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1710819&postcount=70

The quote function does not change the spelling. If you didn't do it, someone hacked your account to specifically change it...but it doesn't change itself.

 

[JesusFan]

Again, you are yet mixing theological doctrines. Covenant theology is its own doctrine, and one may hold covenant theology while also holding Calvinism or not.

We are talking soteriology (salvation), eschatology (last things), ecclesiology (the church), Christology (Christ), theology (study of God), etc. Each is its own category and using a term like Calvinism to describe another category is an error that crosses into another theological discipline.

The attempt to make "Calvinism" equate to "follower of Calvin" is the error, and one widely held by almost everyone on this board. The two are not necessarily related, but they could be IF the person who is a follower of all that Calvin taught were also "Calvinistic" in his or her soteriology. "All that Calvin taught" (i.e., disciple of Calvin) does not equal "Calvinism" which is a particular soteriology that bears his name.

So many here make error I tend to when assuming what ones means by saying "I am a cal or Arm etc!"

Could refer to JUST taking the Sotierology aspects for each, and that for example I would classify myself as being Amyraldian in Sotierology, pre Mil in eschatolgy, Dispy, and holding non cessasionist for Gifts for today....

Have to seperate each seperate category out, correct?

 

[glfredrick]

Would those be like Norman Gisele/Clark Pinnock/ Roger Olsen?

Pinnock (now deceased) moved to open theism, but was not an Arminian. He spent some time as a fiery fundamentalist before his return to liberal-land. Pinnock was raised in a very liberal Baptist environment, but during the time of his education gravitated to evangelical Calvinism. He had returned to his liberal roots and is now (even after his death) one of the leading voices in the liberal wing of the evangelical movement.

"So I do not apologize for admitting to being on a pilgrimage in theology, as if it were in itself some kind of weakness of intelligence or character. Feeling our way toward the truth is the nature of theological work even with the help of Scripture, tradition and community …. A pilgrimage, therefore, far from being unusual or slightly dishonorable, is what we would expect theologians who are properly aware of their limitations to experience."

Some have declared his writings heretical. I would be amongst the crowd that does so. Rob Bell's latest (condemned) work is but a shadow of the more succinct work of Pinnock.

Pinnock, who passed away last August after a struggle with Alzheimer’s disease at the age of 73, was by far the most articulate and forceful recent evangelical voice for embracing inclusivism, annihilationism, and the possibility of salvation after death. In his A Wideness in God’s Mercy, Pinnock takes basically the same position as Bell, but with arguments more cogent and well thought out. When one considers where he was theologically at the end of his life, it’s difficult to believe that Pinnock started his theological career as an arch-conservative, inerrancy-affirming, 5-point Calvinist. Pinnock’s theological journey was one of the more convoluted odysseys in evangelicalism.

Geisler is a moderate Calvinist, not an Arminian. And, of late, Geisler has attempted to adopt some of the "no-name" theology, but not very successfully. He holds to most of the tenets of Calvinism but adopts some of the more attractive Arminian tenets to his own private theology, and as a result, has incurred the wrath of both camps. He does, however, disavow the open theism of Pinnock and others. Geisler is not a liberal in the same sense of Olsen or Pinnock. He is rather well known for his lack of precise biblical exposition, and that he often uses Scripture as his servant instead of becoming a servant of Scripture.

Olsen is an avowed Arminian. A couple of quotes from him:

Many conservative Christians wince at the idea that God is limited. But what if God limits himself so that much of what happens in the world is due to human finitude and fallenness? What if God is in charge but not in control? What if God wishes that things could be otherwise and someday will make all things perfect?

The God of Calvinism scares me; I’m not sure how to distinguish him from the devil. If you’ve come under the influence of Calvinism, think about its ramifications for the character of God. God is great but also good. In light of all the evil and innocent suffering in the world, he must have limited himself.

This sounds just like any number of persons on this board, but I find his musings to go beyond the pale of Scripture into a very human and logical form that, frankly, are disturbing for one who is purported to be a respected teacher of Christian students. If I had to hazard a guess, I would suggest that Olsen is well on his way down Pinnock's road to open theism and outright liberalism.

So, of all your potential suggestions, only Olsen is actually an Arminian. He does qualify as a modern scholar, however, so one point for you.

 

[TCGreek]

Calvinists, I was one of them, pride themselves on quote dead theologians. How about just getting back to the Bible and wrestling with it, huh?

 

[glfredrick]

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1710819&postcount=70

The quote function does not change the spelling. If you didn't do it, someone hacked your account to specifically change it...but it doesn't change itself.

I would suggest that someone other than myself changed that, especially in light of the fact that all the other citations in that long post are correct.

It is my practice to copy the quote tag and paste it into the text when I break up a longer thread for response. Rarely do i just type in that information, as it is much easier to just cut and paste!

If you will recall from virtually every one of the 2000+ posts I have made, many of which cite others, I always use the preferred screen name of the individual with the potential exception of shortening that name once in a while in the text of my response.

So, no traction here for you. It does not surprise me, however, for YOU to seek this out and use it against me rather than actually posting something of consequence in the thread. Your preferred style, it seems... :wavey:

 

[glfredrick]

Calvinists, I was one of them, pride themselves on quote dead theologians. How about just getting back to the Bible and wrestling with it, huh?

Really? Guess you've not heard us cite Piper, Mohler, and others, huh... :BangHead:

Also, not sure why a citation includes the category "pride." Perhaps you are reading into the posts something that you are transferring in from your own perspective? :wavey:

 

[glfredrick]

So many here make error I tend to when assuming what ones means by saying "I am a cal or Arm etc!"

Could refer to JUST taking the Sotierology aspects for each, and that for example I would classify myself as being Amyraldian in Sotierology, pre Mil in eschatolgy, Dispy, and holding non cessasionist for Gifts for today....

Have to seperate each seperate category out, correct?

If one is using the "systematic" theology approach (that is often the case) then, yes, though ultimately one should formulate an overall theology that is both biblical and coherent (works together and matches the revealed Scriptures).

Biblical theology does not deal with the same issues in the same fashion, however, as there are not categores specific to salvation, the church, etc. I recommend taking a look at it.

Here are a couple of places to start:

http://theresurgence.com/2011/05/04/history-unfolds-into-biblical-theology
http://btb.sagepub.com/

 

[preacher4truth]

Afer reading through this thread, I think the attempt is to state that "if" (really I believe it is "since") Calvinists are wrong, there will be implications for them, and on the other side of the argument (those non-cals) there will be no implications for them.

I'll continue to explain why I see this;

I believe this is the objective, though I see how it is "spun" along the way and makes many turns and twists in my opinion.

As I stated in post #85, I don't think this charitable or gracious to suggest that there are implications to be had.

Can it be stated that there are "no implications" to calvinists plainly, or is it too late for that considering what was said:*?

One of the implications is that *it effects the church negatively, (calvinism) to which I combatted as false, then in another spin it is said virtually, there are none. This seems to be double-talking to me. It needs cleaned up in my opinion, made plain &c.

I don't mind one being dogmatic and coming out full-blown and stating what they really intend and believe against said believers. As a matter of fact, I prefer it this way.


- Peace

 

[glfredrick]

After reading through this thread, I think the attempt is to state that "if" (really I believe it is "since") Calvinists are wrong, there will be implications for them, and on the other side of the argument (those non-cals) there will be no implications for them.

I'll continue to explain why I see this;

I believe this is the objective, though I see how it is "spun" along the way and makes many turns and twists in my opinion.

As I stated in post #85, I don't think this charitable or gracious to suggest that there are implications to be had.

Can it be stated that there are "no implications" to Calvinists plainly, or is it too late for that considering what was said:*?

One of the implications is that *it effects the church negatively, (calvinism) to which I combated as false, then in another spin it is said virtually, there are none. This seems to be double-talking to me. It needs cleaned up in my opinion, made plain &c.

I don't mind one being dogmatic and coming out full-blown and stating what they really intend and believe against said believers. As a matter of fact, I prefer it this way.


- Peace

Agree... And, for the record, you are precisely correct.

There is a continual push by many of the mods on this site to find "common ground" in our theology. In other words (like socialism) those who disagree must change their minds and adopt the theology of the other side in order to be included in this common ground.

NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN... But, we love you anyway, and hey, we're driving up post count and with that, the advertising revenue for the ones who hold this site. You all should be thankful!

 

[webdog]

So, no traction here for you. It does not surprise me, however, for YOU to seek this out and use it against me rather than actually posting something of consequence in the thread. Your preferred style, it seems...

No, I've tried having intelligent discussions with you in the past...but you don't have the time, remember?

Besides they usually go along the lines of...
WD: makes statement
GLF: "so what you are saying is..."
WD: "I have no idea where you got that out of my response"
GLF: "so what you meant was..."
WD: :BangHead:

Odd that "Scandling" just so happened to appear, though.

 

[TCGreek]

Really? Guess you've not heard us cite Piper, Mohler, and others, huh... :BangHead:

Also, not sure why a citation includes the category "pride." Perhaps you are reading into the posts something that you are transferring in from your own perspective? :wavey:

Perhaps I misspoke.

 

[glfredrick]

No, I've tried having intelligent discussions with you in the past...but you don't have the time, remember?

Besides they usually go along the lines of...
WD: makes statement
GLF: "so what you are saying is..."
WD: "I have no idea where you got that out of my response"
GLF: "so what you meant was..."
WD: :BangHead:

Odd that "Scandling" just so happened to appear, though.

Webdog, of all the various people on this board, I have found you to be the single most thread-derailing individual of them all. You most often find some off-the-wall point to single out and pick on -- seldom of which have anything to do with the OP -- and more often just to "choose sides" for the position you prefer while beating up on a brother or sister.

You are doing likewise here by importing a quote that I have disavowed making on purpose (typo or some other reason -- who knows) in order to derail yet another thread. Well done accuser of the brethren. :love2:

About your suggested exchange between us above, perhaps that is because your responses make no real sense, so I am trying to clarify. I'm not the only one around here who has had that problem with your posts. If you prefer, you can simply stop responding to my posts and there will then be no issues between us at all.

 

[preacher4truth]

Agree... And, for the record, you are precisely correct.

There is a continual push by many of the mods on this site to find "common ground" in our theology. In other words (like socialism) those who disagree must change their minds and adopt the theology of the other side in order to be included in this common ground.

NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN... But, we love you anyway, and hey, we're driving up post count and with that, the advertising revenue for the ones who hold this site. You all should be thankful!

No mind changing going to happen here either. I think it (the objective) to be a co-belligerency (warfare) against calvinist brethren in general, at least that is what I gather, especially when we are told our theology effects the church negatively.

- Peace

 

[Skandelon]

Afer reading through this thread, I think the attempt is to state that "if" (really I believe it is "since") Calvinists are wrong, there will be implications for them, and on the other side of the argument (those non-cals) there will be no implications for them.

Actually I said no "eternal implications" in reference to the fact that if we are wrong the same number of elect would be saved and we would be acting in accordance with God's decreed will. That is an important distinction, because even Calvinist acknowledge that men are held to account for sinful things God has decreed them to do. So, I just mean that no fewer people will be in heaven and all will be done according to God's determined plan even if I'm in err. I'm really not sure why this (1) so difficult to follow and (2) not accepted as plain fact.

As I stated in post #85, I don't think this charitable or gracious to suggest that there are implications to be had.

Its uncharitable to suggest that false theology might have implications in a debate over correct theology? I thought it was kind of a given that we all believe this??? But again, this is about the eternal implications as explained above yet again.

One of the implications is that *it effects the church negatively, (calvinism) to which I combatted as false, then in another spin it is said virtually, there are none. This seems to be double-talking to me.

The argument is presuming Calvinism to be in error and those implication verses the implication if Arminianism was in error. You know what? Nevermind. It is not worth all this.

If someone else wants to try and explain it to him be my guest, but I'm done with this discussion.

 

[preacher4truth]

Actually I said no "eternal implications" in reference to the fact that if we are wrong the same number of elect would be saved and we would be acting in accordance with God's decreed will. That is an important distinction, because even Calvinist acknowledge that men are held to account for sinful things God has decreed them to do. So, I just mean that no fewer people will be in heaven and all will be done according to God's determined plan even if I'm in err. I'm really not sure why this (1) so difficult to follow and (2) not accepted as plain fact.

Its uncharitable to suggest that false theology might have implications in a debate over correct theology? I thought it was kind of a given that we all believe this??? But again, this is about the eternal implications as explained above yet again.

The argument is presuming Calvinism to be in error and those implication verses the implication if Arminianism was in error. You know what? Nevermind. It is not worth all this.

If someone else wants to try and explain it to him be my guest, but I'm done with this discussion.

For one, my theology is not false.

Secondly, an accusation/implication of a "negative affect upon the church" (via calvinist theology) would certainly have eternal consequences.

I disagree with the "negative affect" insinuation.

- Peace

 

[Skandelon]

Agree... And, for the record, you are precisely correct.

There is a continual push by many of the mods on this site to find "common ground" in our theology. In other words (like socialism) those who disagree must change their minds and adopt the theology of the other side in order to be included in this common ground.

Let me make sure I'm hearing you correctly. You are accusing Moderators here of intentionally acting like Socialists by pushing to find common ground in our theological view points? Seriously???

I suppose you'd say MacArthur, who wrote the article addressing this tendency was also acting like a Socialist?

NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN... But, we love you anyway, and hey, we're driving up post count and with that, the advertising revenue for the ones who hold this site. You all should be thankful!

I'm sorry, brother, but this has to be on the top of the list as one of the most ridiculous statements I've very seen posted on this forum. Surely you meant it in jest? There was no smilie so it is hard to tell??? Please tell me you are just kidding around. raying:

 

[JesusFan]

Let me make sure I'm hearing you correctly. You are accusing Moderators here of intentionally acting like Socialists by pushing to find common ground in our theological view points? Seriously???

I suppose you'd say MacArthur, who wrote the article addressing this tendency was also acting like a Socialist?



I'm sorry, brother, but this has to be on the top of the list as one of the most ridiculous statements I've very seen posted on this forum. Surely you meant it in jest? There was no smilie so it is hard to tell??? Please tell me you are just kidding around. raying:

he "might" be referring to the established practice of "some" here on the BB who tend to turn discussions involvin calvinism into either straw man points, or else that those holding to that have God as a puppet master, God gives us 'shots" of faith, have tio be bible illiterate./ignornat to even hold to those views!

While the other side, one taking man has full free will to decide for jesus on their own, gets rarely "jammed up" or even biblical faulted, get credit for 'good biblicasl theology!"

 

[glfredrick]

Let me make sure I'm hearing you correctly. You are accusing Moderators here of intentionally acting like Socialists by pushing to find common ground in our theological view points? Seriously???

I suppose you'd say MacArthur, who wrote the article addressing this tendency was also acting like a Socialist?

First, you keep dragging one quip by MacArthur into these discussions as if it carries the ultimate weight. Any one person can say things that don't come off the way they thought they would, or even be mistaken, but also be of a general opposite direction in their general theological tenor, and i find that to be the case with both Piper and MacArthur, both of whom you have cited in your effort to find some common ground (i.e., persuade those who see things other than you that you alone are correct).

And second, yes, you in particular, as a moderator have started countless threads designed to draw in those who have a different viewpoint, not to discuss or even debate those points, but rather to offer an olive branch while having an ulterior motive in hand before the thread is complete -- that being to attempt to smash or otherwise discredit the theology of the one with whom you disagree. In the socialist political realm it is called "spin" or "politically correct speech." Here, it is just argumentation, but the effort is similar.

In that sense, where are the Calvinist moderators on this board?

I'm sorry, brother, but this has to be on the top of the list as one of the most ridiculous statements I've very seen posted on this forum. Surely you meant it in jest? There was no smilie so it is hard to tell??? Please tell me you are just kidding around. raying:

I am not in jest at all... Post count drives forum life. If the Calvinists that the moderators of this forum continually beat up would just withdraw, the forum would drop in threads and posts in a dramatic fashion almost instantly.

When I see posts halted just because certain moderators are pinned up against the wall while other threads continue forever because the prevailing side is ahead, it sends messages to persons that are on the other side of the equation. When I find mods who argue against orthodox Christian doctrine that has been held by the church since its inception, I wonder what the hidden agenda of this board truly is.

As for why I return? I find the arguments, no matter how far afield from actual tested biblical theology, to be worth the cost in order to cause me to clarify my position. In other words, I'm using this site to de-sensitize myself to the arguments of humanists, atheists, liberals, communists, and others of various religious and philosophical vantage points. If I just wanted a place were everyone was in agreement, I could easily find that, but here I find people all over the map in the weirdest sort of ways.

 

[preacher4truth]

As for why I return? I find the arguments, no matter how far afield from actual tested biblical theology, to be worth the cost in order to cause me to clarify my position. In other words, I'm using this site to de-sensitize myself to the arguments of humanists, atheists, liberals, communists, and others of various religious and philosophical vantage points. If I just wanted a place were everyone was in agreement, I could easily find that, but here I find people all over the map in the weirdest sort of ways.

I see also the same objective.

But to this quote of yours above instead I'll discuss as I agree.

I have been thoroughly enabled apologetically against the errors that bud forth from the proof-text/simplistic Scripture mentality and methodology.

Much fallacy has been brought into the church through such teachings and illogical errant conclusions. And let's be honest here, it is not as though it is innocent error without repercussions, instead it has had an serious impact upon those in the pews, in a negative sense.

It is truth that sets us free and this is why so many churches are in serious theological jeopardy, all the while thirsting for truth, and at the same time they think they are engaging in the seeking and intermeddling with all truth. They simply are self-deceived. It is a sad situation. I believe many want out, feeling like their is something missing, that it is not connecting with them, and there is a huge void. But some will never take a step of faith and seek alternate, broadened, and more comprehensive theologies that better relate God to man in all His Glory.

This is why many pastors find it difficult to minister. The sheep they've inherited already know everything in a sense, and cannot and will not kill their sacred cows created by their own mistaken theologies. To be fair, some pastors have helped facilitate the problem.

Today we find ourselves defending against a wave and onslaught against truth, and at it's very heart is the nature of God being seemingly dismantled by horrendously deficient theologies. Thus we fight for Sovereignty, Grace, Justice, Glory, Omiscience, and the rest of the "Omnis" inasmuch as when one is taken down, all others are negatively effected, the other omnis are then called into question andbecome suspect, and thus begin to crumble under saids theology, unto unacceptable theological error.

Again, one who states that Scriptures are simple is really saying more about ones theology and self, than Gods Holy Word. This itself is error and should raise a red flag to the wise. I would beware of any who hold to such a false premise.

- Peace