Unity

I'll ignore your two "comments" above as if they don't exist but answer your last two questions. I can only speak for myself in this answer:

Yes, everyone has much to learn this side of the parousia-now we see in a glass darkly

Areas of Weakness?-Personally, I've always found "calvinism" to be counter-intuitive, and while some argue that as proof of its error it could just be proof that our intuitions are also affected by the fall.

You are right that we should maintain unity and get past these petty differences. I find the essentials of the Christian faith to not be involved in the C/A debate and find these essentials so much more fulfilling to study and meditate on than the common fodder on this board. Let's celebrate our unity in the gospel and rejoice in our bond with one another!

I think humility is needed all around, not just for "calvinists" and not just pertaining to elements of one's soteriology.

 

I couldn't agree more that predestination and election (especially double-predestination) is counterintuitive. I do think that once one grasps the concept that "we are not God", it becomes highly intuitive. So many of the arguments against predestination and election reject the notion that God is God and He has the right to do anything He pleases with His creation. Whether we agree, understand, sympathize, etc., means diddly.

I know it sounds trivial or maybe condescending to say that it's hard to grasp the concept that we are not God. But I hope you'll trust that it isn't my intention. As fallen creatures, we tend to look at God's plans and actions through man's glasses, but we ARE only looking through a glass darkly. We do not have a right to do as we please with God's creation, so it's hard to see things from that perspective.

 

Yet another strawman...

 

Npetreley-Not to be too presumptuous, but perhaps you'd enjoy reading Martin Luther's "De Servo Arbitrio" (On the enslaved will or The Bondage of Will). Here's the CCEL link: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/luther/bondage.html
There are newer and better translations out there but probably not online, so this one will most likely have to do if you want it for free.

Of course, understanding this work fully requires some familiarity with Luther's thought, but his themes of God's hiddenness, the battle between God and the devil, as well as "masks of God" come through in this work, and of course the centrality of faith-which Luther defines rather specifically.

Anyways, this is a popular work so you may have already read it. It is couched between two of Erasmus's works and he could hold his own, to be sure, in representing the other side of things.
BJ

 

Yup. I bought and read the one translated by J.I. Packer and somene else whose name escapes me. Amazing book, and really fun to read. Luther is a master of sarcasm.

I believe this book is one reason why R C Sproul (I think it was him anyway) said that it's a shame that it's called Calvinism, because Calvin is little more than a footnote to Luther on the topic of predestination and election.

 

If it's a straw man, then it's one Paul used, too. That's basically what he's saying when he says...

It's His creation. He can make it and work with it however He pleases. If it pleases Him to create sinners with the deliberate intent to save some and punish others in order to make Himself known better to the objects of His mercy, we have no right to say He was wrong to do it that way. We're not God. We have no say in the matter.

 

I don't see Paul stating what you did. You implied that everyone with the view opposite of yours would be what you posted. That's a strawman argument that has been refuted more than enough here.

 

That's what I've found. I don't understand how it is a 'strawman' though, you are not setting yourself up for a fall are you npetreley?

I believe "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." leaves God's justice just. God is Sovereign.

No webdog you are wrong, Paul says it at Rom 9:19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"

What's the argument? You said: You implied that everyone with the view opposite of yours would be what you posted.

What was implied? What was the view, that we think we are God and cannot know the truth until we humble ourselves? If man can resist God's advances who's God? A weird world where the Sovereign cannot interfer with another's will and yet retains the Title Sovereign? Much like our queen, in name only. A place where the meaning of elect becomes one of usurper, usurper being one who elects himself. Just some thoughts from a strange sentence.

Fine words butter no parsnips. What do you mean by help you grow, do you want to be discipled by a Calvinist? To learn as a pupil? Do you think we should unite in your faith or ours skypair?

john.

 

Sorry, there'll be no unity among Christians until the Lord returns, so there's no need to stew about it, unless....

It's a local church. The big-C universal nebulous church can never be unified, partly because it has no reason to exist, thus nothing to be unified around.

But local churches can develop great harmony and unity of purpose within their congregations.

For there to be unity in the big-C universal nebulous church with no reason to exist, compromise is necessary. Oh, some are willing and have already done it, but most won't.

Local churches can achieve unity without compromise.

 

Agree with Tom - unity is not truly achievable before Glory.

Disagree with "work "ends to the middle"". Reminds me of the dialectical, consensus methods. If you are convinced you are right, NEVER COMPROMISE. But while we are not compromising, let's be careful to grow. Listen. Think. Read. Study. Self-examine. Let's be "semper reformanda" -- ever reforming.

I watched the Catholic channel last night for a while. They were saying that Protestant's lack of unity is proof of their error. But let's remember that the Catholic solution to disunity is conformity to unquestionable authority. Funny, now that I think about it, that's some fundamentalists solution to disunity also.

 

And squashing unpopular opinions is a good way to keep unity also.

 

Nebulous? That's a new one for me. I usually accuse the local-church onlies of playing word games (i.e. "generic" use of church), but I've yet to see "nebulous" as an adjective describing those who are in Christ. Oh well, that's off topic, and if I recall Tom and I have discussed this issue before and failed to convince each other so I digress.

 

See, this is the kind of innane statement you often make that lead others to ignore you here. If I recall, you asked why Calvin's name comes up so often on a Baptist board in another thread, well you tell me since you insert his name so often into threads that have nothing to do with him as a person.

Lastly, simply because you feel certain theological positions are at odds with your own doesn't mean that your theological positions are tantamount to "real growth and understanding." These statements also lead others to simply ignore you here.

 

There ought not to be, but just look at the arguments on the free-willer side. They often contain statements like, "A righteous God would never...", or "God is a gentleman who would never..." These are NOT arguments from scripture. They are arguments that boil down to "I have my own vision of who God is, and that God would never do what you claim He is doing." That is a subtle way of saying God is not free to be God - He has to be a God who suits your fancies.

Here's where the counterintuitive part comes in when it comes to predestination and election. Most of us (maybe not all, but most of us, at least at first) would rather think we made the difference in our own salvation. It appeals to our pride. That's one reason why it can be hard to give it up in favor of what the Bible actually says. So when a free-willer becomes a non-free-willer, there's almost always the revelation that we have no say in our salvation -- in short, WE are not God. God is God and He shall do all His good pleasure.