Unity

[skypair]

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.

I think you are mistaken in your accusation. These other people believe they are relying on promises of God in making their assessments. I am familiar with those assertions among unbelievers but I think here that you have to consider that those you debate with have a reasonable knowledge of God and, if they make unwarranted assertions, you must reply with scriptural disproofs if you expect them to always back up their statements with scripture.

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.

Well, in my personal experience, it wasn't pride but thankfulness that I was even offered the chance to be saved. So then, to go back and rewrite my salvation on different, politically correct terms would be hypocritical to begin with. And it might even make me deny my salvation to do so since, when I came, I had no motives other than being a sinner in need of a Savior. So I'd have to say to myself, "What did happen then? When was I saved? Am I saved?"

And those might be the questions that a lot of Calvinists ask themselves (let it be also known that the devil poses those same questions to "babes" in Christ).

I wonder, since it has come up, did you doubt your salvation? Did you, like, recant and "rebelieve?" See, I can't imagine that God gave me His "engagement ring" (the Holy Spirit, Eph 1:13-14) and then made me question whether we would ever be wed. And I can't imagine God giving me to Christ in the manner of some MidEastern fathers, against my will -- an "arranged" marriage without my consent. Do you admit that you consented to your espousal to Christ? Is that any more or less than I did?

skypair

 

[Brandon C. Jones]

I'm not sure this board ever had "unity," and it hasn't in the couple of years I've posted here. To say that a certain group of people disturbed this supposed unity is...silly.

I don't know what an "intruth" is.

Your assertion that your views are biblical is a tautology. I think the word "biblical" is useless in theological discussions, especially discussions on this board. Most people use the word as a dressed-up adjective for their own views which is what you have done here.

We differ on the gist of preaching. You enjoy being a maverick, and you have demonstrated to me a solipsistic attitude that holds others past and present in contempt for either agreeing or disagreeing with you. If I recall your theology helps fuel this position where people throughout Church history have gradually grown in their knowledge of the Lord. Thus, you know more than those before you. I think your view is contemptible while you hold those before you in contempt.

You have to earn the right to tell things not clearly seen. Until you can demonstrate that you've earned that right by studying the basics of theology (especially historical theology) and examining the state of the question, your insights look presumptuous to other people like me. When you fail to honestly examine the state of the question your fallacious methodology is usually exposed: i.e., your insights, while new to you, may have already come up and been rejected for good reasons. Or they may be indeed new and indeed true, but the shortcut theological method and your attitude in presenting them hurts their reception.

There, I've been honest.

I don't feel the need to address the free will/sovereignty issue since it's irrelevant for this thread. Although I will say that I don't think there's much of a gap between moderate "calvinist" and "arminian" views on the matter since the reality of it is beyond us. That topic has bored me for some time.

 

[npetreley]

I wonder, since it has come up, did you doubt your salvation?

Huh? I don't remember that coming up.

Do you admit that you consented to your espousal to Christ? Is that any more or less than I did?

Yes, and no, respectively, from MY perspective. But the free-willer would, if he/she were honest, have to say that what he/she did was more than I did and take credit for it. Hence the pride.

 

[Jkdbuck76]

We should all come together around Christ.
HE is the whole point.

My only gripe about this forum is that is seems like
everything is C vs A debate over and over and over
ad nauseum. But that's just a personal opinion, I'm
not going to engage in argument over it.

Again, we should all come together around Christ.

 

[Tom Butler]

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.

Yeah, you're right, and I just threw that in there to see if it would get a rise out of anybody.

The main point was, though, that unity and harmony are possible only in a local congregation.

 

[Tom Butler]

We should all come together around Christ.
HE is the whole point.

Dream on, my brother. We on the Baptist Board are about as together around Christ as one can get. We agree pretty much on Christ's deity, his attributes, the standard stuff. I suspect that most of the non-Baptists agree with Baptists about God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

I also suspect that most of us here agree on what the gospel is--the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ--Baptist or otherwise.

Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, even Catholics, can gather around those truths.

But, ask a couple of questions and it's off in different directions.

Such as, how does one come into a right relationship with God?

And, for whom did Christ die?

Once those questions are on the table, all unity bets are off.

 

[skypair]

Brandon C. Jones or any Calvinist

I see you'd rather make this discussion personal than to deal with issues that might bring us together. :BangHead: Well, I guess that is the reason "unity of faith and knowledge" gets no where on this board.

Again: "How much 'sovereignty' does God lose if we make our own decisions but He still controls the outcomes, the consequences?

He still has complete sovereignty over His plan, right?

He still has complete sovereignty over our destiny, right?

What 'control' do you perceive that God is losing by letting us make personal choices and be responsible for them?"

Couldn't the God of the Bible, indeed, 'delegate' His sovereignty much like a boss or a parent does and still be in control?

See, I think churches are full of "do nothing Christians" because of this issue -- and they are not all Calvinists either. They know to pray for a new car or new job or whatnot, but they wait for God to deliver it in their lap.

"Oh," they'll say, "He owns the cows on a thousand hills! If He wants me to have it, He'll give it to me (just like their salvation, BTW)." That's how "sovereignty" works in their minds. Or someone dies and "Oh, it was God's will." Like God made the other driver drunk.

Friend, Calvinist, you gotta start takin' some responsibility! Inaction is just as much of a negative response as if you's said "No."

skypair

 

[skypair]

But the free-willer would, if he/she were honest, have to say that what he/she did was more than I did and take credit for it. Hence the pride.

After I gave you my testimony as a free willer, your attitude is shear false humility tinged, I suspect, with jealousy because 1) you won't believe your own brother in Christ nor 2) refrain from your empty accusations. Please stop.

skypair

 

[Andy T.]

Skypair,

It appears that you want unity as long as everyone agrees with you. I guess we all would like that kind of unity, uh? And your insinuation that Calvinists are do-nothings in ministry is insulting and once again, off-base.

 

[skypair]

Skypair,

It appears that you want unity as long as everyone agrees with you. I guess we all would like that kind of unity, uh? And your insinuation that Calvinists are do-nothings in ministry is insulting and once again, off-base.

I take it you are not going to cooperate in this inquiry.

For my side, I am trying to concede that God is totally sovereign in a manner that is compatible with Calvinism and with scripture. I am "conceding territory" that I used to guard, sir -- that God has more control than I previously realized. You are just not of a frame of mind to reconsider your own theology, are you.

skypair

 

[Andy T.]

I take it you are not going to cooperate in this inquiry.

For my side, I am trying to concede that God is totally sovereign in a manner that is compatible with Calvinism and with scripture. I am "conceding territory" that I used to guard, sir -- that God has more control than I previously realized. You are just not of a frame of mind to reconsider your own theology, are you.

skypair

We are unified around the essentials of the Gospel - the person of Jesus Christ, his death, burial and resurrection, salvation by grace through faith, etc. But if you are hoping to find some sort of unity on how you and I differ on the definition of God's sovereignty or election or man's depravity, then it is a fool's errand. There will be no unity on these issues until one of us changes our mind, because our views are different when you dissect the details.

So any real discussion of unity must be based upon what we already agree upon. That's why it comes across that your discussion of unity is really just another attempt to 'convince' the other side is wrong in their thinking. It would be like me going up to a Catholic and saying, "Hey, you and I can be unified if you would only concede that you are wrong about some things, like infant baptism, justification by faith alone, transubstantiation, purgatory, and several other doctrines. Now, if you would just reconsider that you are wrong about all of those things and I am right, then we can be unified! Hurray!"

In the end, you are making a false argument or false distinction of what "unity" really is.

 

[skypair]

There will be no unity on these issues until one of us changes our mind, because our views are different when you dissect the details.

That's what I'm saying --- let's "dissect the details. Does God really make all your decisions for you or is it enough "control" that He controls the outcomes/consequences? Is Calvinist "total sovereignty" a true?

You know -- my God is big enough to encompass both freewill and predestination. How about yours?

So any real discussion of unity must be based upon what we already agree upon.

Which should be easy if we are both saved, right? If our common source is the Bible, right? Yet somehow your theology has it that, on account of His total sovereignty, God causes men to sin.

In the end, you are making a false argument or false distinction of what "unity" really is.

If I am, then Paul did -- Eph 4:3 unity of the Spirit vs. 4:13 unity of the faith and knowledge of Christ. The first all believers have -- that second is what we are to strive for in our Christian lives.

skypair

 

[Andy T.]

Skypair,

When did I ever say that God causes man to sin? I'm done with you - it is obvious that you want to keep lying about my beliefs, so I am at a loss as to what to do. I really believe you need to repent for your lack of love and dishonesty.

 

[skypair]

Skypair,

When did I ever say that God causes man to sin? I'm done with you - it is obvious that you want to keep lying about my beliefs, so I am at a loss as to what to do. I really believe you need to repent for your lack of love and dishonesty.

Sorta what I expected. There is a doctrinal rigidity to Calvinism that truly allows no other belief than that God causes sin and actually creates men who can do no other! So lest, upon learning otherwise, the whole affair shoud fail, I guess "bailing" is to be expected.

skypair

 

[johnp.]

You have the argument the wrong way round skypair. Instead of telling people what they believe after they have told you they do not believe what you say they believe you should ask why? If you think Calvinism logically concludes in God being the Author of sin why do you not ask why they do not believe this instead of insisting they do? Mainstream Calvinism has spent a long time and serious effort in explaining how God keeps His Hands clean and you should understand their view before you say they are wrong.

There is a doctrinal rigidity to Calvinism that truly allows no other belief than that God causes sin and actually creates men who can do no other!

For God has bound all men over to disobedience... Rom 11:32 says it all doesn't it? Doctrinal rigidity is scriptural integrity isn't it and that is not worth selling out for a pretended unity?

john.

 

[skypair]

Mainstream Calvinism has spent a long time and serious effort in explaining how God keeps His Hands clean and you should understand their view before you say they are wrong.

You make a good point, john. I guess the real question should be how does God "keep His hands clean?" Reformbeliever on another thread said "somehow" in response to that question. If God created Adam and then men who could only sin, God is the "First Cause" of sin, is He not?

For God has bound all men over to disobedience... Rom 11:32 says it all doesn't it? Doctrinal rigidity is scriptural integrity isn't it and that is not worth selling out for a pretended unity?

Well, my Bible says He has "bound them over to UNBELIEF." That's one problem. The other has to do with when they are thus bound -- which I say is after they knowingly sin (which excludes infants). So, no.

That would not be the "mouth stopping" proof you say it is. And why do you presume that unity must be pretended at all? Is there NO truth?

skypair

 

[johnp.]

skypair.

You make a good point, john.

That's worrying.

I guess the real question should be how does God "keep His hands clean?"

Why?

Reformbeliever on another thread said "somehow" in response to that question. If God created Adam and then men who could only sin, God is the "First Cause" of sin, is He not?

Did he? And what was your answer to that?

Well, my Bible says He has "bound them over to UNBELIEF." That's one problem.

Yes? Good isn't it? Compelled to disbelieve. No problem. [obstinacy, obstinate opposition to the divine will (Strong)]

The other has to do with when they are thus bound -- which I say is after they knowingly sin (which excludes infants).

That is not scriptural, just your imagination. Scripture refutes you to your face, PS 58:3 Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies.

PS 139:13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb.

That would not be the "mouth stopping" proof you say it is.

Ok. God is interferring with men's will regardless of when though. To bind sinners over to sin isn't so difficult after all. Why bother?

And why do you presume that unity must be pretended at all?

I do not. A little yeast works through the whole batch.

Is there NO truth?

A strange question from a Christian.

john.

 

[skypair]

johnp

Well, my Bible says He has "bound them over to UNBELIEF."

Again, God bound them over AFTER they were clearly defiant of the truth. This even works regarding free will and Calvinism. You (I surmise but hope not) are already bound over to unbelief in free will.

skypair

 

[johnp.]

Again, God bound them over AFTER they were clearly defiant of the truth.

So you believe babies are bound over because they are defiant of the truth or you do not believe all men are bound over, which? For God has bound all men...
It is strange that you think God binds men over to unbelief because they do not believe but why? After all, He bound them over so that He could have mercy on them all. You are saying that the binding over is a punishment for unbelief but God says the binding over is so that He can have mercy.

Rom 11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

'So that', not because of anything.

john.

 

[skypair]

So you believe babies are bound over because they are defiant of the truth or you do not believe all men are bound over, which? For God has bound all men...

All MEN. Didn't you just answer your own question? Babies are not men nor are the defiant of the truth nor are they bound over to unbelief as those who will be damned if they don't repent.

It is strange that you think God binds men over to unbelief because they do not believe but why? After all, He bound them over so that He could have mercy on them all. You are saying that the binding over is a punishment for unbelief but God says the binding over is so that He can have mercy.

This goes into the issue of "sin nature" as opposed to "sin guilt," john. That is plain from your question about babies, is it not? Babies are not 'bound over to unbelief' because they can't believe anything nor disbelieve it.

Now the point of "so that He could have mercy on them" is that they will never realze they need a Savior until they realize they are unbelievers and sinners. It's pretty much as Paul said it in Rom 7 -- "I was alive once before the commandment entered..." At that point, Paul was "bound over to unbelief or, as you would have it, "bound over to disobedience." Then and only then can God "have mercy".save them (Babies being innocent will be bound over following their resurrection with the just).

Rom 11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

skypair