If are motives are right, we can look to offer help Romans 1:7-12
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
What I wish the other side understood
- Thread starter Pastor_Bob
- Start date
I think to some Calvinism IS the gospel of Christ. One may not fully know the gospel of their salvation but to reject it is a rejection of how God saved us. As one grows in Christ they go from an ignorance to understanding the gospel (Calvinism) as plainly taught in Scripture itself.
To others Calvinism is a corruption of the gospel, perhaps even another gospel entirely. It turns inward and focuses on man while superficially focusing on God with the pretense of upholding divine sovereignty.
When I was in seminary the comment was made that the Calvinism debate is an undergraduate issue that most have spiritually outgrown by the time they graduate, the issue for seminary being divine love.
I do not know if that is accurate, but I think for many of us who are in neither camp it is a useless debate.
Thanks for presenting an interesting topic. Yes we see lots of post telling us our beliefs are wrong, and what our opponents do not believe. We see lots of labels, I'm a high Cal, or Synergist or Mugwump.
Here are my views, I am a one point Calvinist, I believe in eternal security, once saved always saved.
I am a two point Arminian, I believe Christ died for all mankind, and I believe in Conditional Election.
And here is where I part company with both groups:
I believe the election in Ephesians 1:4 was corporate, but I believe we are individually elected to salvation during our lifetime, after we have lived not as a chosen people.
I do not believe in Total Spiritual Inability, I believe in Limited Spiritual Ability, the fallen can understand and respond to the milk of the gospel, but are unable to understand spiritual meat, because they are not indwelt.
I do not believe in "Irresistible Grace" or Prevenient Grace, but I do believe in "Revealing Grace" where God and the Gospel are manifested to us.
Additional, some people have been hardened, as the first soil in Matthew 13, by the practice of sin or by the action of God (Romans 11) such that they are unable to receive the gospel. It is to these that the gospel is veiled. A good rebuttal to those who say the fall resulted in total spiritual inability is to ask why God hardened hearts (because there would be no need if the "T" were true.) Or why did Jesus speak in unexplained parables to preclude people coming for salvation at the wrong time. See Matthew 13 for the answer.
Yes, I tend to agree.
First we are admonished not to be labeling ourselves after mortal men, not even Paul:
1 Corinthians 1
3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
...
12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
Secondly what is even worse this mortal man Calvin came almost 15 centuries after Christ.
If Paul admonished us for labeling ourselves after him (Paul) how much more so for Calvin?
Then - Calvin was a paedobaptist - are all those who follow him? Why not?
If he was wrong about something as simplistic as believer baptism what then of his soteriology?
Jon, what if we agree to throw out any mention of the name Calvin and Arminius? What are we left with? We are left with the theological implications of either a synergistic or monergistic view of salvation. Is there a third view? No. Either man has free will* in salvation or he does not. If there is free will, then God calls but leaves the decision up to the individual. That is a cooperative view of salvation, a.ka. synergism. The opposite view has God calling and changing the disposition of the heart through regeneration so that the individual desires nothing more than to believe. You know how I feel about the term "Calvinism". The term is ubiquitous with monergism, a.k.a the doctrines of grace. I have no problem with the term because I know what is at the heart of it. However, some people have to use the term as a cudgel to beat up some individual Baptists over infant baptism, Servetus, and anything else they disagree with Calvin about. That is why I ask people to get away from the proper names and focus on the theology involved.
*I am using the term "free will" from a synergistic understanding of the human will in the ordo salutis.
Hank, that is a poor response. It is a great excuse for theological laziness. Sure. There are some things in scripture that have a strong mystery quotient. However, there are those things that are clearly and convincingly presented. I believe soteriology is one of those things. Why? Because if the Gospel is mysterious and difficult to comprehend, how can we proclaim it?
I never had a problem.
That is fine. As you have stated before, you are undecided on the issue. But the issue is not whether we are decided or undecided. The issue is what does scripture teach?
No, the truth is you simply prefer your labels over the others because you believe you've cut to the chase with it, came up with the great either/or, solved the mystery, provided the ultimatum with your Question Begging ploy to deliver a fallacious false dilemma ["Is there a third view? No."] which you so obviously believe enables you to draw a conclusion against your opposition of "a cooperative view of salvation, a.ka/ - THAT ONE SAVES HIMSELF/i.e. "SYNERGISM." !
...And I know what is at the "heart of your terms". And I find it less than genuine...
Once again, "I reject the either/or claims of such definitions which are typically meant to bolster one's own position. I see the Synergist/Monergist definitions as nothing more than a teaching tool of the Determinist view that amounts to a roundabout way to impose that their opposition believes they save themselves and thus merely offering a fallacious false dilemma. Or in short, a way to say, "you accept the term, gotcha"... "
Last edited:
And is it understood?
To the degree any finite creature can understand God, yes.
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
From what I know, there are only three views within both Christian theology and secular philosophy regarding the issue of the will and divine sovereignty, with room for movement between one and the two other views.
First there is determinism in the sense that all events (including our moral choices) are determined by preexisting causes. Determinism is a product of Greek philosophy and can be readily seen in studying Greek mythology (which I recommend). Aristotle held to determinism. We typically refer to theological determinism which is that all events were pre-ordained to happen.
Then there is free-will, which is the ability to choose between two possible things uninfluenced (some push the "libertarian" part while other's shy away from it).
There is Compatibilism, which holds that free will and determinism are compatible and both can be held without inconsistencies. Some view this as "soft-determinism", but depending on the view it could be just as much "soft-free will". Some hold (like your's truly) that men have complete free will - men can choose to do good or evil - and at the same time God has predestined all that occurs. Not just "predestined" in a Jonathan Edwards sense, but decreed as well. The reason some, like me, hold this view is that we see the issue between God's will and man's will as anthropomorphic when applied to God (as comparing apples to oranges as if both were the same fruit). The idea, just to keep it short, is essentially God's will does not "fit" into human logic because God's will is ontological to God eternally transcends the human condition. So there is a sense of "mystery" in that this type of Compatibilist chalks up the nature of God's will as unknowable and the object or purpose of God's will as knowable through His revelation.
And then there are the "in-betweens", like legitimate "soft-determinism".
There is a third view (and has been for a very long time). When I was taking philosophy classes (I know, paganism...but it was a secular college) we had to read Freedom Evolves by Dennett. For anyone who does not yet realize other ideas exist, this may be a good selection.
There are more if we consider the ideas between views.
That it is not is proven by the fact that there is a binary controversy about it here at the BB and elsewhere, each "side" thoroughly convinced the other is in error.
The gospel is simple enough - Belief in the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ brings forgiveness of sin and the promise of eternal life.
The evidential test is simple enough:
Galatians 5
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
It's the "mechanics" of it wherein the problem lies.
John 15
15“No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you.
Omnipotent and Omniscient is overrated and is not what makes God, God.
Still the controversy prevails.
While I am not Compatibilist, I have no problem affirming that the human will is involved when it comes to saving faith. Man willingly believes but only after his will has been liberated from the slavery of sin. Prior to becoming a Christian, an individual can only choose between good and evil in a relative sense. It is good to stop and help someone pick up the contents of a bag of groceries that fell on the ground. It is evil (bad) to steal a roll of Life Savers from the local Circle K. Within the Christian sphere good and evil has a different meaning. We understand from the word of God that the sinner cannot do anything that God considers to be good (Isaiah 64:6; Romans 3:9-12; 8:7; 1 Corinthians 2:14). The sinner is non posse non peccare (not able not to sin). The sinner is not posse non peccare (not able to sin). This is why I made the appeal to deal with the theology of the matter. How fallen is the human will? When Paul writes about the Ephesians pre-Christian state he says, "You were dead in your trespasses and sins". Paul was referring to the immaterial part of man of which the human will is part. According to Paul, that part of man is [spirtually] dead. A consequence of death is inability.
When we start considering some of the different views on determinism it is easy to obscure the unclouded truth that is right in front of our eyes. No decree of God can be thwarted. God works in, out, and through His creation "for His good pleasure" (Philippians 2:13). As His children, we are the recipient of His beneficence no matter how He works His will. As God works His will of decree, does He nudge or prod us along as willing participants or are we drones that do as we are told? I think that depends on the circumstances. Certainly, Jonah saw both sides of God's will of decree at work. Here is where there is some level of mystery; how the will of Christians freely choose to serve God, while God's will takes precedence over all.
Ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Until glory.
Ah, yes. "The controversy". Of course, it exists and it will continue to exist until we are in the presence of our Savior. The quest to be on the right side of the issue is not just to be on the right side of the issue. Many a flawed position has won the day because the proponent(s) was a skilled orator. I can think of a former Austrian corporal who was able to win a nation through hate disguised as patriotism. No. The quest to be on the right side of any doctrinal issue is to honor God and glorify His name.