What role could envy play in the salvation process?

[Andy T.]

Two words...free will

But why do some believers hold to such a wicked system in your view? Are they consciously sinning and rejecting the truth? Are they uneducated? Do they purposely twist Scripture?

 

[glfredrick]

Two words...free will

If not you have God deciding to have one class of believers believe the truth, while making the other class not.

Precisely... Who else is the Just Judge?

Now that we have that part of Calvinism straightened out, we can proceed to some of the other issues. :laugh:




All this talk about "stepping outside" of one's theological perspective is nothing more than the latest fallacy provided by our beloved Skandelon. Do you really think that you can project your own weakness in searching out rival theological positions to the whole of Calvinism? Really? Why is it that your debate always turns to how "stupid" or how "silly" the rest of us are for not grasping the great truth that you alone have figured out? Pride, much?

However, it has been my experience that people are less than objective and most certainly not teachable while in the midst of a competitive debate. Pride and the overwhelming desire to win, or simply show up your opponent, is almost impossible to avoid.

Prophetic...

 

[Skandelon]

WRONG... :BangHead:

Effectual call is not effectual regeneration. If you guys are going to argue this level theology, at least take some time to read some and understand it first. And, Skan, you're back to trying to put words in my mouth... I have to "agree" with something that you wrote that is NOT what I wrote. Shame on you.

Fredrick, I hate to embarrass you like this, but the phrase "shame on you" made me realize you may need a little humility, so I'll proceed to do just that:

Here is an article from a Reformed professor (Dr. Battle) at the Western Reformed Seminary who teaches, "...for the Calvinists these two terms refer to the same process..." He proceeds to show how Calvinists who do otherwise are inconsistent and he quotes from many credible sources to back up these claims, including but not limited to the Canons of Dort. Many Calvinists here on this board likewise equate the work of regeneration with the "effectual call" or "irresistible grace" and the fact that you don't even seem to be aware of that predominate view among those of the Reformed tradition only goes to reveal your lower "level" of theological knowledge, and your shame in the lack of understanding and education of this particular subject.

Now, can we drop the "shame game" and discuss actual theology. We obviously have some work to do.

 

[webdog]

But why do some believers hold to such a wicked system in your view? Are they consciously sinning and rejecting the truth? Are they uneducated? Do they purposely twist Scripture?

There could be many reasons. It appeals to the intellect. It is taught by some well known pastors. It's "new" to some. It's an easy system to wrap your mind around...it's all of God. Period. It requires an analytical type person. Excitement in believing a hidden truth most believers do not. Persuasion by others. Who knows all the reasons why.

 

[Andy T.]

There could be many reasons. It appeals to the intellect. It is taught by some well known pastors. It's "new" to some. It's an easy system to wrap your mind around...it's all of God. Period. It requires an analytical type person. Excitement in believing a hidden truth most believers do not. Persuasion by others. Who knows all the reasons why.

So, in a word - pride. Pride is the root to most of the reasons you listed above.

BTW, Skan's system is very intellectual too.

 

[glfredrick]

Fredrick, I hate to embarrass you like this, but the phrase "shame on you" made me realize you may need a little humility, so I'll proceed to do just that:

Here is an article from a Reformed professor (Dr. Battle) at the Western Reformed Seminary who teaches, "...for the Calvinists these two terms refer to the same process..." He proceeds to show how Calvinists who do otherwise are inconsistent and he quotes from many credible sources to back up these claims, including but not limited to the Canons of Dort. Many Calvinists here on this board likewise equate the work of regeneration with the "effectual call" or "irresistible grace" and the fact that you don't even seem to be aware of that predominate view among those of the Reformed tradition only goes to reveal your lower "level" of theological knowledge, and your shame in the lack of understanding and education of this particular subject.

Now, can we drop the "shame game" and discuss actual theology. We obviously have some work to do.

I understand very well, thank you. I made it clear in my post above that I was not speaking about regeneration. If I spaced the OP and missed that part, and you are ASSUMING that I am speaking of regeneration, then I guess that is on both of us, but I have been clear that the issue is not regeneration, but effectual call.

Do you disagree that there are components to salvation such as election, effectual call, regeneration, adoption, faith/repentence, sanctification, perseverence, and glorification? And, do you disagree that each of these can and must be dealt with in turn, not conflated?

 

[webdog]

So, in a word - pride. Pride is the root to most of the reasons you listed above.

BTW, Skan's system is very intellectual too.

I think it's notable that word came from you and not me. I do see quite a bit of that trait exhibited on this board, though.

All of those reasons I listed CAN be that, but not necessarily. I know you will not accept it, but we don't know why one person does one thing and one does another, or the reasons they have formed in their own minds to arrive at such a decision...but it is because of the freedom to choose.

 

[Andy T.]

If I were Arminian/Non-Cal, and if I believed all the wicked things that are attributed to Calvinism, the only logical (and Biblical) conclusion would that they are false teachers/prophets and are unsaved. Especially the teachers of it. Spurgeon, Edwards, Piper, MacArthur - are all unsaved is the only consistent position.

 

[Andy T.]

I think it's notable that word came from you and not me. I do see quite a bit of that trait exhibited on this board, though.

For sure! :thumbsup:

 

[webdog]

If I were Arminian/Non-Cal, and if I believed all the wicked things that are attributed to Calvinism, the only logical (and Biblical) conclusion would that they are false teachers/prophets and are unsaved. Especially the teachers of it. Spurgeon, Edwards, Piper, MacArthur - are all unsaved is the only consistent position.

If you hold to a fatalistic determination type theology, I can see why that would be.

The irony in your statement is the fact the non cal's on this board are openly and in private accused of being lost due to being "self salvationists". This list includes moderators and administrators.

I have yet to see one non cal accuse a calvinist of being lost, though.

 

[webdog]

For sure! :thumbsup:

Skandelon...what is that statement you say about the portion of an argument not addressed again?

 

[Andy T.]

Skandelon...what is that statement you say about the portion of an argument not addressed again?

I didn't know you were making an argument. I just agreed with your statement.

 

[Andy T.]

I have yet to see one non cal accuse a calvinist of being lost, though.

That may be, but I don't see how you can escape the thought when we believe such wicked things. I mean, we categorically believe in a different god than you (or at least the god you attribute to Calvinism). Maybe the lay people you can excuse, but surely not the committed teachers - I don't see how you cannot conclude they are false teachers.

 

[webdog]

That may be, but I don't see how you can escape the thought when we believe such wicked things. I mean, we categorically believe in a different god than you (or at least the god you attribute to Calvinism). Maybe the lay people you can excuse, but surely not the committed teachers - I don't see how you cannot conclude they are false teachers.

You show much of the problem above. Neither side grasps absolute truth. We both differ on how absolute truth is arrived at. The fact you see it as two "different gods" is telling...and sad...and wrong.

 

[glfredrick]

If you hold to a fatalistic determination type theology, I can see why that would be.

The irony in your statement is the fact the non cal's on this board are openly and in private accused of being lost due to being "self salvationists". This list includes moderators and administrators.

I have yet to see one non cal accuse a calvinist of being lost, though.

'Cause you know better? :laugh:

 

[glfredrick]

Skandelon...what is that statement you say about the portion of an argument not addressed again?

So, let's try your proposition on for size.

Arminians are rebellious against God because they refuse to allow God to be totally sovereign in His choice of whom is saved and whom is not saved. Therefore, their theology is less than mature, and they lack some understanding of the Scriptures that point to an utterly sovereign God as the sole author and finisher of salvation.

 

[webdog]

I can't know better if I can't understand you.

 

[Andy T.]

The fact you see it as two "different gods" is telling...and sad...and wrong.

But I don't believe we have "different gods." I believe we are brothers. But if I believed the things that you, Skan and others attribute to Calvinism, I couldn't help but to take that stance.

 

[Skandelon]

I agree with WebDog on his reply to your other post regarding why Calvinists make their errors being "free will." I will elaborate on what I believe leads to those honest interpretive errors if you really want to objectively consider those matters.

You've already conceded that C's accept the preaching of the Gospel as means, why not miracles?

I concede because the gospel has the purpose of informing and calling the regenerate to faith and repentance. The elect still have to hear the message and the gospel being preached is the means God has chosen to bring the elect to faith. I understand that and explained it numerous times to others while I was a Calvinist. But, what purpose do envy and signs accomplish? They are clearly meant to provoke a will to change. They are meant to convince a otherwise unconvinced soul, a purpose not needed in a system where only the effectual work of regeneration can and does accomplish that purpose.

That's good to know that if I ever want to be an Arminian, I should probably educate myself with those skills.

Or, to be a well educated and objective Calvinist who has fairly weighed both sides of the debate.

How do you know you weren't right when you believed Calvinism vs. now? How do you know that you are objective now, but not before?

Peace.

And how I relate to God now versus then.

And because I better understand why Paul wrote Romans 9 and Eph. 1...and what John 6 means. Once you understand the author's intent from the other perspective it really makes SOOO much more since in light of all the others texts in scripture on the subject. At least it does for me.

Plus, whether you can tell or not I do practice this skill today just as I did then. I do objectively weigh arguments and sometimes I'll change my take on some things.

 

[glfredrick]

I can't know better if I can't understand you.

What was that about not taking up an argument? Thought so...