Who's right?

[webdog]

Originally Posted by Havensdad
Amen! Finally, after having the weight of scripture pressed down upon me, I bowed my head and prayed "Lord if this is true, convince me". I spent a huge number of hours, searching the scriptures with an open mind, and simply was unable to refute it.

This was me and I spent 7 years studying it, researching, praying about it and comparing it scripture. I, unlike you, didn't even have anti-Calvinist books nor ever read them. But after earnest prayer and searching, it was God who lead me away from that theological view of His Word.

When I allowed scripture to speak and set it down beside that which men said it was saying, I had to hold to either one or the other. I stayed with scripture. Some of the views of the Sovereign grace doctrines were true and spot on, but some were not.

But I can say without equivocation that God was the one who lead me from it. It is God who teaches His children and He has lead His children to hold both views throughout the history of the Church.

I just used these two brothers as comparison, and no other reason

One side (calvinist) states they submitted to the HOly Spirit for guidance, and calvinism was revealed as truth. The other side (non calvinism) claims the same identical thing.

Is the Holy Spirit deceiving one side, or does the possibility exist that one side has not? Does the Holy Spirit guide both views, and if so...how?

After I read RC Sproul's book Chosen By God, I got the impression he resisited the Holy Spirit's warning on many occasions about the soteriology he was being exposed to, until he finally succumbed to the Holy Spirit (as he states), and embraced TULIP.

 

[EdSutton]

'Who's' right??

God, The Holy Spirit, is the one 'Who's right."

He guided the Word of God, as it was spoken and written.

Ed

 

[Allan]

I just used these two brothers as comparison, and no other reason

One side (calvinist) states they submitted to the HOly Spirit for guidance, and calvinism was revealed as truth. The other side (non calvinism) claims the same identical thing.

Is the Holy Spirit deceiving one side, or does the possibility exist that one side has not? Does the Holy Spirit guide both views, and if so...how?

After I read RC Sproul's book Chosen By God, I got the impression he resisited the Holy Spirit's warning on many occasions about the soteriology he was being exposed to, until he finally succumbed to the Holy Spirit (as he states), and embraced TULIP.

Let us add another choice to the mix

How about God lead us both in that which He so desired us to believe and understand.

Reason: IMHO both views have truth and error. They are a balance to each other so one does not stray to far toward a distinctly non-biblical direction

 

[JerryL]

I would say one or both sides is attributing to the "speaking of the Holy Spirit as guiding them" as presuppositional to their view they already held. This is an argument that has been going on for 500 years, and I assume it will never be settled this side of Heaven. BTW, I hold to the Calvinistic view of Scripture, but I will not be dogmatic about it or say that with a surety that my Arminian Brothers are wrong and I am right.

 

[Allan]

'Who's' right??

God, The Holy Spirit, is the one 'Who's right."

He guided the Word of God, as it was spoken and written.

Ed

I'll give a definate AMEN to that :thumbs:

 

[TCGreek]

I would say one or both sides is attributing to the "speaking of the Holy Spirit as guiding them" as presuppositional to their view they already held. This is an argument that has been going on for 500 years, and I assume it will never be settled this side of Heaven. BTW, I hold to the Calvinistic view of Scripture, but I will not be dogmatic about it or say that with a surety that my Arminian Brothers are wrong and I am right.

That is why there's a noticeable limp in your walk. :thumbs:

 

[JerryL]

That is why there's a noticeable limp in your walk. :thumbs:

All that I'm saying is, that there is no sure fire way to say with certainity that either is right, or the answer would have been had after 500 years. There seems to be Scripture to back both sides or there wouldn't be a debate on the subject. It would be settled. It's not.

 

[EdSutton]

All that I'm saying is, that there is no sure fire way to say with certainity that either is right, or the answer would have been had after 500 years. There seems to be Scripture to back both sides or there wouldn't be a debate on the subject. It would be settled. It's not.

I believe this is a bit simplistic. It took the (collective) church over 200 years to 'settle' the canonicity question for the NT. It took 350 years to fully 'affirm' that the Son is of the same full nature as the Father. It took nearly 1600 years for major implications of "justification by faith" to be declared fairly clearly.

It has taken 500 more years and there is still major disagreements between and over Arminianism and Calvinism. There are ongoing major disagreements over "Lordship Salvation", (Is 'discipleship' an integral part of 'faith', is the or is it entirely :'subsequent' to 'faith' is a major part of this question.); the nature of repentance; and some other questions attempting to read 'works' into 'faith' with all, on all sides, convinced they are entirely Biblical in their approach. (Have you checked any recent threads on the BB, as evidence of this?)

What about the current "seeker friendly"; "Emergent church"; "'open' theism"; and the "inerrancy" debate of two decades ago, among recent "issues"? Some have effectively been settled; more still have not.

Not to mention, thre are a host of other "`aresis" that have come and gone, over two millenia. Most of these were effectively settled, when one left the "Canon of Tradition" behind and took only the "Canon of Scripture", for reference. I suggest this may yet happen to some current issues as well.

Ed

 

[TCGreek]

All that I'm saying is, that there is no sure fire way to say with certainity that either is right, or the answer would have been had after 500 years. There seems to be Scripture to back both sides or there wouldn't be a debate on the subject. It would be settled. It's not.

JerryL, I'm aware of the tensions too.

 

[skypair]

How about God lead us both in that which He so desired us to believe and understand.

Reason: IMHO both views have truth and error. They are a balance to each other so one does not stray to far toward a distinctly non-biblical direction

Here's what I believe:

I believe that Calvinist theology looks at the issue of SANCTIFICATION for its sotierology.

I believe free will is focused on JUSTIFICATION as preceding sanctification. It comes down to which is right -- "faith precedes regeneration" (free will) or "regeneration precedes faith" (Calvinism).

There is no gainsaying that believers will be sanctified by the indwelling Holy Spirit. The division is whether we must believe before or after Holy Spirit indwelling.

Now the "bailout" position for Cavlinists seems to be that they are simultaneous which a) keeps them from being wrong and b) aligns them more with scripture. Free will doesn't take a "bailout" position, BTW.

skypair

 

[JerryL]

I believe this is a bit simplistic. It took the (collective) church over 200 years to 'settle' the canonicity question for the NT. It took 350 years to fully 'affirm' that the Son is of the same full nature as the Father. It took nearly 1600 years for major implications of "justification by faith" to be declared fairly clearly.

It has taken 500 more years and there is still major disagreements between and over Arminianism and Calvinism. There are ongoing major disagreements over "Lordship Salvation", (Is 'discipleship' an integral part of 'faith', is the or is it entirely :'subsequent' to 'faith' is a major part of this question.); the nature of repentance; and some other questions attempting to read 'works' into 'faith' with all, on all sides, convinced they are entirely Biblical in their approach. (Have you checked any recent threads on the BB, as evidence of this?)

What about the current "seeker friendly"; "Emergent church"; "'open' theism"; and the "inerrancy" debate of two decades ago, among recent "issues"? Some have effectively been settled; more still have not.

Not to mention, thre are a host of other "`aresis" that have come and gone, over two millenia. Most of these were effectively settled, when one left the "Canon of Tradition" behind and took only the "Canon of Scripture", for reference. I suggest this may yet happen to some current issues as well.

Ed

Maybe I should have bolded "no sure fire way" in my answer.:thumbs: If either was sure fire, it would be settled.

 

[DHK]

Isn't the "I'm right and everyone else is wrong," the current theological view?

 

[EdSutton]

Maybe I should have bolded "no sure fire way" in my answer.:thumbs: If either was sure fire, it would be settled.

I suggest that Justification by fait is "sure fire"; yet it took 1600 years; And I believe that multiple threads (and questions) on this board have "sure fire" answers, as well. The debate still goes on, is what I am saying, yet sometimes, finally, they do get effectively settled, as many things have in the past - note Nestorianism, Montanism, "canonicity," etc., et al..

A few individuals may yet question the canon, as we have it today, wanting "The Shepherd" or "The Epistles of Clement" recognized to be Scripture, for an example, but largely that is an historical, as opposed to a current question.

Any of these other issues may yet hit that "settled" category, even though I am not "holding my breath" until it happens.

Ed

 

[Marcia]

I would say one or both sides is attributing to the "speaking of the Holy Spirit as guiding them" as presuppositional to their view they already held. This is an argument that has been going on for 500 years, and I assume it will never be settled this side of Heaven. BTW, I hold to the Calvinistic view of Scripture, but I will not be dogmatic about it or say that with a surety that my Arminian Brothers are wrong and I am right.

Give this man a cheer and a free soda! :thumbs:

This is SO refreshing to hear. Thank you!

 

[Marcia]

I believe this is a bit simplistic. It took the (collective) church over 200 years to 'settle' the canonicity question for the NT. It took 350 years to fully 'affirm' that the Son is of the same full nature as the Father. It took nearly 1600 years for major implications of "justification by faith" to be declared fairly clearly......

I don't think the church was arguing for 200 years about the bible (at least most of the books - I know a few of the NT books were disputed) nor was the church in debate over the deity of Christ. It's just at those points they made proclamations to counter the false gospels and teachings that were circulating (such as that guy Arius). They only affirmed what the early believers held to for the most part.

 

[Brutus]

Sky: I'm just wondering what you have to say about Paul's statement in 2 Thess. 2:13?

Brutus :smilewinkgrin:

 

[AresMan]

Here's what I believe:

I believe that Calvinist theology looks at the issue of SANCTIFICATION for its sotierology.

I believe free will is focused on JUSTIFICATION as preceding sanctification. It comes down to which is right -- "faith precedes regeneration" (free will) or "regeneration precedes faith" (Calvinism).

There is no gainsaying that believers will be sanctified by the indwelling Holy Spirit. The division is whether we must believe before or after Holy Spirit indwelling.

It's more like Calvinistic theology looks at God as the effectuator of both justification and sanctification; Arminian theology looks at God as the effectuator of sanctification and man as the trigger of justification.

If we attribute to God due credit for our sanctification (Philippians 1:6; 2:13), giving all glory to God for giving us daily faith, molding us into the image of His Son, and working all things for our good; why can't we attribute to God due credit for the same faith wherein we came to Him in the first place? Why is it that God must get the credit for our faith and spiritual inclination from the moment of justification onward, but He cannot get the credit for our original faith and spiritual inclination wherein we first believed the Gospel? Why is it that some must stubbornly clench onto the idea of "original" saving faith coming independently from man operating synergistically with God; yet they are more than happy to give God all the credit for making everything good happen after that? Why can't God get all the credit for everything that has to do with you and God? Is not the same righteous faith in the [God of the] Gospel the same faith in the God of the Christian life? Isn't it all the effectual work of the Holy Spirit?

 

[Amy.G]

Sky: I'm just wondering what you have to say about Paul's statement in 2 Thess. 2:13?

Brutus :smilewinkgrin:

They were chosen because they believed the truth.

 

[JerryL]

They were chosen because they believed the truth.

They believed it from the beginning, even before they were born? This verse says "from the beginning."

 

[Amy.G]

They believed it from the beginning, even before they were born? This verse says "from the beginning."

No. I doesn't say they "believed" from the beginning. It says they were chosen from the beginning.


2Th 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth,