Why...

Wow! I didn't know by "resigning" I would be opening myself for such vicious attacks! And "fairly?" By whose standards? I believe I deal with the words of scripture more "fairly" -- more honestly, at least -- than someone who can say "all" means "all classes, kinds, etc. but not universal 'all'" in situations where God says "but that ALL should come to repentance."

If that is "fair" and "honest," where do you get your standard. Larry? God would have known how to say "all kinds," don't you think??

My "own thinking." Like no Christian agrees with me. Like there is no theologian who believes in free will.

I guess you did think I was "resigning." Always best to discredit someone behind his/her back, isn't it.

I'm sorry you couldn't "get in the mood" of the OP where we start with our salvation and grow toward "the unity of the knowledge and faith of Christ."

skypair

 

donnA, npeterely,

Believe me, donnA. I've "been to the edge" of Cavlinist belief, "looked over the edge," and almost "slipped."

Total depravity is very seductive with its accompanying "born in sin" corollary."

Perserverance of the saints is very comforting and at least partially if not wholly true, also.

That God controls everything (rather than seeing any of God's plans being frustrated) was also very believable until I realized that He totally controls the outcomes and consequences, not our wills.

But that Calvinists can't distinguish between soul and spirit was unsettling. See, scripture reveals a division of soul and spirit and this has HUGE implications for sotierology.

And TULIP fall right into that "gap" in knowledge between T and P. :tear: Calvinist theologians can teach their theology as "systematic" and complete whilest still having "gaps" like "I don't know why God chooses whom He chooses to save" (Do you think maybe people have to believe for God to choose them) or "I don't know how sin entered into creation" (Do you think maybe Satan's fall was a "clue" or that "free moral agency" might?).

Can we work our way through these issues as Christians or do we have to continue in our DISunity in knowedge and faith?

skypair

 

Yes, David -- both sides are surely trying to "wash each other's feet."

There is always a suspicion when another text exists. Calvinists rebelled against the same thing with Catholicism -- Bible + tradition. I visited with a Mormon elder years ago and it was "the Bible as interpretted by "The Book of Mormon." It is almost impossible to have a cogent theology without finding these seemingly godly inputs. I mean, even I have pastors I trust and ones I don't. Originally, it was because I wasn't doing my own "spadework" in the scriptures.

I, for one, realize it is more complex than that. In fact, as I think about it now, it seems to center mostly on the "sovereignty" issue coming to a "fate vs free will" interpretation of scripture. All else seems to be constructed to "explain" these.

Can't answer to that one. I think we all agree with that.

"Hesitant" isn't a good descriptor. In speaking of the early Reform church, I think there was an issue of "deadness" that Jesus told John about (Rev 3:1) where the falatlist aspects of the Bible were more predominant than now. Plus, they were going through a "sacralist" era in which "religion" was trying to separate itself from "state" in accordance with the Bible paradigm of there being "composite state" where all religions are accepted equally and none "drive" the state agenda.

Today Calvinism at least has focused on a better motive for evangelizing. It's not THE motive scripture gives (to reach those who haven't heard since, if they are "elect" they will "hear" anyway and if not "elect," they can't).

Does all this seem to be what you see, David?

We definitely "need a map" to get where we want to go! What do you find incorrect about my observations above?

skypair

 

Another text such as "Institutes" or the "Westminister Confession." The latter is perhaps more distinct as to the line between truth and heresy (the latter which no one, especially no students of scripture, wish to commit). Does that not draw our faith toward one view as against another? Sure it does! It even condemns the other's thoughts by exclusion, right? Do you disclaim such denominational influence in your Christian growth?

But if that gave you pause, you didn't read far enough to consider this apparently -- "In fact, as I think about it now, Calvinism seems to center mostly on the "sovereignty" issue thereby coming to a "fate vs free will" interpretation of scripture. All else seems to be constructed to "explain" these." Is anything and everything only done by the will of God? Does He, then, will that we sin after we are saved?

Yet in reading my devotional yesterday, I come across this -- Col 3:10, "And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:" Isn't this what we should strive for in this forum? not to "restrict" salvation either in mind or in practice by any human creed but to bring the gospel to ALL in the belief that God wills all to be saved.

This lost one over here is NOT like Eodipus, of Greek mythology, having no choice but to carry out the fate of his unseen god.

And in this saved one over here -- God has not released His perfect will into his life else he'd sin no more. He still has the residuals of the free will he had before he was saved that needs also to be renewed in "knowledge and faith of Christ."

skypair

 

Oh, I do! Remember? It was me who started this thread.

Where shall we start then, Pilgrim? Our salvation? Our original unity? "One Lord," right? Did He want you to be saved? Did He ever present Himself to you as not wanting you to be saved? Is there someone else that God told you that He wasn't going to save? Does that person look much like you before you were saved? Col 3:5-7 -- "Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:
6 For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:
7 In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them."

Where do you come up with the idea that there are some whom God has outright condemned without a trial? without a chance of righteousness? Without a determination of innocence or guilt?

skypair

 

David --- No. You asked what I meant by "other texts." I didn't say you believed them. I merely cited a couple and said that people are drawn in.

I agree it happens on both sides (thought I wrote it the first time but maybe not). Anyway, I was only responding to your question.

Not sure I follow. Are you saying it was God's choice that the Jews or Romans kill Jesus rather than Him claim His kingdom at that time? Because I find Jesus saying "How many times would I have gathered you as a hen..." and the point where He said it being just one of those times. So wasn't rejection of the kingdom out of God's hands and against His will and just the first indication that God wouldn't have His will be done, at least not yet?

I'd have to think about whether His will was according to foreknowledge or predestination. Same issue with Adam. Did God purpose for Adam to fall or not? He had to "change His mind" and curse the perfect earth He had just made for Adam. In both cases, it seems to me He foresaw something that changed His initial plan.

I don't believe I said that. I meant that some doctrines teach that God withholds the truth from some -- the non-elect who can't "hear." And if we believe and teach those doctrines, we are preaching the word of God.

Well, the idea with Oedipus would have been that, if he was saved, he was "saved" by "fate" -- by the decision of some god that he would be saved and not by any volition or will on his part. Is that you?

Well, I just found that out again today on the golf course. raying: I tell you, you can get under conviction so much that it is like your flesh refuses to do right!

skypair

 

Like I said -- we have the "unity of the Spirit" (Eph 4:3) as a starting point. You are saved, right?

Now let's proceed with the "one Lord" concept. Is He a Lord of fate or a Lord of free will? Which do you see happening to people both in scripture and in creation? Does God let people make choices or not?

That seems to me to be the fate of your "non-elect." God "pre-judges" or "pre-condemns" guilt or innocence before they are even born -- "pretrial."

Larry, I am trying to pose this in different ways because it seems so unlike God to do what Calvinists claim He does. As I told David -- I think one of the salient issues is whether we believe in a God Who controls everything and "all is fate" -- "que sera, sera" -- or whether we believe in a God in Whose image He said He made us -- with free will and sovereignty of our own.

Let's just look at that, shall we? Is there any real purpose in us deciding and/or doing anything OR are we to just let life come crashing down around us if so be that that is our fate?

skypair

 

Larry, you are already NOT getting what Eph 4:3 and 4:13 say. Eph 4:3 says we are already UNITED in Christ if we are saved. Eph 4:13 says we need to grow in "unity" of what our "knowledge and faith" means!

So even God doesn't have free will? "Bound" by His nature? OK -- BIG problem! If God is "bound," then there is a higher authority than He is. If God is not "free," then neither is man, I will grant you. To what fate is God bound, BTW?

Which "will" you now admit is neither free in God nor in man, right?

Do you still feel this? Like I have said before, does God not sin because He can't or because He won't (WILL not)? God could sin. It is transparently obvious that Christ could have sinned but didn't. It is YOUR notion of free will that is flawed.

And so deceased babies go to hell. Or just some of them go to hell because some are "elect" without believing. I know -- we been there before. And that makes sense to you. And most get NO chance to be saved. That's also "Greek mythology."