|
|
Post by Once4all on Jul 22, 2010 17:05:01 GMT -5
There has been recent interest in the discussion of Calvinism, which got started in another thread. Rather than let such a specific topic get hidden in the obscurity of a completely unrelated heading, I've started this thread for the current discussion of Calvinism.
I wanted to move the last few pertinent posts from the other thread over to here, but I can't see a way to move individual posts to another forum, only whole threads. I guess we can just start from scratch in this thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jul 22, 2010 22:20:23 GMT -5
There has been recent interest in the discussion of Calvinism, which got started in another thread. Rather than let such a specific topic get hidden in the obscurity of a completely unrelated heading, I've started this thread for the current discussion of Calvinism. I wanted to move the last few pertinent posts from the other thread over to here, but I can't see a way to move individual posts to another forum, only whole threads. I guess we can just start from scratch in this thread. I was going to post something here of the utmost importance but I can't remember what God told me to say... now, I am not even sure why He made me forget. I am so confused.  (A little humor is a good thing) |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Jul 22, 2010 22:49:59 GMT -5
Still losing those brain cells huh Ted?
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jul 23, 2010 5:54:31 GMT -5
Still losing those brain cells huh Ted? Yep, I call them sin-apses... |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Jul 23, 2010 6:27:50 GMT -5
Bev, There three threads I started in "Any Discussion" or "General Discussion," whatever it's called. Not too many responses. They are now on page 3. I really like your response about God not orchestrating every aspects of our lives. A friend of mine calls it "character consistency." God has to be consistent to His character and nature. God is perfect, and He can not do anything imperfect. For example, He can not lie. God said that homosexuality is an abomination. It would be inconsistent with his character to cause or ordain homosexuality. God said, "Thou shall not kill." It would be inconsistent with His character to then cause or ordain abortion. God said, "Thou shall not steal." It would be inconsistent with His character to cause or ordain money changers to turn His house of prayer into a den of thieves. We see that attitude in Christ as he drove the money changers out of the temple. Have a nice day.  - it's lemonade this morning |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Jul 23, 2010 9:45:12 GMT -5
I went thru the list of passages Wanda offered as proof texts of the type of sovereignty she is proposing; and I am not convinced from the context of those passages that any of them states what she thinks they do. Perhaps if anyone is up to it we could discuss some of those here?
|
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Jul 23, 2010 10:07:55 GMT -5
I went thru the list of passages Wanda offered as proof texts of the type of sovereignty she is proposing; and I am not convinced from the context of those passages that any of them states what she thinks they do. Perhaps if anyone is up to it we could discuss some of those here? For those that would like to do as Robin suggests, here they are: - still lemonade |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jul 23, 2010 10:13:59 GMT -5
I will be gone for the full week of the 26th. I will not be able to spend much time here before I leave, but I am very interested in discussing these things with you all when I return.
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jul 23, 2010 15:26:43 GMT -5
I would like to discuss those verses, too. One or two at a time would be preferable to me. Lately, I've got so many things going on, I feel pulled in all directions. So small bites are about the extent of what I'd be able to chew on and digest right now.
Tom, I thought your examples of character consistency were excellent.
|
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jul 26, 2010 11:06:13 GMT -5
Tom, I thought your examples of character consistency were excellent. Agreed! MoGrace2U said, In my opinion, those verses are like examining a coin from only one side. There is plenty of scripture to demonstrate the truth of this side of the coin. Here is something to consider from the other side of this coin, Deuteronomy 30:15-19 " See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil, in that I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commandments, His statutes, and His judgments, that you may live and multiply; and the LORD your God will bless you in the land which you go to possess. But if your heart turns away so that you do not hear, and are drawn away, and worship other gods and serve them, I announce to you today that you shall surely perish; you shall not prolong your days in the land which you cross over the Jordan to go in and possess. I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live" It is my experience that people often have difficulty in reconciling statements that appear opposed to each other, but the fact of the matter is, they must both be true; God is sovereign and we have choice. Another one, Joshua 24:15 " And if it seems evil to you to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." 2 Samuel 24:12 “ Go and tell David, ‘Thus says the LORD: “I offer you three things; choose one of them for yourself, that I may do it to you.”’ Is God lying or simply playing games when He says you have a choice? Proverbs 1:27-30 " When your terror comes like a storm, And your destruction comes like a whirlwind, When distress and anguish come upon you. Then they will call on me, but I will not answer; They will seek me diligently, but they will not find me. Because they hated knowledge And did not choose the fear of the LORD, They would have none of my counsel And despised my every rebuke." Even faith is like a coin with two sides. Mark 9:24 " Immediately the father of the child cried out and said with tears, “Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!” " |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Jul 26, 2010 11:58:34 GMT -5
Excellent post Morris, and before I forget - Happy Birthday  And I would like to add; God in His infinite knowledge knows what choices we will make. That doesn't take away from your points, however. By the way, with that many candles, be careful not to burn the house down.  |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jul 26, 2010 12:24:31 GMT -5
Excellent post Morris, and before I forget - Happy Birthday Thanks! But it isn't for another week yet! Better check what I selected. That is a very important point and one that I was going to mention, but ran out of time. In some ways, it is God's foreknowledge that makes Him sovereign despite our ability to choose. One of the basic foundations of being a christian, of being a follower of Christ, is the setting aside our own will for that of the Father. Na, that's not enough candles on there anyways.  |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Jul 26, 2010 13:14:05 GMT -5
Morris wrote:
<<That is a very important point and one that I was going to mention, but ran out of time. In some ways, it is God's foreknowledge that makes Him sovereign despite our ability to choose. One of the basic foundations of being a christian, of being a follower of Christ, is the setting aside our own will for that of the Father.>>
Given that we were created with a nature like His - or at least the capacity to comprehend Him and what He requires, then it makes sense that to teach us anything about Himself has got to involve our ability to choose. And unless a choice is given - there would be nothing to be learned.
The very fact that the law contains both blessing and curses showing the result of a right choice or a wrong choice would seem to enforce this. If the stove were not hot and therefore no burn was the result - why tell a child not to touch it? Because at some point, knowing this is possible, he must be able to choose for himself, which means he must know something about stoves.
If there were no devil on his way, what would have been the point of God telling Adam not eat from that tree? This is the foreknowledge that God has concerning a realm we cannot see - like is the content of the hearts of others - that we need warning for. Things are not what they appear to be in this world because there is deceit afoot - and critters spurring it on. Adam's eating from the tree of good and evil meant that he would not only be exposed to both but would make the inevitable choice that he did. Which is exactly what happened once Eve had bought the lie. The warning was as much prophetic as it was to make him responsible. And not because God didn't know what he would do - since He is the One who gave him the choice; but because Adam needed to know too exactly why it was wrong. Just telling him not to do it, did not avert the danger he was facing. And Adam could not have done anything except what he did when he faced the choice of losing Eve.
If brotherly love were not presented as the evidence of our love for God - how could Adam truly love God while forsaking his love for Eve? Adam did not lose his trust for God in this because the Lord covered his sin - and that IS the beginning of why we do trust Him! Not because bad things don't happen - but because they do and there is One who sees and knows all and has the power to bring good forth despite any evil that exists in this world. Not even the devil can stand to oppose or thwart the grace of God. And this is about as far from fatalistic determinism as you can get!
|
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Jul 26, 2010 13:37:02 GMT -5
Robin... that was amazingly well spoken!
|
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Jul 26, 2010 18:38:27 GMT -5
I agree with Morris. Very good post Robin.
One thing though; "fatalistic determinism," what is that? That is a term I am unfamiliar with.
Sorry Morris, I knew your birthday was nearby, I just didn't know the exact date. Better early than late.
You know, I got up Sunday Morning about 7am, and didn't go to bed since. I have been going for 36+ hours. But, I am heading there soon.
Good night. Seeya in a couple days. I hope to sleep for long time.
-_- zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
|
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Jul 26, 2010 22:21:16 GMT -5
fatalistic determinism is another term for 'Calvinism' - at least it is for me!
|
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Jul 27, 2010 15:46:30 GMT -5
fatalistic determinism is another term for 'Calvinism' - at least it is for me! Sorry, but that much I figured out. But, how do define "fatalistic determination"?  |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Aug 1, 2010 11:43:42 GMT -5
To me it is the idea that we are merely puppets on a string with God pulling all the strings. But God made us in His image and in His likeness and that would include a freedom of our will. Which is not to say that man's will is equal in scope to God's for we have limits set upon us and God maintains His sovereignty over all His creation. But that doesn't mean that everything that happens was orchestrated by God. It does mean however that no matter what happens among men, God is free to intervene and change the results of our actions for His good purpose.
|
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Aug 1, 2010 19:22:07 GMT -5
I wholeheartedly agree. I just can't agree with Calvinistic Universalism. - coffee |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Aug 3, 2010 19:14:32 GMT -5
I was hoping not to follow myself, but here I am. But, I have been thinking. You can hear the word "partial" connected to other things, such as "partial-preterist." Well, is it possible to be partial-Calvinist? You see, I believe in the depravity of man. I don't think anyone can honestly say the Bible doesn't teach the depravity of man, but not totally. Consider Noah. Any scenario where Noah is totally depraved and still found grace in the eyes of the Lord would mean that God is a respecter of persons, or shows partiality to one totally depraved person above another. But Acts 10.34 clearly states that God is no respecter of persons, or does not show partiality, depending on the translation. And, God must be true to Himself. I believe in God's elect, but not unconditionally. To be one of God's elect, you must be in Christ. I believe in limited atonement in result, not is scope. Jesus died for the sins of the whole world, but the whole world is not coming to Christ. In fact, Jesus told us that few will find the way to eternal life. I certainly believe in the grace of God. No one can be saved without the grace of God. But is it irresistible? As I have stated before, how can one fall from from irresistible grace? I know there was a time in my life when I resisted the grace of God. So, I can say from personal experience that it is possible to resist the grace of God. When one does accept the grace of God, his life is changed. Knowing God has forgiven you helps you to forgive yourself. Certainly God has the ability to help His saints to persevere. No one can pluck you out of his hand. So long as you remain in Christ, and do not resist the grace of God, you will persevere. There is my case for partial-Calvinism. What say you? |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Aug 4, 2010 9:47:29 GMT -5
I think that in general I can agree with you, Didy. In fact, I'm probably partial-'a lot of things'. I can't think of any Christian group that has it *entirely* wrong. I believe that I can even learn new truths (new to me, that is) from people I may not have a general agreement with. I can (and do experience) fellowship with Calvinists. That can only happen when the fellowship is based on Christ and not on Calvinism or any other '-ism'.
For instance, I believe that I can learn something from a dispensationalist or futurist. Not in regards to their eschatology perhaps, but possibly in another area. It is possible that I could learn from someone who I believe is incorrect in another area.
|
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Aug 4, 2010 20:50:05 GMT -5
I think I understand, Morris. You take a middle ground on a lot of doctrinal issues. Would that be correct? I think you can say my "partial- Calvinism" might be a middle ground between Calvinism and Arminianism.  - Calvinists and Arminianists coming together |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Aug 4, 2010 21:19:39 GMT -5
Hey Didy, ( I like saying that...)
If it is biblical and sound then what does it matter if it agrees with Calvin or Arminius - where is it stated that we must be of one of them or nothing? Oh I know - in that same place where it tells us that stating one is of Paul or of Apollos is carnal!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Aug 5, 2010 10:29:07 GMT -5
I think I understand, Morris. You take a middle ground on a lot of doctrinal issues. Would that be correct? I'm not sure. I mean, take predestination for example. The Bible tells us that God is sovereign and His plans cannot be foiled. It also tells us that we have choices to make and that we are held accountable for those choices. Therefore, it is my belief that both are equally true, even if some feel they have to hold to one of those truths as greater. I guess I do take a middle ground in some instances simply based on my viewpoint that emphasizing one side of truth over another side of truth is an 'unbalanced understanding'. What I don't do with this middle ground is compromise my beliefs to please people (by believing what they believe). However, and this is a huge deal, I also won't put my beliefs above a relationship with a person. This is what Paul speaks of when discussing our freedom in Christ; all things are permissible but are not necessarily profitable. A quick example in 1 Corinthians 13:3 " And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor," (based on a belief in a doctrine of charity or poverty, for instance) " and though I give my body to be burned," (based on a belief in a doctrine of living sacrifice or giving your life for another, for instance) " but have not love, it profits me nothing." Doctrine and love have to go together just like faith and works, or belief and confession. If we have a doctrine, show it by love. If we have faith (as James says), show it by works. If we have belief in our hearts (as Paul puts it), show it by confession (with the mouth). I've gone off on a sermon again! sheesh. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Aug 5, 2010 11:43:15 GMT -5
Morris, as far as I'm concerned, you can sermonize all you want. I understand and agree with most of what you said. A good post all in all. However I have question about: I see what we believe as the foundation of what we do, how we act. That's why it so so important to believe in Christ, and His teachings. The more we act upon those beliefs, what we do based on those beliefs becomes our nature. Then loving our neighbor become a part of who we are. As the Word says, "faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God." As we mature in Christ, our faith becomes who we are. So, I see nothing wrong with acting "based on a belief in a doctrine of living sacrifice or giving your life for another." However, I do understand that some do act with wrong motives. For example, those who preach a social gospel, have no basis in a Biblically based faith. They are simply preying upon those that have emotional needs. So they teach that if you want that new van all you have to do is believe. Personal gain is not what love is all about. Giving to others is. So, if one appears to be loving, while they are considering how the act of loving others will benefit themselves, which what I think you are saying, that is wrong. We see this is in many ways. Relationships between men and women, for example. A man might tell a woman he loves her with the goal of getting physical with her. That is not love - that is lust. It is the pretense of love that is wrong. And, God who judges the hearts of men surely knows the difference. But, as mere men we do not have that ability, unless we see their fruit. Now how does that fit in with the purpose of this thread? It has been my experience that people that are driven by doctrine may say they love you, and even act out that love, all with the goal of convincing that their doctrine is correct, and, perhaps more importantly, your doctrine is wrong. I have a friend who has become a militant Calvinist. Before that, he was a militant fundamentalist. I was never either. And though he has done many things for me, all the time he was preaching his doctrine to me. My beliefs were always wrong. This whole thing ultimately has cause irreparable damage to our friendship, as I once stood up for what I believe, and he told me never to bother with him again. So, I can see your point. I hope you can see mine.  |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Aug 5, 2010 12:37:45 GMT -5
So, I can see your point. I hope you can see mine. Oh, absolutely! I wasn't actually trying to disagree, just further explain my views. And you've really hit the nail on head. Doing something that is right, even though based on believing in something (i.e. a doctrine) that is right, is still merely just an action that Paul says "profits me nothing". As you said, the motive has to be genuine love for the person (and God of course); not a love for a doctrine, or for doing 'right', or anything else. That's why the Law and Prophets hang on the command to love God and people. They all stem from God's character of love. This all comes back to what doctrine is. Here's what I wrote on another forum: So, if a persons 'love' is only to the extent that they convert you to their doctrinal understanding, they are not holding to "sound doctrine". |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Aug 5, 2010 20:58:26 GMT -5
I like that Morris - the doctrine of God is worn... and that is how men will understand it best if we wear what we believe! I always liked the analogy of eating for the reason that what we take in must become part of who we are.
|
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Aug 5, 2010 23:52:58 GMT -5
I agree. Good post. The Bible teaches that those in Christ have "put on" Christ, as one puts on clothing. So, as a Christian, people should see Christ as easily as the the clothing we wear. I know in my case that is not always true. Thanks for bring this to our attention, Morris. It has left me know there is something in my life I must look at more closely. Do people see Christ on me as easily as they see my clothing? I would appreciate your prayers as I deal with this. I'm not quite sure how this relates to Calvinism. But I am still thankful you brought it up  |
|
|
|
Post by Morris on Aug 6, 2010 9:37:05 GMT -5
I don't know if you folks realize how much of an encouragement those posts were to me. I know I don't always wear Christ as I should and also ask for prayer in this (as we should all pray for each other).
Btw, it is the Spirit we just shared with each other here that can bring unity and fellowship to people with differing understandings. If Christ is the central focus, Christ will be the central bond. If a doctrine is the central focus, doctrine will be the central bond.
Thanks again, my sister and brother.
|
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Aug 6, 2010 10:30:20 GMT -5
I think what Morris just said is exactly what applies to Calvinism - because his love of doctrine did not keep him from wanting to murder a brother who disagreed with him. Making him like Cain rather than Abel whom the Lord approved. Is that the love of the Lord we are to show forth in how we 'love' the brethren? Because that is the spirit that is in many of his followers.
|
|
