"God is not a respecter of persons" and Calvinism

[Guest]

Mark,
Are you not killing the messenger (Alexander Campbell) instead of adressing the message? I have seen you do this a number of times now, usually with open theists. It is as if you refuse to engage their arguments because you disagree with their theolagy, or how they come to understand the scripture.

Whether Alexander Campbell was friendly to Christianity is not the point.

It is to the point. I study religious movements and when one adheres to a particular movement, it can be helpful getting a fix upon where a person is coming from, without having to go through 20 unnecessary conversations.

If I were standing in the same room as Homer, and he quoted Campbell at me, I would naturally ask if he were himself part of the Church of Christ.

It is only a question, and a reasonable one at that, given the quotation by a man who wanted no part of creeds, confessions and who rejected something as well received amongst evangelicals as the analogy of faith.

I also do not like your pinning me down as someone trying to cast judgement upon others as individuals, by my making negative comments about Open Theism or any other erroneous theology.

I am here at a Non Calvinist board, in the minority, disagreeing with Non Calvinist's and their theology, yet providing responses, asking questions of you, and trying to interact on these issues.

I am not aware of attacking the messenger just because I disagree with them or whatever it is you are trying to charge me with. I am here to interact with you guys, so accusing me of not interacting with the arguments of those I disagree with, in view of what I have actually been posting here at the Narrow Path, is quite unfair I think.

However, I am willing to step aside and let other Calvinists take up the challenge, for I do not think my presence here is adding anything new or significant to these discussions.

I may just read the threads instead.
Thanks for providing some answers to my posts.

Blessings
Mark

[Guest]

So what exactly are you saying Homer? Do you reject "Analogy of faith" or are you not understanding what is meant by it?

Mark

You posted a link to Theopedia which describes "analogy of faith" as it ought to be, not as it is commonly practiced. As practiced so often here, a scripture(s) is/are quoted as though they prove a point (proof texting) and then when challenged, other scriptures are cited as support which, in the opinion (faith, that which is believed) of the poster interpret the passage being challenged.

"Faith" usually boils down to someone's creed.

[Guest]

Mark,

I also do not like your pinning me down as someone trying to cast judgement upon others as individuals, by my making negative comments about Open Theism or any other erroneous theology.

If I misread your earlier post, I apologize. It is not my intention to cast judgment upon you.

I am here at a Non Calvinist board, in the minority, disagreeing with Non Calvinist's and their theology, yet providing responses, asking questions of you, and trying to interact on these issues.

Actually, this is not a Non-Calvinist board. It just happens to be that most of the posters here tend to be Non-Calvinists.

If you have taken the time to read the posts under any other subject, you will see that there is a wide range of views on almost every topic.

I am not aware of attacking the messenger just because I disagree with them or whatever it is you are trying to charge me with. I am here to interact with you guys, so accusing me of not interacting with the arguments of those I disagree with, in view of what I have actually been posting here at the Narrow Path, is quite unfair I think.

I have enjoyed your posts for the most part. However, I have seen you from time to time attack the souse of an argument rather than the argument itself. I can't see how this could be productive at all.

However, I am willing to step aside and let other Calvinists take up the challenge, for I do not think my presence here is adding anything new or significant to these discussions.

Please don't. I would like nothing more than for you to stay and interact. Please accept my apology if I offended you.

Robin

[Guest]

Mark,

You wrote:

A man who wanted no part of organised Christianity and sought to purify it by denouncing creeds , confessions, analogy of faith etc

Sounds like an excellent idea to me. Only I would substitute "institutionalized" for "organized". Campbell's ideas in this regard are very similar to Steve G's.

The assembly we attend is totally independent of any organization. Jesus is our head. The bible our only rule of faith and practice. Uniformity of opinion is not required.

As for creeds, the problem is not so much in the concept, but in how they have so often (always?) been put to use: to divide and persecute. Seems like that fellow Calvin was pretty good at it. And they also bind unbiblical doctrine on men. Just yesterday I was looking at the Westminster Confession, particularly about how Sunday is now the Sabbath, with nothing to back it up but the opinion of fallible men.

And you asked:

Are you part of the "Church of Christ?"
Just wondering.

Nope, independent Christian, but in the Restoration Movement tradition.

If I were standing in the same room as Homer, and he quoted Campbell at me, I would naturally ask if he were himself part of the Church of Christ.

I do not believe the "Church of Christ" as it is commomly known existed during Campbell's lifetime. He was "Disciples of Christ". There are various Churches of Christ and the Disciples of Christ have become very liberal (as has most of the Presbyterian Chuch, so who are the "real" Presbyterians?). He would probably worship with the Church of Christ a capella if he were here today.

I could ask if you are Primative Baptist but that would be irrelevant.

[Guest]

Hi Jugulum,

I'm sorry... What conversation do you think we were having? Was I claiming anything about the decrees of God? Did I say I think God exhaustively decides everything that happens?

Why do you think I have some reason to answer this question?


Robin: Can you explain to me why you're being so uncharitable as to use that kind of charged rhetoric against me?

I didn't see my remarks as "charged rhetoric.” I was however, a little put off by your post. If you have no reason to answer the question why respond at all?

The question itself does pose a dilemma for Calvinists, and many Non-Calvinists would like to see how you would answer. If the question were posed under a new thread would you be willing to take a shot at answering it?

Robin

[Guest]

Seems like that fellow Calvin was pretty good at it.

What "exactly" does that assertion mean?

I raise this simply because in over 10 or 15 conversations with other Christians about this man, I found out quite quicky that their knowledge of him was quite surface level even if that, not to mention second and third hand information from others who were not aquainted with primary source material concerning Calvin.

I certainly do not agree with everything the man said, taught or did, but I have no doubt most of us could not match up to this man's dedication, faith, love and devotion to Christ and His Church.

and

I could ask if you are Primative Baptist but that would be irrelevant.

If I were, it would help you to pigeon hole me! But I am not.
I am actually quite independent myself, meaning I subscribe to no creed explicitly, but highly value the reformed creeds as a valuable resource.
I am more of a Non Conformist than anything else I can think of.

Analogy of faith is the standard.
I posted some stuff here about John ch 6. Others can see if I am consistent with the analogy of faith or not.
What say you?

Mark

[Guest]

Hi Jugulum,

I'm sorry... What conversation do you think we were having? Was I claiming anything about the decrees of God? Did I say I think God exhaustively decides everything that happens?

Why do you think I have some reason to answer this question?


Robin: Can you explain to me why you're being so uncharitable as to use that kind of charged rhetoric against me?

I didn't see my remarks as "charged rhetoric.” I was however, a little put off by your post. If you have no reason to answer the question why respond at all?

Ah, I think I see part of the problem--it's partly miscommunication. You thought I had replied to his question about homosexuality and God causing sin, but I actually had replied to a different one.

Steve's question about God causing sin was a new question, new topic, addressed at Calvinists in general. It wasn't part of our exchange, and I didn't reply to that post.

I was responding to a different post, where he was replying (sort of) to my comments about his use of the Prodigal Son. He had been trying to use that parable to draw inferences about whether repentance can happen before regeneration. I objected, in a nutshell, because he hadn't presented any reason to think the parable was trying to teach anything about it. I pointed out that I could just as easily "infer" that because the father didn't seek the son till the son had started to return, then God doesn't do anything to seek us until after we repent. Both inferences are silly--they have nothing to do with what the parable was teaching, as far as I can see. If Steve wants to use the passage that way, he needs to try to show that Jesus was intending to say something about regeneration. What he was doing wasn't exegesis. It wasn't good or valid use of the Bible.

Then when he replied to my post, he didn't bother to respond to any of that. He ignored it, abandoned his use of the parable, and went off on a tangent about how I'm making choices. That somewhat frustrated me. I chose to conclude our exchange by reiterating the same basic point I had been making--we need to base our conclusions on exegesis. We need to get our theology from passages that we can demonstrate were intended to teach that theology. Not from philosophical arguments about the nature of our will (except where the Bible teaches about the subject), not from loose use of parables. (Or, for that matter, not from the loose use of Matt. 5:48 that I mistakenly committed last week. We all make mistakes--what's important is that we recognize our mistakes and try to improve.)

Separately, Steve asked a question about how or whether God causes sin. I skimmed it, and moved on. And then I came back to the thread later and found myself being accused of squirming out of answering it. It seemed to come out of the blue. Hence my "Eh?" reaction, and my perception that you were using charged rhetoric.

If my post had been replying to his question, as you thought, I guess I could understand your post better.

The question itself does pose a dilemma for Calvinists, and many Non-Calvinists would like to see how you would answer. If the question were posed under a new thread would you be willing to take a shot at answering it?

Well... There were two basic reasons I didn't respond to that question. 1.) I don't have a clear understanding of this general topic of the working of God's sovereignty. I'm not sure what to think, so I don't have a well-developed answer. 2.) Whether (or how) God ordains everything that occurs does not decide TULIP, as far as I'm concerned.

You're right that the question is valid. That is, if you're trying to understand the topic of God's sovereignty, that kind of question comes up. When God works in evil events, how is he working? In what sense, if at all, is he causing the sin? When God used the king of Assyria to judge Israel (Isaiah 10)--when God wielded him as an axe and then judged him for his evil--in what sense was God causing the king's evil actions? Was God just allowing the king to commit evil that was already in the king's heart? Did God in any way place those evil desires in the king's heart? Was it only permissive, or did God do something active? Can all evil be understood as part of permissive ordaining? (I mean, God does have to permit any evil that does occur. Is that ordaining/decreeing? How can an Arminian understand the topic?) Did the king's actions come from unrestrained human nature? Did God choose to make man with that nature? Does it come from Adam's fall? If so, did God decide he wanted Adam to fall? If so, did he tweak Adam's heart so that Adam would fall, or God accomplish it without that kind of direct action? How does all this interact with James 1:13-14? How do we answer these questions from Scripture?

It's a complex topic, with a lot of room for various answers. And that's room for various answers, aside from what you conclude about how God saves sinners. I don't have it figured out. And my present acceptance of TULIP does not depend the details of the answers, nor does it depend on the vision of Calvinism revealed by Steve's question.

Unconditional election does not imply that God specifically decides how every event in history should occur. How God saves does not imply anything about how "God works all things". It doesn't even imply that God decreed that Adam would fall, whether permissively or actively. For me, the case for TULIP depends on the passages that discuss man's heart & the reasons for disbelief, God's election, the nature of what Christ did on the cross, God's drawing, and the warnings to persevere & discussions of falling away. You can't decide these issues by rejecting a particular understanding of how God's sovereignty works.

Sincere questions should be asked and worked through, but we have to think clearly about what the answers will decide.

[Guest]

Hi Jugulum,

Ah, I think I see part of the problem--it's partly miscommunication. You thought I had replied to his question about homosexuality and God causing sin, but I actually had replied to a different one.

I understand. Please accept my apology.

Thank you,
Robin

[Guest]

I understand. Please accept my apology.

Thank you,
Robin

Sure, no problem. It was an easy mistake to make.

Anyway, it was probably good for me to expand on my short response to STEVE150, and to talk about his question on God causing sin.