Good grief! Just when I thought the argument couldn't get any stranger! I think this thread has reached its nadir! Perhaps we ought to start fresh elsewhere.
Crusader, your whole argument rests on the Bible's use of the word "chose," which historic Christianity (as opposed to Calvinism) has never found uncomfortable. Your argument depends 100% upon the word requiring the qualifier "unconditionally," which is never implied in the word itself, and never suggested in scripture.
If you told me that you chose to court your wife instead of some other women that were available options, would it make sense for me to assume that your wife had no characteristics that set her apart in your mind from the women you passed over?
If you choose to purchase one car on a lot, and not others that are sitting there with it, does the fact that you are the one who made the choice eliminate the possibility that the car you ended up with had features that interested you more than the others?
The word "choose" does not, in itself, tell whether or not a choice was made without favorable factors being taken into consideration (few choices are!). When seeking understanding of God's choosing, it is best to consult the whole body of scripture on the subject, rather than to fixate on a single, ambiguous verse, and saying "It plainly says it in this verse...so there!"
How about considering perspective?
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Hi Again
Good grief! Just when I thought the argument couldn't get any stranger! I think this thread has reached its nadir! Perhaps we ought to start fresh elsewhere.
[ Well in light of the fact that for ages people have debated this issue with no conclusion maybe that is a good choice.Unless one is in favor of acknowledging my view,which Chuck Smith holds by the way,which is that both views are actually taught in Scripture and that its mans limited knowledge which cant reconcile this seeming paradox.Which I find actually the most logical view and the only one which holds the unity of the whole council of God in tact. Its only man in His limited knowledge which cant bring the two teachings together to his satisfaction. Then man driven by passion and pride ends up so into proving the other person wrong, he ends up extrapolating both positions out to the absurd, in complete violation of Gods Word either literally or by its implication.Its quite a deliema actually and one which I cant help but think God intentionally allowed to occurr if for no other reason than that we could be humbled in our own intellect or the lack thereof more appropriately.Although actually I do believe it most likely occurred due to God actually seeing the whole picture in His Omniscience and since both views are true, expressed them as such and felt no need to explain it any further to His creation. Which makes perfect sense since we are called to walk by faith.]
Crusader, your whole argument rests on the Bible's use of the word "chose," which historic Christianity (as opposed to Calvinism) has never found uncomfortable. Your argument depends 100% upon the word requiring the qualifier "unconditionally," which is never implied in the word itself, and never suggested in scripture.
[ Actually this is only one of many Scriptures which support the Sovereignty of God in relation to mans salvation. Of course we have exhausted those references on the many many posts here and need not reiterate them needlessly. I dont believe the Church since its inception, has ever had a problem with the word chose, wether it be God choosing us or we choosing Him. But Armenianism and Calvanism in their extreme both have a problem with adhering to the pure veracity of Gods Word in this matter and it should come as no surprise to us, that brilliant theological minds on both sides of this issue, have never settled this great debate satisfactorily one way or the other. This should serve as a testament to the impossiblity that this will ever happen this side of Heaven,and this is only because at face value there is truth represented in both postulations yet it gets lost when extrapolated out beyond any reasonable interpretation of Scripture. To argue that this interpretation needs an unconditional qualifier really is only a viewpoint or assumption.The Bible doesnt suggest one is present or not present. It simply states that He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world. To further add that somehow this choosing is similar in comparison as to how one chooses a prospective mate isnt in the remotest sense a good analogy and brings God down to our level which isnt accurate. His ways arent our ways and are beyond finding out the Bible says.In the end we are left with the simple words " He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world". They are in themselves pretty clear and really can speak for themselves. We may not like it but we arent told we have to understand everything to believe it ...we are just called to believe. ]
If you told me that you chose to court your wife instead of some other women that were available options, would it make sense for me to assume that your wife had no characteristics that set her apart in your mind from the women you passed over?
If you choose to purchase one car on a lot, and not others that are sitting there with it, does the fact that you are the one who made the choice eliminate the possibility that the car you ended up with had features that interested you more than the others?
The word "choose" does not, in itself, tell whether or not a choice was made without favorable factors being taken into consideration (few choices are!). When seeking understanding of God's choosing, it is best to consult the whole body of scripture on the subject, rather than to fixate on a single, ambiguous verse, and saying "It plainly says it in this verse...so there!"
[Once again to put God and Gods Word under the microscope of human experience to try to understand it, is not right. How can that comparison have any relevance in understanding the nature of the Omnipotent God who spoke the worlds into existence by the word of His command.A God who had a plan for our redemption before the world was ever made. The honest truth of the whole matter really is as simple as this,both the Sovereignty of God and the free will of man are taught in Scripture. Paul was made blind and knocked off His donkey...God intervened in His experience...yet the thief on the cross believed and was in paradise. God actually hardened Pharoahs heart ....wow now thats some serious intervening. He is the potter and we are the clay. He chooses us and we choose Him...]
My Humble opinions only
Lord Bless
Steve
[ Well in light of the fact that for ages people have debated this issue with no conclusion maybe that is a good choice.Unless one is in favor of acknowledging my view,which Chuck Smith holds by the way,which is that both views are actually taught in Scripture and that its mans limited knowledge which cant reconcile this seeming paradox.Which I find actually the most logical view and the only one which holds the unity of the whole council of God in tact. Its only man in His limited knowledge which cant bring the two teachings together to his satisfaction. Then man driven by passion and pride ends up so into proving the other person wrong, he ends up extrapolating both positions out to the absurd, in complete violation of Gods Word either literally or by its implication.Its quite a deliema actually and one which I cant help but think God intentionally allowed to occurr if for no other reason than that we could be humbled in our own intellect or the lack thereof more appropriately.Although actually I do believe it most likely occurred due to God actually seeing the whole picture in His Omniscience and since both views are true, expressed them as such and felt no need to explain it any further to His creation. Which makes perfect sense since we are called to walk by faith.]
Crusader, your whole argument rests on the Bible's use of the word "chose," which historic Christianity (as opposed to Calvinism) has never found uncomfortable. Your argument depends 100% upon the word requiring the qualifier "unconditionally," which is never implied in the word itself, and never suggested in scripture.
[ Actually this is only one of many Scriptures which support the Sovereignty of God in relation to mans salvation. Of course we have exhausted those references on the many many posts here and need not reiterate them needlessly. I dont believe the Church since its inception, has ever had a problem with the word chose, wether it be God choosing us or we choosing Him. But Armenianism and Calvanism in their extreme both have a problem with adhering to the pure veracity of Gods Word in this matter and it should come as no surprise to us, that brilliant theological minds on both sides of this issue, have never settled this great debate satisfactorily one way or the other. This should serve as a testament to the impossiblity that this will ever happen this side of Heaven,and this is only because at face value there is truth represented in both postulations yet it gets lost when extrapolated out beyond any reasonable interpretation of Scripture. To argue that this interpretation needs an unconditional qualifier really is only a viewpoint or assumption.The Bible doesnt suggest one is present or not present. It simply states that He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world. To further add that somehow this choosing is similar in comparison as to how one chooses a prospective mate isnt in the remotest sense a good analogy and brings God down to our level which isnt accurate. His ways arent our ways and are beyond finding out the Bible says.In the end we are left with the simple words " He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world". They are in themselves pretty clear and really can speak for themselves. We may not like it but we arent told we have to understand everything to believe it ...we are just called to believe. ]
If you told me that you chose to court your wife instead of some other women that were available options, would it make sense for me to assume that your wife had no characteristics that set her apart in your mind from the women you passed over?
If you choose to purchase one car on a lot, and not others that are sitting there with it, does the fact that you are the one who made the choice eliminate the possibility that the car you ended up with had features that interested you more than the others?
The word "choose" does not, in itself, tell whether or not a choice was made without favorable factors being taken into consideration (few choices are!). When seeking understanding of God's choosing, it is best to consult the whole body of scripture on the subject, rather than to fixate on a single, ambiguous verse, and saying "It plainly says it in this verse...so there!"
[Once again to put God and Gods Word under the microscope of human experience to try to understand it, is not right. How can that comparison have any relevance in understanding the nature of the Omnipotent God who spoke the worlds into existence by the word of His command.A God who had a plan for our redemption before the world was ever made. The honest truth of the whole matter really is as simple as this,both the Sovereignty of God and the free will of man are taught in Scripture. Paul was made blind and knocked off His donkey...God intervened in His experience...yet the thief on the cross believed and was in paradise. God actually hardened Pharoahs heart ....wow now thats some serious intervening. He is the potter and we are the clay. He chooses us and we choose Him...]
My Humble opinions only
Lord Bless
Steve
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
I would just urge caution about assuming that the fact that brilliant men have debated a matter for centuries should lead us to conclude that neither side can be fully correct, and that they both must mysteriously be true, though so to conclude defies human understanding. The debate between the Arians (Jehovah's Witnesses) and the Trinitarians has been conducted since the earliest centuries of the church also, but I do not think both sides are true.
So how do we decide between Calvinistic "election" and the doctrine of free will? Chuck Smith has settled on one solution, namely: No one can understand it. Both sides are correct, even though they contradict each other. Deal with it! God's revelation isn't supposed to make sense or be understandable.
There are other (and better) solutions to the dilemma. One is to deny that the Bible presents any such dilemma at all. The solution I have settled on, to my satisfaction, says that the Bible does not affirm two contradictory positions to both be true. The position that the Bible affirms is indeed true. The position that the Bible does not affirm, and that contradicts what the Bible says, must not be true, no matter how many brilliant theologians may be committed to it.
In some of the earlier posts in this thread, I and others have shown that all the verses about election fit quite easily into a different paradigm from that of the Calvinists, by which they are neither in tension with nor contradict the verses about man's free will. You may not have understood what was said in those posts (and that may be my fault for not being sufficiently clear), for if you had, you would not still be insisting that the Bible necessarily affirms the Calvinist model of election. It actually doesn't...anywhere.
The Bible teaches that it is Christ who is elect. Those who choose to be in Him thereby come to be "elect in Him." It is not all-important that people understand this concept, as Paul did, but it helps to vindicate God of the charge, incurred by man-made doctrines, that God contradicts Himself, and when caught doing so, He simply says, "It's a mystery. Think about something else." He may do this, if He wishes, of course. But the Bible does not require us to think that this is what He does.
So how do we decide between Calvinistic "election" and the doctrine of free will? Chuck Smith has settled on one solution, namely: No one can understand it. Both sides are correct, even though they contradict each other. Deal with it! God's revelation isn't supposed to make sense or be understandable.
There are other (and better) solutions to the dilemma. One is to deny that the Bible presents any such dilemma at all. The solution I have settled on, to my satisfaction, says that the Bible does not affirm two contradictory positions to both be true. The position that the Bible affirms is indeed true. The position that the Bible does not affirm, and that contradicts what the Bible says, must not be true, no matter how many brilliant theologians may be committed to it.
In some of the earlier posts in this thread, I and others have shown that all the verses about election fit quite easily into a different paradigm from that of the Calvinists, by which they are neither in tension with nor contradict the verses about man's free will. You may not have understood what was said in those posts (and that may be my fault for not being sufficiently clear), for if you had, you would not still be insisting that the Bible necessarily affirms the Calvinist model of election. It actually doesn't...anywhere.
The Bible teaches that it is Christ who is elect. Those who choose to be in Him thereby come to be "elect in Him." It is not all-important that people understand this concept, as Paul did, but it helps to vindicate God of the charge, incurred by man-made doctrines, that God contradicts Himself, and when caught doing so, He simply says, "It's a mystery. Think about something else." He may do this, if He wishes, of course. But the Bible does not require us to think that this is what He does.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
What about Paul???????
I think Charles Spurgeon had some enlightening thoughts.
"But now for the verses that will positively prove the doctrine. Open your Bibles and turn to John 15:16, and there you will see that Jesus Christ has chosen his people, for he says, "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you." Then in the 19th verse, "If ye were of the world, the world would love his own; but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." Then in the 17th chapter and the 8th and 9th verses, "For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me. I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine." Turn to Acts 13:48: "And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord; and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." They may try to split that passage into hairs if they like; but it says, "ordained to eternal life" in the original as plainly as it possibly can; and we do not care about all the different commentaries thereupon. You scarcely need to be reminded of Romans 8, because I trust you are all well acquainted with that chapter and understand it by this time. In the 29th and following verses, it says, "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the first-born among many brethren. Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he justified, them he also glorified. What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect?" It would also be unnecessary to repeat the whole of the 9th chapter of Romans. As long as that remains in the Bible, no man shall be able to prove Arminianism; so long as that is written there, not the most violent contortions of the passage will ever be able to exterminate the doctrine of election from the Scriptures. Let us read such verses as these—"For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger." Then read the 22nd verse, "What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction. And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory." Then go on to Romans 11:7—"What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded." In the 5th verse of the same chapter, we read—"Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace." You, no doubt, all recollect the passage in I Corinthians 1:26-29: "For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: but God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things which are: that no flesh should glory in his presence." Again, remember the passage in I Thessalonians 5:9—"God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ." And then you have my text, which methinks would be quite enough. But, if you need any more, you can find them at your leisure, if we have not quite removed your suspicions as to the doctrine not being true."
If you want to read the whole message feel free.
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0041.htm
I was tempted to post more but I dont want to be known as the cut and paste guy especially after Steve's admonition.I think at times though it does serve a good purpose when its transmitting Scriptural information. If we are honest with the Scripture we find evidence for both views,both truths if you will,and we need to accept them both....the Sovereignty of God and the free will of man. I see them both as taught in Scripture. I also believe when you with human intellect try to think them out to what would appear their logical forgone conclusion you in turn end up violating either Gods Word or His character,and which is worse I dont know. Does God send people to hell,even when they want to accept His good news? Dugh!... no is the obvious answer to that? Does God choose people? Well the Scriptural answer must be yes? Is He willing none should perish..yes! Can people hear the good news and respond to it and get saved ...yes! If a baby dies does it go to Heaven..yes! Somewhere in the mind of God exists the complete reconciliation of these great truths not only to our satisfaction but to His also.Is it all mapped out in the Bible,well to some they say it is,and they have whole Churches and movements built around their understanding of just how it should be.Is it really all that easy? Did God map it out? Im not so sure. In my humble opinion they both seem true and are revealed in Scripture.
I think one would have a hard time explaining to Paul who had just witnessed the stoning of Stephen and was travelling when suddenly the Lord appears..speaks with him...blinds him.....then gives him directions for his healing and subsequent salvation...that God doesnt get involved in peoples salvation.Paul wasnt even your generic unbeliever he was actually killing Gods people and hunting them down! I dont think he would put much stock in that premis! How are we to explain that? Is it just some random act buy a God who got a little hyper and did it on a whim? Or is it a God who before the world was ever made knew that He would at that specific time act to intercept Paul? To actually act against Pauls will to reveal Himself to him and literally force him down a certain path. I think we must choose the latter? To limit God to no choice when it isnt taught in Scripture and to say He doesnt intervene in the affairs of man and this world is to slowly chip away at His character as the great I AM. The one who was, who is and always will be and works out all things according to the pleasure of His will. How shall the pot judge the potter in such matters,it just doesnt seem plausible to me in light of Scripture or the nature and character of God.
Acts 9: 1-15
1And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,
2And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.
3And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
4And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
5And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
6And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
7And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
8And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.
9And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.
10And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord.
11And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth,
12And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight.
13Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem:
14And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name.
15But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:
Humbly yours in Jesus
Steve
"But now for the verses that will positively prove the doctrine. Open your Bibles and turn to John 15:16, and there you will see that Jesus Christ has chosen his people, for he says, "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you." Then in the 19th verse, "If ye were of the world, the world would love his own; but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." Then in the 17th chapter and the 8th and 9th verses, "For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me. I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine." Turn to Acts 13:48: "And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord; and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." They may try to split that passage into hairs if they like; but it says, "ordained to eternal life" in the original as plainly as it possibly can; and we do not care about all the different commentaries thereupon. You scarcely need to be reminded of Romans 8, because I trust you are all well acquainted with that chapter and understand it by this time. In the 29th and following verses, it says, "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the first-born among many brethren. Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he justified, them he also glorified. What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect?" It would also be unnecessary to repeat the whole of the 9th chapter of Romans. As long as that remains in the Bible, no man shall be able to prove Arminianism; so long as that is written there, not the most violent contortions of the passage will ever be able to exterminate the doctrine of election from the Scriptures. Let us read such verses as these—"For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger." Then read the 22nd verse, "What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction. And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory." Then go on to Romans 11:7—"What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded." In the 5th verse of the same chapter, we read—"Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace." You, no doubt, all recollect the passage in I Corinthians 1:26-29: "For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: but God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things which are: that no flesh should glory in his presence." Again, remember the passage in I Thessalonians 5:9—"God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ." And then you have my text, which methinks would be quite enough. But, if you need any more, you can find them at your leisure, if we have not quite removed your suspicions as to the doctrine not being true."
If you want to read the whole message feel free.
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0041.htm
I was tempted to post more but I dont want to be known as the cut and paste guy especially after Steve's admonition.I think at times though it does serve a good purpose when its transmitting Scriptural information. If we are honest with the Scripture we find evidence for both views,both truths if you will,and we need to accept them both....the Sovereignty of God and the free will of man. I see them both as taught in Scripture. I also believe when you with human intellect try to think them out to what would appear their logical forgone conclusion you in turn end up violating either Gods Word or His character,and which is worse I dont know. Does God send people to hell,even when they want to accept His good news? Dugh!... no is the obvious answer to that? Does God choose people? Well the Scriptural answer must be yes? Is He willing none should perish..yes! Can people hear the good news and respond to it and get saved ...yes! If a baby dies does it go to Heaven..yes! Somewhere in the mind of God exists the complete reconciliation of these great truths not only to our satisfaction but to His also.Is it all mapped out in the Bible,well to some they say it is,and they have whole Churches and movements built around their understanding of just how it should be.Is it really all that easy? Did God map it out? Im not so sure. In my humble opinion they both seem true and are revealed in Scripture.
I think one would have a hard time explaining to Paul who had just witnessed the stoning of Stephen and was travelling when suddenly the Lord appears..speaks with him...blinds him.....then gives him directions for his healing and subsequent salvation...that God doesnt get involved in peoples salvation.Paul wasnt even your generic unbeliever he was actually killing Gods people and hunting them down! I dont think he would put much stock in that premis! How are we to explain that? Is it just some random act buy a God who got a little hyper and did it on a whim? Or is it a God who before the world was ever made knew that He would at that specific time act to intercept Paul? To actually act against Pauls will to reveal Himself to him and literally force him down a certain path. I think we must choose the latter? To limit God to no choice when it isnt taught in Scripture and to say He doesnt intervene in the affairs of man and this world is to slowly chip away at His character as the great I AM. The one who was, who is and always will be and works out all things according to the pleasure of His will. How shall the pot judge the potter in such matters,it just doesnt seem plausible to me in light of Scripture or the nature and character of God.
Acts 9: 1-15
1And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,
2And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.
3And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
4And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
5And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
6And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
7And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
8And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.
9And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.
10And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord.
11And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth,
12And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight.
13Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem:
14And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name.
15But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:
Humbly yours in Jesus
Steve
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
To Crusader,
I have never left Paul's case out of my consideration, nor Abraham's, nor Moses', nor Jeremiah's, nor any other biblical example of the call of God. I do not see how anything about Paul's case contributes to the discussion of conditional or unconditional election, which is what I think is our main concern here on this thread.
I think you overstate the case when you say, that God "actually [acted] against Pauls will to reveal Himself to him and literally force him down a certain path." God certainly made Paul an offer that would be hard to refuse! But not impossible.
Balaam also had an amazing revelation of an angel from God and even heard the unique miracle of his donkey rebuking him, but still chose to love the wages of unrighteousness (2 Pet.2:15-16). Many people saw Lazarus rise from the dead. Some of them believed, and others plotted to kill Lazarus in order to suppress the evidence (John 12:10-11)! Pharaoh (who, like Saul, was a persecutor of God's people) saw many miracles but still hardened his heart against the truth. Saul could have done the same. He just wasn't quite that stupid.
You wrote:
" I think one would have a hard time explaining to Paul...that God doesnt get involved in peoples salvation," and "To limit God to no choice...and to say He doesnt intervene in the affairs of man and this world is to slowly chip away at His character"
We certainly agree on that. If someone has affirmed either of these strange deistic notions at this forum, it has not come to my attention.
By the way, all of the scriptures cited by Spurgeon have been fully addressed by Arminian contributors elsewhere on this forum. There would be no sense in answering them one-by-one here.
To all participants at this forum:
The reasons I have requested that people not post pages-long articles and sermons by other people here should be obvious. Here are several:
1. Once this is begun, it has no logical end. There is an infinite amount of literature out there on the web from which we could cut-and-paste in order to support whatever position we may favor. It is better just to give the web link to the material you wish for us to consider, so that readers can decide whether they want to read a lengthy sermon or not, and needn't be forced to scroll several pages down to find out how the live dialog is going. This is a forum, not a library.
2. Though some of us enjoy debating here, I myself would prefer to actually engage real, living participants. Spurgeon is wonderful, and I have many volumes of his work on my shelf, which I read with pleasure, but he is not able to participate in this discussion. He isn't here. Nor am I here to debate Spurgeon (though I would not decline to answer him, if he was here and wanted my response). I show up here to interact with real people. This is a forum for living people with ideas of their own to share. We can all cut-and-paste page after page of material by authors we like and with whom we agree. Let's not do so here. If I want to critique a dead author, point-by-point, I will write a book-review.
3. So far, most of those who have cut-and-pasted other people's materials on this forum have done so in order to defer the discussion to a better spokesman for their views, and to give extra "clout" to positions that the poster had already argued unconvincingly, and that he had found himself unable to defend against rebuttal. The posts that have been pasted-in have seldom made new arguments, but have repeated the participants' previously-made (and previously refuted) points without adding any new biblical warrant for accepting them. All that is added is the imagined authority of a famous name who agrees with the position.
In case anyone has not discovered this yet, I don't consider any famous person to carry more weight in his/her opinions than does the Bible itself. So if the Bible cannot be exegeted properly in such a manner as to prove a point, no amount of popes, cardinals, scholars, pastors or tele-evangelists can impress me that a position is true. If it comes down to winning an argument by listing the names of famous people who agreed with us, then we could fill an entire thread with excerpts from people who believe any conceivable thing, without ever having to get our own feet wet, or having to discuss the scriptural merits of our own thoughts.
4. If you understand and agree with the points that Spurgeon (or another author) is making, why not make them yourself in your own words? Since most of us come here to interact with living people about their ideas, and since most sermons are more verbose than they need to be to make their point, some of us groan when we are looking for real dialogue and find only pages of compressed and unformatted inserted text, authored by someone who is not around to dialog with.
I have noticed two kinds of participants in debates at this forum. One kind of person wants the truth, and is eager to hear and to interact with all the arguments of the other side.
The other kind of person is usually the type who wants to post long pieces by other authors. This kind of person apparently believes that his view is so manifestly true, that no arguments need to be advanced for it, and no arguments against it can be entertained or interacted with. He states his position along with some comment like, "Anyone who honestly reads the Bible will have to admit..." While others are trying desperately to get him to dialog about his points, he declines all interaction with their points, and simply restates his same previously stated (and refuted) assertion, as if dialog is below the dignity of his position, since it is self-evidently correct. If his case has been defeated in cross-examination, he simply cuts and pastes material from other people, whose reputations, apparently, are supposed to exclude the need to answer reasonable objections.
I may be speaking only for myself, but my time is too valuable to be endlessly trying to interact with this second approach. I am not a famous person myself, and am not impressed by famous persons. Please, let's talk about the evidence honestly, or else let's find something else to do with our time.
I have never left Paul's case out of my consideration, nor Abraham's, nor Moses', nor Jeremiah's, nor any other biblical example of the call of God. I do not see how anything about Paul's case contributes to the discussion of conditional or unconditional election, which is what I think is our main concern here on this thread.
I think you overstate the case when you say, that God "actually [acted] against Pauls will to reveal Himself to him and literally force him down a certain path." God certainly made Paul an offer that would be hard to refuse! But not impossible.
Balaam also had an amazing revelation of an angel from God and even heard the unique miracle of his donkey rebuking him, but still chose to love the wages of unrighteousness (2 Pet.2:15-16). Many people saw Lazarus rise from the dead. Some of them believed, and others plotted to kill Lazarus in order to suppress the evidence (John 12:10-11)! Pharaoh (who, like Saul, was a persecutor of God's people) saw many miracles but still hardened his heart against the truth. Saul could have done the same. He just wasn't quite that stupid.
You wrote:
" I think one would have a hard time explaining to Paul...that God doesnt get involved in peoples salvation," and "To limit God to no choice...and to say He doesnt intervene in the affairs of man and this world is to slowly chip away at His character"
We certainly agree on that. If someone has affirmed either of these strange deistic notions at this forum, it has not come to my attention.
By the way, all of the scriptures cited by Spurgeon have been fully addressed by Arminian contributors elsewhere on this forum. There would be no sense in answering them one-by-one here.
To all participants at this forum:
The reasons I have requested that people not post pages-long articles and sermons by other people here should be obvious. Here are several:
1. Once this is begun, it has no logical end. There is an infinite amount of literature out there on the web from which we could cut-and-paste in order to support whatever position we may favor. It is better just to give the web link to the material you wish for us to consider, so that readers can decide whether they want to read a lengthy sermon or not, and needn't be forced to scroll several pages down to find out how the live dialog is going. This is a forum, not a library.
2. Though some of us enjoy debating here, I myself would prefer to actually engage real, living participants. Spurgeon is wonderful, and I have many volumes of his work on my shelf, which I read with pleasure, but he is not able to participate in this discussion. He isn't here. Nor am I here to debate Spurgeon (though I would not decline to answer him, if he was here and wanted my response). I show up here to interact with real people. This is a forum for living people with ideas of their own to share. We can all cut-and-paste page after page of material by authors we like and with whom we agree. Let's not do so here. If I want to critique a dead author, point-by-point, I will write a book-review.
3. So far, most of those who have cut-and-pasted other people's materials on this forum have done so in order to defer the discussion to a better spokesman for their views, and to give extra "clout" to positions that the poster had already argued unconvincingly, and that he had found himself unable to defend against rebuttal. The posts that have been pasted-in have seldom made new arguments, but have repeated the participants' previously-made (and previously refuted) points without adding any new biblical warrant for accepting them. All that is added is the imagined authority of a famous name who agrees with the position.
In case anyone has not discovered this yet, I don't consider any famous person to carry more weight in his/her opinions than does the Bible itself. So if the Bible cannot be exegeted properly in such a manner as to prove a point, no amount of popes, cardinals, scholars, pastors or tele-evangelists can impress me that a position is true. If it comes down to winning an argument by listing the names of famous people who agreed with us, then we could fill an entire thread with excerpts from people who believe any conceivable thing, without ever having to get our own feet wet, or having to discuss the scriptural merits of our own thoughts.
4. If you understand and agree with the points that Spurgeon (or another author) is making, why not make them yourself in your own words? Since most of us come here to interact with living people about their ideas, and since most sermons are more verbose than they need to be to make their point, some of us groan when we are looking for real dialogue and find only pages of compressed and unformatted inserted text, authored by someone who is not around to dialog with.
I have noticed two kinds of participants in debates at this forum. One kind of person wants the truth, and is eager to hear and to interact with all the arguments of the other side.
The other kind of person is usually the type who wants to post long pieces by other authors. This kind of person apparently believes that his view is so manifestly true, that no arguments need to be advanced for it, and no arguments against it can be entertained or interacted with. He states his position along with some comment like, "Anyone who honestly reads the Bible will have to admit..." While others are trying desperately to get him to dialog about his points, he declines all interaction with their points, and simply restates his same previously stated (and refuted) assertion, as if dialog is below the dignity of his position, since it is self-evidently correct. If his case has been defeated in cross-examination, he simply cuts and pastes material from other people, whose reputations, apparently, are supposed to exclude the need to answer reasonable objections.
I may be speaking only for myself, but my time is too valuable to be endlessly trying to interact with this second approach. I am not a famous person myself, and am not impressed by famous persons. Please, let's talk about the evidence honestly, or else let's find something else to do with our time.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
He hardens who He wills and shows mercy to whom He chooses
Heres another pretty powerful passage in Romans 9 which Ide sure be interested in your ideas and thoughts on...Steve
0Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad–in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls–she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”[d] 13Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”[e]
14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”[f] 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”[g] 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
19One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ ”[h] 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath–prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory– 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25As he says in Hosea: “I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people;
and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,”[i] 26and, “It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,
‘You are not my people,’ they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’ ”[j]
27Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea,
only the remnant will be saved. 28For the Lord will carry out
his sentence on earth with speed and finality.”[k]
Paul who wrote 3/4 of the New Testament seems to have writen some pretty powerful Spirit breathed words here regarding election....
Lord Bless you
Steve
0Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad–in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls–she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”[d] 13Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”[e]
14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”[f] 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”[g] 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
19One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ ”[h] 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath–prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory– 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25As he says in Hosea: “I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people;
and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,”[i] 26and, “It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,
‘You are not my people,’ they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’ ”[j]
27Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea,
only the remnant will be saved. 28For the Lord will carry out
his sentence on earth with speed and finality.”[k]
Paul who wrote 3/4 of the New Testament seems to have writen some pretty powerful Spirit breathed words here regarding election....
Lord Bless you
Steve
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Re: He hardens who He wills and shows mercy to whom He choos
Tell us what do you think it means. Then I'll take a stab at it.Crusader wrote:Heres another pretty powerful passage in Romans 9 which Ide sure be interested in your ideas and thoughts on...Steve
If you read Romans chapters 1-11 carefully, I think you will find it (chapter 9) means something a little different than you think it means. Also note Jeremiah 18.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:35)
Hi Crusader,
You wrote: "Paul who wrote 3/4 of the New Testament seems to have writen some pretty powerful Spirit breathed words here regarding election...."
That is indeed a fact--that is, the part about Paul writing powerful words about election (He didn't write 3/4 of the New Testament...more like 1/4. The four Gospels occupy more than half by themselves. Luke alone wrote more pages than Paul did--but that's okay. I am still Paul's greatest admirer).
It is because Paul, and other writers did write so powerfully on this subject that we who oppose Calvinism cannot understand why Calvinists so thoroughly miss his point in their discussions of the topic.
In the early days of this forum, the Calvinist issue was one of the first topics to really "take-off" with much spirited discussion. Inevitably, Romans 9 came up for discussion early-on, since it is the only text in the Bible that seems to mention "unconditional" election. If you would like to read my treatment of that passage, you can go to the following threads (Both are on page two of this Calvinism/Arminianism category of the forum):
"A Good Work" (my sixth post, on page two of that thread, dated April 27, 2004),
and
"Does Romans 9:14-23 teach a sovereign freedom of God over man?"
Blessings!
You wrote: "Paul who wrote 3/4 of the New Testament seems to have writen some pretty powerful Spirit breathed words here regarding election...."
That is indeed a fact--that is, the part about Paul writing powerful words about election (He didn't write 3/4 of the New Testament...more like 1/4. The four Gospels occupy more than half by themselves. Luke alone wrote more pages than Paul did--but that's okay. I am still Paul's greatest admirer).
It is because Paul, and other writers did write so powerfully on this subject that we who oppose Calvinism cannot understand why Calvinists so thoroughly miss his point in their discussions of the topic.
In the early days of this forum, the Calvinist issue was one of the first topics to really "take-off" with much spirited discussion. Inevitably, Romans 9 came up for discussion early-on, since it is the only text in the Bible that seems to mention "unconditional" election. If you would like to read my treatment of that passage, you can go to the following threads (Both are on page two of this Calvinism/Arminianism category of the forum):
"A Good Work" (my sixth post, on page two of that thread, dated April 27, 2004),
and
"Does Romans 9:14-23 teach a sovereign freedom of God over man?"
Blessings!
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Tue Apr 05, 2005 12:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Hi Again
I reread all those earlier posts which were written and I must admit they were fairly exhaustive. I commened everyone for thier thought and what must have been a laborious job in presenting thier arguements succinctly and with great skill. Yet I couldnt with any degree of certainty say one arguement was so compelling as to convince me that Scripturally the extremes of Calvanism or Aminianism were proven,especially in light of the fact that God doesnt adress those extremes. This is verdict I have come to because when you get to the extremes of both views ,at least to me they intrude upon both the character of God and the Word of God. We know that both free will and Gods sovierngty are both presented in Scripture. If that were not the case this debate wouldnt even exist. I feel that because the two ideas are hard to reconcile both sides have come up with extreme theology and this theology isnt found in Scripture. That to me is even evidenced by people saying things like ,Well show me in the Bible where it says God sends people to hell against thier will to choose Him! And of course everyone knows that it isnt written there, its only a supoposition based on human intellect, extrapolating out what they assume the projected outcome would be based on God choosing people. Therein to me lies the weakness of the arguement because in Scripture it doesnt say God sends people to hell. In fact quite the opposite is true. Yet we know that the Bible says clearly God does choose. While on the other side we also know that it clearly teaches that Whosoever will may come,that when a sinner hears the Gospel he can respond and get saved. I find it interesting that an all knowing God purposely chose to not be exactly clear on the extreme theology issues that both sides use to attack eachother and defend thier position. Another issue is eternal security where one camp says once saved always saved and another teaches you can loose your salvation. I need not here reiterate the many Scriptures that have been hearaled about, which each side uses to prove thier point. Indeed both great truths are taught,the first being God can keep His children and that two we need to abide in the vine. Yet when you extrapolate it out into extreme theology you have people saying things like well you can if your saved now sin without impunity now because no matter what you do your going to Heaven.Where is that taught in Scripture? Where is it taught that babies have no inherited sin from adam? We all need to be careful and rightly divide the Word. If an idea isnt taught in the Bible, who are we to assume it is, just by a human mind extrapolating it out beyond what the Word really says? That is what creates extreme theology in my mind. I still see both the Soviegnty of God and the free will of man taught in the Bible. Do I exactly know how it all works...quite honestly no! Is it wrong to speculate and think on a human level what the implications might be of a certain viewpoint,I think not. To me it only becomes dangerous when we say thus saith the Lord without any Scriptural backing? Im still waiting on someone to show me where God sends people to hell against thier will ? Its clear it violates not only His character but His Word. I have concluded in my heart and mind that really both free will and Sovierngty are taught in Scripture and both have thier balance in Gods mind. I beleive they are revealed in His Word and I am called to believe them through faith...and that doesnt mean they are completely understandable to my intellect.To me thats really where the error on both sides lies...in a desire to make these divine truths completely understandable we have to subvert not only the Word which presents them but the character of God itself which initiated them in the first place.
I for one have no problem going to church on one Sunday and hearing a whole message on eternal security based on God keeping us by His grace,nor do I have a problem the next Sunday hearing a message that teaches how we must abide in Jesus. They both are true. What I do have a problem with is when men push these ideas out into extreme theology and you cant find it in the Bible.Then to use that old line" Houstan we have a problem"!!!!!!! Thats why for the time being I am a Calvminian.
Lord Bless you
Steve
Deuteronomy 29:29: "The secret things belong to the Lord our God,but the things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever..."
I for one have no problem going to church on one Sunday and hearing a whole message on eternal security based on God keeping us by His grace,nor do I have a problem the next Sunday hearing a message that teaches how we must abide in Jesus. They both are true. What I do have a problem with is when men push these ideas out into extreme theology and you cant find it in the Bible.Then to use that old line" Houstan we have a problem"!!!!!!! Thats why for the time being I am a Calvminian.
Lord Bless you
Steve
Deuteronomy 29:29: "The secret things belong to the Lord our God,but the things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever..."
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Steve,
I am not sure what to do with your statements. You make frequent reference to the "extreme" theology of Calvinism and Arminianism. However, I would reserve the word "extreme" for positions that over-emphasize some aspect of the divine revelation to the exclusion of the important balancing passages.
Thus, I find Calvinism to be "extreme," in that it defines the word "sovereign" (when applied to God) in an entirely arbitrary and non-lexical manner, and then, out of loyalty to this makeshift definition, either ignores or twists the multitude of passages that affirm man has free will.
The other "extreme" theology is not called "Arminianism" bur, rather, "Pelagianism." This view elevates human free will and responsibility (which are true biblical concepts) to the point of denying or twisting the many passages that affirm man's innate sinfulness and God's role in man's salvation.
Between these two extremes, stands the biblical teaching, which affirms man's sinfulness as well as man's freedom to choose; God's sovereignty (without dillution, but also without accepting Calvinism's strange way of defining it) as well as man's complete responsibility for choosing his own destiny. This view has come to be called Arminianism, since the 17th century, but was simply the view of all orthodox Christians prior to Augustine.
There is nothing extreme in Arminianism. It explains (from the rational consideration of context) every passage about God's "choosing" in a reasonable manner that does not place that concept at odds with human freedom and responsibility. Neither of the two "extreme" positions can make this claim for themselves.
It seems strange that you consider anything written here from the Arminian standpoint to be "extreme," and I would be interested in your quoting something from this forum where you see such imbalance from an Arminian advocate.
I would suggest that the problem in your accepting the very plausible, scriptural, and logical explanations of the Arminians is that you count it an "extreme" thing to question the Calvinist's definition of sovereignty--a definition not drawn from scripture, from lexicons or from dictionaries. You repeatedly say things like, "Yes, the Bible teaches free will, but it also teaches the seemingly contradictory notions of God's sovereinty and God's choosing...so we have to call this a mystery."
My observation is that the notions of God's sovereignty and choosing only seem to contradict free will if we import to these words definitions that are not called for in the least.
The word "sovereignty" does not mean, "meticulous providence," but only "supreme authority"--an entirely different (and even unrelated) concept. It does not mean in any sense that God's will is always done in the lives of human beings; only that He deserves to be obeyed, and those who do not obey Him are violating His rightful authority (as the Bible tells us men often do!). A biblical view of sovereignty does not imply that God makes all the choices of who will or will not be saved, and is therefore not in conflict with the doctrine of free will.
Likewise, the word "choose" or "elect" does not inherently carry (nor does any passage of scripture import into it) the idea of "unconditional" election. When Americans "elect" a president, there is no one who would insist that this speaks of people making some blind choice without considering the respective desirability of each candidate. No passage of scripture says that God chooses people to be saved without regard to their humility or faith. Therefore all those scriptures that tell us that this is, indeed, the basis for His saving certain individuals, and not others, can be taken at face value, without fear of seeming to contradict other passages.
Both Calvinism and Pelagianism are "extreme" theological positions, in the sense defined above. Arminianism is the moderated position in the middle, which avoids all extremes and takes the whole counsel of God as a reasonably-integrated whole.
Again, if you could tell me which of the statements by Arminians at this forum have been extreme, I would appreciate it. Some statements about babies being born with or without a sin nature, or going to hell when they die, may indeed represent extreme statements, but they are not really relevant to the specific claims of Calvinism and Arminianism. The controversy between these two camps lies in the question of free will and God's sovereignty, not the fate of babies (though some may extrapolate from their theology one conclusion or another about babies, that is a peripheral issue).
I am not sure what to do with your statements. You make frequent reference to the "extreme" theology of Calvinism and Arminianism. However, I would reserve the word "extreme" for positions that over-emphasize some aspect of the divine revelation to the exclusion of the important balancing passages.
Thus, I find Calvinism to be "extreme," in that it defines the word "sovereign" (when applied to God) in an entirely arbitrary and non-lexical manner, and then, out of loyalty to this makeshift definition, either ignores or twists the multitude of passages that affirm man has free will.
The other "extreme" theology is not called "Arminianism" bur, rather, "Pelagianism." This view elevates human free will and responsibility (which are true biblical concepts) to the point of denying or twisting the many passages that affirm man's innate sinfulness and God's role in man's salvation.
Between these two extremes, stands the biblical teaching, which affirms man's sinfulness as well as man's freedom to choose; God's sovereignty (without dillution, but also without accepting Calvinism's strange way of defining it) as well as man's complete responsibility for choosing his own destiny. This view has come to be called Arminianism, since the 17th century, but was simply the view of all orthodox Christians prior to Augustine.
There is nothing extreme in Arminianism. It explains (from the rational consideration of context) every passage about God's "choosing" in a reasonable manner that does not place that concept at odds with human freedom and responsibility. Neither of the two "extreme" positions can make this claim for themselves.
It seems strange that you consider anything written here from the Arminian standpoint to be "extreme," and I would be interested in your quoting something from this forum where you see such imbalance from an Arminian advocate.
I would suggest that the problem in your accepting the very plausible, scriptural, and logical explanations of the Arminians is that you count it an "extreme" thing to question the Calvinist's definition of sovereignty--a definition not drawn from scripture, from lexicons or from dictionaries. You repeatedly say things like, "Yes, the Bible teaches free will, but it also teaches the seemingly contradictory notions of God's sovereinty and God's choosing...so we have to call this a mystery."
My observation is that the notions of God's sovereignty and choosing only seem to contradict free will if we import to these words definitions that are not called for in the least.
The word "sovereignty" does not mean, "meticulous providence," but only "supreme authority"--an entirely different (and even unrelated) concept. It does not mean in any sense that God's will is always done in the lives of human beings; only that He deserves to be obeyed, and those who do not obey Him are violating His rightful authority (as the Bible tells us men often do!). A biblical view of sovereignty does not imply that God makes all the choices of who will or will not be saved, and is therefore not in conflict with the doctrine of free will.
Likewise, the word "choose" or "elect" does not inherently carry (nor does any passage of scripture import into it) the idea of "unconditional" election. When Americans "elect" a president, there is no one who would insist that this speaks of people making some blind choice without considering the respective desirability of each candidate. No passage of scripture says that God chooses people to be saved without regard to their humility or faith. Therefore all those scriptures that tell us that this is, indeed, the basis for His saving certain individuals, and not others, can be taken at face value, without fear of seeming to contradict other passages.
Both Calvinism and Pelagianism are "extreme" theological positions, in the sense defined above. Arminianism is the moderated position in the middle, which avoids all extremes and takes the whole counsel of God as a reasonably-integrated whole.
Again, if you could tell me which of the statements by Arminians at this forum have been extreme, I would appreciate it. Some statements about babies being born with or without a sin nature, or going to hell when they die, may indeed represent extreme statements, but they are not really relevant to the specific claims of Calvinism and Arminianism. The controversy between these two camps lies in the question of free will and God's sovereignty, not the fate of babies (though some may extrapolate from their theology one conclusion or another about babies, that is a peripheral issue).
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve