Exclusively Christian TheologyThis forum is exclusively for those who consider themselves Christian and consider the Bible to be the inspired word of God.
I think of it more as a rescue mission. When the Coast Guard has rescued individuals from shipping disasters, no rescuee is reprimanding them for those who were not saved and nobody is blaming other passengers for thanking the Coast Guard for choosing them out of the water.
Again, the problem with this analogy is that it is in God's power to rescue everybody but he doesn't. And, worse, is that it seems he is responsible for the bad weather in the first place. Finally, the idea of people drowning is not what we as open view believers have anything against. People drown in their sins because the effects of sin are plain to see and the end result is death. But that is all from an earthly perspective. It is the idea of eternal damnation that is repugnant. This isn't analogised by drowning. There's no natural law that leads immediately and directly from sin to eternal damnation in the way that a shipping disaster leads directly and naturally to drowning. God still has to intervene with his judgement and the creation of hell.
On the other hand the Biblical concept of sin is that it leads naturally to death. 'For you are dust and unto dust you shall return'. And the curse of the so-called fall was not a curse to eternal damnation but to hard labour in this life. There will be a resurrection of the wicked and the just and the wicked will be punished for their own wickedness but not because they were predestined to that by God or because of something their great great grandfather did 5,027 generations previously. Again I say, this is a simple, clean and righteous explanation, unlike the obvious subterfuge inherent in Calvinism. You just need a little more faith to see how God can achieve his purposes without having to control every minutest act of history. It's called intelligence.
Total Misanthropy. Uncertain salvation. Luck of the draw. Irresistible damnation. Persecution of the saints.
Scripture having been composed in a way which could be a hundred times easier to learn. Unless we suppose that the Supreme Being and Creator of the Universe had difficulty in making Scripture readable.
Our premise here that God's Word was intentionally written to trip-up heretics, apostates, cultists, and just run-of-the-mill unbelievers.
Numerous ways this was done. Like disperse same-doctrines in incomplete form in diverse places within the Bible. Heavy use of obscure metaphor and analogizing readily mistaken for simple 'literal' statements. Et. al.
Not that Christianity is a Mystery Religion. Or the Bible is a cultic text for initiates only.
Mystery Religions withhold truths. Whereas the Christian scriptures merely hide the truths of the Lord in plain sight.
The most obvious doctrinal connections aren't necessarily the most accurate doctrine. The Bible structured to permit heretics, apostates, cultists, atheists, and pagans to draw all the wrong inferences.
The upshot of which is that unbelievers and false believers can't sync God's Word doctrinally. In affirming one supposed teaching of Scripture, they deny another teaching of Scripture.
End result being a Bible where infallible God can't keep His doctrines straight.
Best way of identifying a false teacher, or just bad exegesis, is through interpretative contradictions. And, God's Word has been designed to lend itself to internal contradiction when it is handled by the unregenerate.
Thus, too, Christians know their interpretation of God's Word is correct when our exegesis fails to produce Scriptural confutation (one passage refuting another passage). The schema of God's Word precludes that happening by chance.
This a positive mechanism for insuring that those with the illumination of the Holy Spirit can be assured of the accuracy of their exegesis. And exegetical errors quickly identified.
Hence it ain't everyone interpreting the Bible whatever damn intelligent way they fancy.
I think the best way to respond to this post is just to read through the whole thing as a holistic argument rather the way it is broken up between your responses here. It all works together to say that we must mutually trust God and acknowledge His rights as Creator without being His judge or trying to go to court for Him.
But can we also acknowledge that God may create anything He wishes and mete out judgment any way He wishes, and extend mercy in any way He wishes? I mean, there simply isn't any fundamental reason to say that God MUST have created and acted as Calvinists demand because of the nature of God, is there?
Quote:
Sort of, not really. While yes those ideas are conveyed, it is really rather that God foreordains by His own counsel. How active or passive that is merely left to trust in His hands rather than us trying to make that determination: "Who is man that you are mindful of Him... Does not the Potter..."
So for us, the answer is that God has this right regardless of what I (or even you) think. We are creation/created. He is the Maker and Owner with all rights thereof. If you agree, welcome to being a honorary Calvinist for the day.
That's hardly limited to Calvinism. Indeed, I find most Calvinist deny this by saying that God MUST create as Calvinism demands, and that it is impossible for God to have created any other way. So, I would challenge the notion that this is Calvinism, and the notion that Calvinism actually embraces this.
Quote:
The problem is this is your cosmic lottery misconception. It is neither random, chance, or earned. If you can't earn or buy it, how else would you get what is freely given, other than a giver deciding to give it to you?
And, as acknowledged, the giver arbitrarily gives out election to some and denies it to others. You've already acknowledged that one cannot know who is elect and who is not.
So, in effect, God picks a few to be elect based upon something other than who we are or what we do, thus those picked win eternal life.
Quote:
If you want to slap that giver for not giving it to others when you accept it, isn't that looking a gift horse in the mouth?
Who is looking a gift horse in the mouth? Who said that receiving it would be unappreciated?
Quote:
Furthermore, let us say, just for argument, that you have no idea why some people who seem the same to you, like your friend from high school, didn't come to Christ. Let's say that you only know why 'you' came to Him. Do you want to be judge over that decision?
Judged in what way? To be justified? Yes, I want to be judged as justified in God's eyes.
Quote:
Whose decision is it?
Jesus says that it is up to all those who hear the gospel. (See John 6:27-29, 44-45.)
Quote:
His prescience comes into the discussion so of course we are twice removed in our contentions. Regardless between both of us, neither of us knows, we are the same in our presentation.
The fact that you present the gospel as an Open View Theist and then teach the doctrine of Calvinism to converts only shows inconsistency.
Quote:
We rather disagree on what God knows and when He knows it. Again, this ties to just above where we'd be judging God for who comes to Him and who doesn't. I believe God able to force the entire world to Himself if He desired.
If this was God's purpose in creating, yes. However, doing this actually voids God's purpose in creating, which explains why He doesn't.
OTOH, the Calvinist has no explanation as to why He doesn't, other than that God has the right to do so. Which is accurate, but creates other problems relative to Scripture, like the claim that God is love.
Quote:
How about you? And then, doesn't that put us close together on this where we could ask why He doesn't but rather trust instead of presuming to be His judge?
I don't presume to be His judge at all. I've already stated that God is able to create as He chooses. I am not telling God what He must do any more than you are, nor am I saying that God would be unjust or unfair to create a Calvinist universe.
Quote:
There are difference between us, but not quite as stark as you seem to be trying to make them.
But the differences are still stark.
Quote:
Recognize where we agree, you can't scape-goat my position the entire way (you can but it is a cheap and uncritical way out).
I'm not scapegoating anything. The errors of Calvinism are evident, and I'm simply pointing them out.
Quote:
Yes, but don't we both have a lot of agreement here? Don't you agree we belong to God and He can do as He likes?
Yes.
Quote:
Don't we agree that He could bring those He wanted to Himself, and that even if you are correct concerning the extent of our freewill, He still chose the way we would come to Him and knowing who at least, likely would not?
The way we would come? Yes. Which is starkly different from how you claim it happens.
Knowing who would likely not? No. Too many free will decisions impact who is conceived and who is not, and who continues to pass on faith in God and who does not. From the moment of creation, you were not even certain to be born, much less whether you would believe or not.
Quote:
I mean, such already relegates some to salvation and some to perish, so we both agree He has a right to make this choice, correct?
No. God's purpose in creating is that Adam and Eve and all their descendants would live as His people without sin, knowing that sin was possible and what that would require of Him. God is not willing that ANY should perish, but desires ALL to be His people. But in fulfilling His purpose, God gives to His creation the right to accept or reject Him.
And, while God may have the right to create a Calvinist world where He makes the choice, God also has the right to create a world where people freely choose to love God and be His people, as His purpose.
And this (and only this) creates a circumstance where God really has a people for Himself who love and freely obey him.
Quote:
You can have all kinds of disagreement here, no problem. I'm not trying to make you an honorary Calvinist really, I'm just trying to tell you we both bank on the Most exceptional attributes of our Precious God and Savior and trust Him.
Sure, when you make vague statements such as this to blur the details, it appears that there is agreement, and on some levels, there are.
But, the fact remains that the Calvinist gospel is "You may have already won eternal life."
I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.
2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.
Scripture having been composed in a way which could be a hundred times easier to learn. Unless we suppose that the Supreme Being and Creator of the Universe had difficulty in making Scripture readable.
Our premise here that God's Word was intentionally written to trip-up heretics, apostates, cultists, and just run-of-the-mill unbelievers.
Numerous ways this was done. Like disperse same-doctrines in incomplete form in diverse places within the Bible. Heavy use of obscure metaphor and analogizing readily mistaken for simple 'literal' statements. Et. al.
Not that Christianity is a Mystery Religion. Or the Bible is a cultic text for initiates only.
Mystery Religions withhold truths. Whereas the Christian scriptures merely hide the truths of the Lord in plain sight.
The most obvious doctrinal connections aren't necessarily the most accurate doctrine. The Bible structured to permit heretics, apostates, cultists, atheists, and pagans to draw all the wrong inferences.
The upshot of which is that unbelievers and false believers can't sync God's Word doctrinally. In affirming one supposed teaching of Scripture, they deny another teaching of Scripture.
End result being a Bible where infallible God can't keep His doctrines straight.
Best way of identifying a false teacher, or just bad exegesis, is through interpretative contradictions. And, God's Word has been designed to lend itself to internal contradiction when it is handled by the unregenerate.
Thus, too, Christians know their interpretation of God's Word is correct when our exegesis fails to produce Scriptural confutation (one passage refuting another passage). The schema of God's Word precludes that happening by chance.
This a positive mechanism for insuring that those with the illumination of the Holy Spirit can be assured of the accuracy of their exegesis. And exegetical errors quickly identified.
Hence it ain't everyone interpreting the Bible whatever damn intelligent way they fancy.
All interpretations aren't equal.
In other words, you are a Calvinist, right? You'd certainly win the prize for who can say it in the most verbose way. The fact that you offer no arguments, no exegesis and no apologies is sufficient to get your drift.
Total Misanthropy. Uncertain salvation. Luck of the draw. Irresistible damnation. Persecution of the saints.
In other words, you are a Calvinist, right? You'd certainly win the prize for who can say it in the most verbose way. The fact that you offer no arguments, no exegesis and no apologies is sufficient to get your drift.
I have no problem if you wish to attack Calvinism. You're semi-Pelagian, and I'd expect you to be against the Reformation.
What I object to is your disingenuous depiction of historical and orthodox Calvinism as "hyper-Calvinism".
You have no problem, apparently, with mere Calvinistic doctrine indistinguishable from any other semi-Pelagian religion. And -in fact- many of your arguments are the same as Rome has been using for centuries against the Reformation.
This the stuff of Jacobus Arminius.
As I stated previously, I believe you attempt to depict all Calvinism as "hyper-Calvinism".
This leaving only a watered-down Calvinistic theology indistinguishable from 18 pages of Arminianism.
I have no problem if you wish to attack Calvinism. You're semi-Pelagian, and I'd expect you to be against the Reformation.
What I object to is your disingenuous depiction of historical and orthodox Calvinism as "hyper-Calvinism".
You have no problem, apparently, with mere Calvinistic doctrine indistinguishable from any other semi-Pelagian religion. And -in fact- many of your arguments are the same as Rome has been using for centuries against the Reformation.
This the stuff of Jacobus Arminius.
As I stated previously, I believe you attempt to depict all Calvinism as "hyper-Calvinism".
This leaving only a watered-down Calvinistic theology indistinguishable from 18 pages of Arminianism.
So, when Calvinist proof texts are shown to be poorly exegeted, you don't care?
I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.
2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.
So, when Calvinist proof texts are shown to be poorly exegeted, you don't care?
It's important in these things to be as specific as we can.
The word "faith" has become so bromidic as to almost be meaningless. By utilising terminology of "gifted faith" we both state the Reformed Theology position on the matter and narrow down what Saving Faith means.
Calvinism is Scriptural religion, and it's imperative we support Calvinist doctrine from the Scriptures.
It's important in these things to be as specific as we can.
The word "faith" has become so bromidic as to almost be meaningless. By utilising terminology of "gifted faith" we both state the Reformed Theology position on the matter and narrow down what Saving Faith means.
And to expose Calvinism to be in opposition to Scripture, which describes faith as something the believer does (John 6:27-29, John 6:44-45, et. al.)
Quote:
Calvinism is Scriptural religion, and it's imperative we support Calvinist doctrine from the Scriptures.
Well, you attempt to do so. That's kinda the point of this thread. It doesn't. I've shown this from two propositions from the Canons of Dort.
I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.
2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.
I have no problem if you wish to attack Calvinism. You're semi-Pelagian, and I'd expect you to be against the Reformation.
What I object to is your disingenuous depiction of historical and orthodox Calvinism as "hyper-Calvinism".
You have no problem, apparently, with mere Calvinistic doctrine indistinguishable from any other semi-Pelagian religion. And -in fact- many of your arguments are the same as Rome has been using for centuries against the Reformation.
This the stuff of Jacobus Arminius.
As I stated previously, I believe you attempt to depict all Calvinism as "hyper-Calvinism".
This leaving only a watered-down Calvinistic theology indistinguishable from 18 pages of Arminianism.
I'm not sure what your point is, Pres. I don't agree with Arminianism, it is simply illogical. Calvinism is also illogical but not so blatantly as Arminianism. Calvinism is more immoral and its characterisation of God that is frankly grotesque is my main concern with it, and as themuzicman says, God is entitled to be whatever kind of God he wants to be but that doesn't make it right, doesn't make it attractive to those who seek honesty and righteousness. I don't know what you mean by saying that I am Pelagian. If there's something you disagree with, why not just come straight out and say what it is? I mean did you realise that your beliefs are bordering on the semi-JohnSmithism? You should think about that, it's really important to the debate.
Total Misanthropy. Uncertain salvation. Luck of the draw. Irresistible damnation. Persecution of the saints.
I'm not sure what your point is, Pres. I don't agree with Arminianism, it is simply illogical. Calvinism is also illogical but not so blatantly as Arminianism. Calvinism is more immoral and its characterisation of God that is frankly grotesque is my main concern with it, and as themuzicman says, God is entitled to be whatever kind of God he wants to be but that doesn't make it right, doesn't make it attractive to those who seek honesty and righteousness. I don't know what you mean by saying that I am Pelagian. If there's something you disagree with, why not just come straight out and say what it is? I mean did you realise that your beliefs are bordering on the semi-JohnSmithism? You should think about that, it's really important to the debate.
The great 19th. Century British evangelist, Charles Spurgeon, didn't say anything about semi-JohnSmithism but once wrote that Calvinism is a "nickname" for the Gospel. "Calvinism is the Gospel, and nothing else". (The New Park Street Pulpit, Vol. 1, 1856; Spurgeon.)
Not because (as Spurgeon further pointed-out) that John Calvin from the 16th. Century invented the Gospel. Or, even, that Dr. Calvin was the first to understand it.
And we're certainly NOT saying that you can't be a Christian without calling yourself a "Calvinist".
Calvinism is the Gospel because it sincerely strives to be in sync with the Doctrines of Grace which comprise the Gospel.
Gospel means "Good News". Actually, the proclamation of good news. The Greek word refers to what ancient heralds did... go from town to town announcing news. And the Gospel of Christ is good news for all mankind.
Non-Christian churches (like the Church of Rome) have a "gospel" which is really Bad News. To grace they add doctrines of human works, merit, and deservedness. Salvation isn't a gift. Rather the extra-scriptural teaching that 'God helps those who help themselves'.
Calvinism, obversely, declares salvation 100% a gift from the Lord. Amazing grace. We do NOTHING on our own to receive it. Even "accept Christ".
Which is the Bible's depiction of Saving Grace and no need to debate on it.
Again, the problem with this analogy is that it is in God's power to rescue everybody but he doesn't.
You are assuming too much. We do not have to go there at all. I will not be His judge - Calvinism in a nutshell. We come to scriptures and believe them and you continue philosophizing. I don't have a big problem with you doing that other than 1) slamming Calvinists for not and 2) hold tentatively to your speculations that are deduced from scripture rather than implicit.
Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us,
to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, forever. Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21
1Co 13:11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. But when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. - Let's at least work at it?
*************************************
Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
Hi Muz. I always appreciate what your debate with me allows me to do in a calm and appreciative tenor as well as digging out specifics for our dialogues that other's dialogues oft times obscure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by themuzicman
But can we also acknowledge that God may create anything He wishes and mete out judgment any way He wishes, and extend mercy in any way He wishes? I mean, there simply isn't any fundamental reason to say that God MUST have created and acted as Calvinists demand because of the nature of God, is there?
No. Remember I'm okay with your thinking, it is you that isn't with mine.
I don't want to make you a Calvinist, I just want you to lighten up on your disagreement with us (not you specifically, collective 'you').
Take us one at a time. I know you have a problem with individuals w/i Calvinism. I leave you then to those specific issues
Quote:
Originally Posted by themuzicman
That's hardly limited to Calvinism. Indeed, I find most Calvinist deny this by saying that God MUST create as Calvinism demands, and that it is impossible for God to have created any other way. So, I would challenge the notion that this is Calvinism, and the notion that Calvinism actually embraces this.
I don't have a problem with you trusting God the same way I do.
Again there is a difference between the theological camp and our collective whole as believers. Sure, let's argue, but I don't personally see it as an either/or scenario. I'm not too adamant against Catholic history and teaching either because even if the RC is to blame, they are still part of my parentage as a split divorce. Fortunately, my church didn't bad-mouth. Discuss problems and differing convictions yes, but that was more-or-less straight history about what happened so I grew up thinking I'm related.
Quote:
Originally Posted by themuzicman
And, as acknowledged, the giver arbitrarily gives out election to some and denies it to others. You've already acknowledged that one cannot know who is elect and who is not.
That doesn't mean God doesn't, just that I don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by themuzicman
So, in effect, God picks a few to be elect based upon something other than who we are or what we do, thus those picked win eternal life.
Win? That's a lottery term again.
Going back to the wedding parable, all who were found and came were admitted. I know there is something bothering you about that but if you think a bit more heavily about your own position, you believe like I do, just that we are comforted by different things. The problem is the same.
Think on your own position and look for the 'lottery' type of ideas and I think you'll see what I'm saying here (rhetorical - I trust you ).
Quote:
Originally Posted by themuzicman
Who is looking a gift horse in the mouth? Who said that receiving it would be unappreciated?
I know it looks like Calvinism vs (arbitrary other position), but simply said, but there are too many complications to start pointing fingers for either of us. Let's say, for example, that grace is a banquet ticket to all. Some people get to reject more times than another. Isn't that somewhat arbitrary (to our thinking)? So I try to remember not to read all books by their respective covers. Yes, as well as your position, I can see 'arbitrary' and 'lottery' regarding the cover you are looking at in Calvinism.
However God saves us, and however we disagree over the lost, I'm more concerned and thankful that you and I are doing so in a banquet hall.
His blessings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by themuzicman
Judged in what way? To be justified? Yes, I want to be judged as justified in God's eyes.
When I heard the gospel, there were others in class that did not respond. I don't want to judge God for why they did not come and I did. I know He chose me. I'm not mad (maybe maybe perplexed) that God chose me. I'm not angry our worrying about fairness. God is good and that's enough for me. He has proven trustworthy whether I know an answer to every dilemma I face or not. I am blessed to know that God saved you. I am not angry with God that your hypothetical friend isn't.
You looked for comfort and I looked for comfort. You found your's in that your friend made his own choice (whether right or wrong, that is your comfort and that's, to me all it is). I found comfort in that God knows why and I don't 'have' to know or find comfort anywhere else to be at peace. To me, that is all that our disagreement is: Where we both found comfort.
In a sense, you are playing my conscious here I think, in that it bothers you that I find a comfort in something that 'potentially' could cast God into a bad light, and so I actually love (and remember) that you are concerned for me and my stance to keep me from casting any bad assessment upon God (among other viable reasons). I love you too, brother.
Jesus says that it is up to all those who hear the gospel. (See John 6:27-29, 44-45.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by themuzicman
The fact that you present the gospel as an Open View Theist and then teach the doctrine of Calvinism to converts only shows inconsistency.
Yes, I agree. It is the inconsistency between what I know and what God knows. (I haven't a clue )
Quote:
Originally Posted by themuzicman
If this was God's purpose in creating, yes. However, doing this actually voids God's purpose in creating, which explains why He doesn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by themuzicman
OTOH, the Calvinist has no explanation as to why He doesn't, other than that God has the right to do so. Which is accurate, but creates other problems relative to Scripture, like the claim that God is love.
Yes, but again, remembering above 1) this is simply the difference between where we find comfort, and 2) your discomfort and concern (among other options) with me being careful not to cast blame on God (and I do not). I already know you don't so I don't have a big problem. It is a little disagreement between where we think comfort (and reasonableness among other things) lies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by themuzicman
I don't presume to be His judge at all. I've already stated that God is able to create as He chooses. I am not telling God what He must do any more than you are, nor am I saying that God would be unjust or unfair to create a Calvinist universe.
Exactly my point...er...our (mutual) point!
Quote:
Originally Posted by themuzicman
But the differences are still stark.
Yes, between where we find our answers (comfort). Well, and also between some Calvinists and some (other) too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by themuzicman
I'm not scapegoating anything. The errors of Calvinism are evident, and I'm simply pointing them out.
Sorry, it was an emotional ploy to get you to emphathize with me.
There is a difference but our respective positions aren't alien to each other. There are several TOLers that believe otherwise so I wanted to address this in a way that might become meaningful and potentially quotable for other's to go back to when they are in a debate between these two camps, to remember we needn't be at each other's throats.
Quote:
Originally Posted by themuzicman
Yes.
(as far as I'm concerned, debate wonderfully concluded)
Quote:
Originally Posted by themuzicman
The way we would come? Yes. Which is starkly different from how you claim it happens.
Knowing who would likely not? No. Too many free will decisions impact who is conceived and who is not, and who continues to pass on faith in God and who does not. From the moment of creation, you were not even certain to be born, much less whether you would believe or not.
We neednt' side-rail too far as this is specifically an OV vs (other) discussion. It just 'happens' to be Calvinism in this thread. I would simply say that such seems to me a denial of even OV, of God's omnicasual ability to me.
You can address it if you like, but I don't think in this thread it needs to be redressed, personally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by themuzicman
No. God's purpose in creating is that Adam and Eve and all their descendants would live as His people without sin, knowing that sin was possible and what that would require of Him. God is not willing that ANY should perish, but desires ALL to be His people. But in fulfilling His purpose, God gives to His creation the right to accept or reject Him.
You just said no, but you "explained" yes. If even God gave 'us' choice, He still chose to do that, knowing some would come and others would not.
Don't get mad because I want you on the same page, not the opposite:
such 'seems' a cosmic lottery where only those, for whatever random and unknown reason, even to God according to your view, would come to God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by themuzicman
And, while God may have the right to create a Calvinist world where He makes the choice, God also has the right to create a world where people freely choose to love God and be His people, as His purpose.
But if He did it your way, what random act of the will allows some to respond and other to not? Lottery? Or, if He somehow knows, you are right back into my camp, but simply moving the freewill of God and man goalpost. Again, to me, the difference is really over where we look to find our comfort and answers here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by themuzicman
And this (and only this) creates a circumstance where God really has a people for Himself who love and freely obey him.
I simply see it as moving the goalpost with all the same questions and similar theological needs, just looking for the answers under a different goalpost: man and/or God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by themuzicman
Sure, when you make vague statements such as this to blur the details, it appears that there is agreement, and on some levels, there are.
But, the fact remains that the Calvinist gospel is "You may have already won eternal life."
Yeah, but I see that exact same phrase toward both. Go back and look at the Remonstrances and then Tulip and you'll note 1) similar concerns to address 2) accusation of the same problems (like the lottery) between both and 3) a respective place of comfort and answers to dilemma that is the same drive yet differing goalposts as to where those answers lie.
The difference is really where the blame is to be found. To me, the blame is on man whether we can find it or not. The Calvinist is more "I may or may not be confused, but God knows what He is doing."
The (other) position (including your's) is: "I believe I know and so know God knows what He is doing."
And now: The reason I am a Calvinist (among other reasons) is that I became less convinced "I know" and simply had to return to "I trust God, regardless." If you pick up on this one fact, I think you will no longer be as anti-calvinist (holistically rather than case by case) as you might have been coming to this specific post. You will continue, even as I, to have case-by-case assessments as even you already do with Open Theists.
Where I might have binned all open theists before, I've come to a place where I see different kinds of open theists.
Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us,
to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, forever. Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21
1Co 13:11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. But when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. - Let's at least work at it?
*************************************
Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
I think we can continue best by understanding this statement:
Quote:
Yes, I agree. It is the inconsistency between what I know and what God knows.
OK, you don't know who is elect. But you do claim to know that there is a limited and fixed elect, and this cannot change. And You claim to know that this election is not based upon who an individual is or what they've done.
Correct?
I don't care how systematic your theology is, until you show me how biblical it is.
2 Tim 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
(I haven't a clue 
)
Linear Mode
