Exclusively Christian TheologyThis forum is exclusively for those who consider themselves Christian and consider the Bible to be the inspired word of God.
"You may have already won..."
What is the difference?
Us: "You have won. Nothing else required."
You: Only those who return their sweepstakes will 'win.'
See? We are both dealing with caricatures of cosmic lotteries and both are assessments. It doesn't make them right.
No. Everyone has won. All that is necessary is to claim one's prize through repentance and faith. Since everyone has won the prize, it is not a lottery.
Total Misanthropy. Uncertain salvation. Luck of the draw. Irresistible damnation. Persecution of the saints.
Slogan/motto:
In Christ, I am at peace with God (Rom 5:1), safe from God’s wrath (Rom 5:9), freed from all condemnation (Rom 8:1), and complete in Him (Colossians 2:9-10). Are you? If not, why not?
Reputation:
May 26th, 2012, 06:24 PM
The central error of Calvinism is that it is idolatry, for at its core is a god who can and does lie. Every other error of Calvinism - and they are legion - flows from that blasphemy.
"It is still difficult to gain release from the process of reading the Scriptures with a predetermined background of inherited Greek philosophy, medieval dogma, and youthful indoctrination."
But I thought you had only a few posts ago agreed that questioning the doctrine of hidden election did not (or did not necessarily) amount to a questioning of God. Here is the exchange:
Okay, let's go back a step. By 'doctrine of election' are you talking about it as a 1) Pauline concept and then "and/or" 2)as it relates to Calvinism?
Paul talks about election so we have to assume it to whatever degree. If you are simply judging it (Calvinism from #2▲) from your perspective, then that is you judging our doctrine and fine.
If however you are asking me to weigh in, then I can't because the two above are one and the same. I recognize that it may not be that way for you.
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..."
The central error of Calvinism is that it is idolatry, for at its core is a god who can and does lie. Every other error of Calvinism - and they are legion - flows from that blasphemy.
▲He has me on ignore because I think him incurably hostile as to the separation of the gospel between us. I see him as more violent and ignorant than any other TOLer against many TOLers and their positions.
For instance, if you aren't MAD or hyperdispensational, he doesn't believe you or I are saved either, so take him with a truck load of grains of salt.
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..."
No. Everyone has won. All that is necessary is to claim one's prize through repentance and faith. Since everyone has won the prize, it is not a lottery.
We disagree here of course. I don't believe, for instance, that Pharoah won. Or Jezebel. Or the prophets of Baal. Or...
So, I still see it as I do. Note that I've never accused over it. I believe the Remonstrance and TULIP must be alternately discussed to appreciate the context. Both were concerned with this cosmic lottery problem and pointed to it in the other's stance. For them, it was the side that seemed best to appease these. I have no problem with one assessing one not right for them.
Bottom line: Do I think you wrong? Well, no, not necessarily. I think we are where God has led us to our understanding as we wrestle over His righteous sovereignty. Yes, I esteem the Calvinist position and sure I would state as such. I would offer it up but twist no arm in the offering.
It is unfortunate to me that in discussion where two or more theology positions are offered, that we would go beyond offerings toward hostile defense. It takes a long time to get back to square one or two to be able to proceed again. My goal is simply to offer perspective from this side of the fence. Oddly enough, it isn't "the grass is greener over the fence" but "greener on my side" respectively. To me, even if your grass isn't as good (whatever my estimational worth) you are still getting a good diet.
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..."
The central error of Calvinism is that it is idolatry, for at its core is a god who can and does lie. Every other error of Calvinism - and they are legion - flows from that blasphemy.
I am anti-Calvinist, but this objection makes no sense and is not credible.
Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)
They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")
I never said anything about returning their sweepstakes. You're inserting that because the characterization without that is accurate.
That is how the original Arminian/Calvinist debate went too (will have to look it up again). For me, I don't forsee ending this debate, but rather further understanding it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by themuzicman
And, TBH, for the Calvinist, they don't know whether they've won or not until they die anyway.
I think for all. We can't judge another but can have personal assurance. I even think we can have 'reasonable' assurance of others we personally know. I am fair to certain my mother-in-law is with Jesus.
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..."
Okay, let's go back a step. By 'doctrine of election' are you talking about it as a 1) Pauline concept and then "and/or" 2)as it relates to Calvinism?
Paul talks about election so we have to assume it to whatever degree. If you are simply judging it (Calvinism from #2▲) from your perspective, then that is you judging our doctrine and fine.
If however you are asking me to weigh in, then I can't because the two above are one and the same. I recognize that it may not be that way for you.
In Him
Well, in that case let's go back to exegesis. That was why themuzicman started the thread in the first place. The problem for you then was that exegesis does not support you. Your only means of survival was to read in to the text from elsewhere.
Of course I am talking about the Calvinistic doctrines. There is the doctrine of election, namely that each person is individually predestined to salvation (or not) from eternity and there is the doctrine of the hiddenness of that election. Neither doctrine is in the Bible. Because I questioned these doctrines, Nang accused me of questioning God and I pleaded that questioning them doesn't mean that I am not trusting in God. You agreed.
But let's go back to exegesis. You post those texts you think prove the election (assuming it exists) is hidden and that we are not allowed to understand it and I and/or or themuzicman will argue on that basis.
Alternatively, just say that your Calvinistic doctrines are sufficient intellectually for you and that if it could be shown that they are exegetically flawed would not be important to you because you do not seek that level of intellectual engagement.
Total Misanthropy. Uncertain salvation. Luck of the draw. Irresistible damnation. Persecution of the saints.
Last edited by Desert Reign; May 27th, 2012 at 12:27 PM.
We disagree here of course. I don't believe, for instance, that Pharoah won.
If you look a few posts up, I already commented on the issue of Pharaoh in relation to Romans 9.
Quote:
So, I still see it as I do. Note that I've never accused over it. I believe the Remonstrance and TULIP must be alternately discussed to appreciate the context. Both were concerned with this cosmic lottery problem and pointed to it in the other's stance. For them, it was the side that seemed best to appease these. I have no problem with one assessing one not right for them.
I appreciate that you were not accusatory as many Calvinists have been. However, my thinking on the subject was arrived at independently and I don't see what the remonstrants have to do with it. The fact that there have been so many Calvinists in my experience who have been accusatory over the issue of the hiddenness doctrine and other doctrines shows that most of them do not have a grasp of the issues and have accepted them uncritically. Even in your own case, it has taken a good many hits of the keyboard to even convince you that the issue exists. The idea of hiddenness and other doctrines that are closed to discussion in various theological systems have all the hallmarks of indoctrination. As you say, that doesn't per se make them wrong doctrines and it doesn't make adherents necessarily less Christian, however, surely, if it is true that these teaching have to rely on indoctrination for their propagation, then prima facie one should think of them as in at least some respects harmful.
Total Misanthropy. Uncertain salvation. Luck of the draw. Irresistible damnation. Persecution of the saints.
Well, in that case let's go back to exegesis. That was why themuzicman started the thread in the first place. The problem for you then was that exegesis does not support you. Your only means of survival was to read in to the text from elsewhere.
And we exegetically disagree, as I am more than sure you are aware. In fact, Ask Mr. Religion posted a Romans 9 study on here just a little over last week from John Piper.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desert Reign
Of course I am talking about the Calvinistic doctrines. There is the doctrine of election, namely that each person is individually predestined to salvation (or not) from eternity and there is the doctrine of the hiddenness of that election. Neither doctrine is in the Bible. Because I questioned these doctrines, Nang accused me of questioning God and I pleaded that questioning them doesn't mean that I am not trusting in God. You agreed.
Yes. Disagree with you - Yes. See that as questioning God? Yes, but not in an accusatory fashion. I see that it questions God but not without reverence and not necessarily from your perspective at all. It is just 'our' assessment that you might be seen to be questioning God. Hey, I was there, I remember doing the same. For me, my questioning was never accusatory. Sometimes, unfortunately, in this debate, things get heated and accusatory. I try really hard to steer clear. - In a nutshell, I believe the Calvinist position the better. I do NOT see any other as unviable, unreasonable, or even necessarily inferior but for my personal scripture understanding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desert Reign
But let's go back to exegesis. You post those texts you think prove the election (assuming it exists) is hidden and that we are not allowed to understand it and I and/or or themuzicman will argue on that basis.
Of course, I will probably just smile and think "no he doesn't know either."
Not as a slam, mind you, but as seeing the same in your own position as well. Even for the Open Theist. Though it applies differently, between all of us is this perception (alternatively held between all): 1) Cosmic lottery that only God knows as different 2) Cosmic lottery that man and God are some part of but no idea when each knows what 3) Cosmic lottery where something in man determines a winner.
I don't believe any of these right. They are all caricatures of reality and simply what we see on the surface level of evaluating one another's views, as well as, I think, a blindspot of each of our own which leads to frustration in threads like this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desert Reign
Alternatively, just say that your Calvinistic doctrines are sufficient intellectually for you and that if it could be shown that they are exegetically flawed would not be important to you because you do not seek that level of intellectual engagement.
No, not at all. As with Piper, I see this from an exegetical standpoint as well. Just because you seem to believe you know, from exegesis or whatever, doesn't necessitate that. In fact, personally, I see Calvinist exegesis of much of Romans as most accurate. This disagreement then, wouldn't allow for a 'superior' exegesis imo.
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..."
Even in your own case, it has taken a good many hits of the keyboard to even convince you that the issue exists.
I understand you believe and feel that way. While I have not discussed Calvinism as much with you, I have with others. I can however, appreciate any frustration. Most of the time I see more frustration than anything in threads concerning Calvinism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desert Reign
The idea of hiddenness and other doctrines that are closed to discussion in various theological systems have all the hallmarks of indoctrination.
On this particular, I disagree with you, as I'd hope you'd understand, because I have not found this true in every theological avenue. I don't know about you, but I have yet a few mysteries left to me. For me, there would be no point in reading my scriptures any longer if this were not the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desert Reign
As you say, that doesn't per se make them wrong doctrines and it doesn't make adherents necessarily less Christian, however, surely, if it is true that these teaching have to rely on indoctrination for their propagation, then prima facie one should think of them as in at least some respects harmful.
All theological positions potentially carry this. Being OV, you should know this better even to rest of us, I'd venture.
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..."
The book by John Piper is effectively a "how to assume Calvinism in ROmans 9:1-23". There is some good exegetical work in there, but he assumes several Calvinist doctrines in order to prove them.
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.
The book by John Piper is effectively a "how to assume Calvinism in ROmans 9:1-23". There is some good exegetical work in there, but he assumes several Calvinist doctrines in order to prove them.
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..."
Slogan/motto:
". . Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." Matthew 4:4
Reputation:
May 28th, 2012, 12:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by themuzicman
The book by John Piper is effectively a "how to assume Calvinism in ROmans 9:1-23". There is some good exegetical work in there, but he assumes several Calvinist doctrines in order to prove them.
I have been reading Piper along with you, and see presupposition, rather than "assumptions."
Are there any specifics you can point out that you would care to discuss?
Nang
"The immutable God never learned anything and never changed his mind. He knew everything from eternity."
"Experience teaches us nothing; revelation teaches all we need to know."
“ Those who proclaim that the sovereignty of God determines what justice is, (do so) by observing what God actually does. Whatever God does is just.”
Interesting that you believe so...
"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..."
Linear Mode
