BlabberBoard - Archives
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.


-----------------------------------------------------
 
HomeGalleryLatest imagesRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Calvinism

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
AuthorMessage
lord voldemort

lord voldemort

Number of posts : 550
Age : 45
Location : Toccoa, GA
Registration date : 2009-11-07
Points : 5907

Calvinism - Page 3 Vide
PostSubject: Re: Calvinism   Calvinism - Page 3 Icon_minitime1Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:46 pm

BryneVampyr wrote:
That isn't true, though. They aren't arguing over the essentials of the faith. Both sides agree that they are saved by Grace through faith in Christ. Calvinists would say that even if an arminian doesn't agree with Calvinist theology, they can still be saved if God predestined them to faith...they can still have true faith in Christ. And arminian would say that even though a Calvinist might deny free will and such, they can still genuinely accept Christ as Lord and Savior and therefore be saved.

Like I said...I think they are both wrong...but I don't think either are damned because they are wrong...nor do I think Catholics are damned because they are wrong about certain things.

I am not saying they are damned for believing it. Like you, I think they are both dead wrong.

But when one holds one view, either Calvin or Arminius' view, then they exclude the other.

That exclusion is where the "damnation" arises from either point. As I stated, both can not be right at the same time, that means one is wrong and one is right, if assuming one is indeed correct.

The problem lies in the power in Christ, one is that Christ will keep you saved no matter what, on the hyper side. The other side states that you can lose your salvation at a drop of a dime. Both of these views can not be correct, even remotely. Even at their closest points, both can not be right. So either one is saved, if Christ has the power to keep you or you are lost because Christ has rejected you or worse, you were not Good enough because you dropped that dime a few days ago.

Both sides state the other is wrong on salvation.
Back to top Go down
olias

olias

Number of posts : 2399
Age : 33
Location : USA
Registration date : 2009-07-10
Points : 8103

Calvinism - Page 3 Vide
PostSubject: Re: Calvinism   Calvinism - Page 3 Icon_minitime1Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:50 pm

Yeah, I was about to point that out.

That they weren't damned for believing that. Lord V. was saying that THEY believe that.
Back to top Go down
BryneVampyr

BryneVampyr

Number of posts : 250
Age : 57
Location : Utah
Registration date : 2009-07-26
Points : 5633

Calvinism - Page 3 Vide
PostSubject: Re: Calvinism   Calvinism - Page 3 Icon_minitime1Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:52 pm

Yes...they do...but that doesn't mean that either side thinks that the other side doesn't possess salvation...just because they think they are wrong about salvation. That is my point.

Holding either position doesn't mean that you think the other side is damned.
Back to top Go down
The Last Firstborn

The Last Firstborn

Number of posts : 2576
Age : 31
Registration date : 2009-04-07
Points : 8735

Calvinism - Page 3 Vide
PostSubject: Re: Calvinism   Calvinism - Page 3 Icon_minitime1Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:55 pm

But according to Calvinism, aren't only Calvinists "elected"?
Back to top Go down
lord voldemort

lord voldemort

Number of posts : 550
Age : 45
Location : Toccoa, GA
Registration date : 2009-11-07
Points : 5907

Calvinism - Page 3 Vide
PostSubject: Re: Calvinism   Calvinism - Page 3 Icon_minitime1Wed Feb 24, 2010 11:59 pm

BryneVampyr wrote:
Yes...they do...but that doesn't mean that either side thinks that the other side doesn't possess salvation...just because they think they are wrong about salvation. That is my point.

Holding either position doesn't mean that you think the other side is damned.

I am not sure if you are understanding what I am saying.

The point is both contradict each other, if ONE IS CORRECT, the OTHER IS WRONG. Thus, if Christ says that all are saved who come under Christ is correct, than the one who states that you can lose your salvation by the same Christ, is WRONG. They are condemned. The logic is true, if reversed.

Both can not be true AT THE SAME TIME. Thus, if Christ is true in one, he is wrong in the other. Thus, Christ of one will not save the other, because his stance are 180 from each other.
Back to top Go down
lord voldemort

lord voldemort

Number of posts : 550
Age : 45
Location : Toccoa, GA
Registration date : 2009-11-07
Points : 5907

Calvinism - Page 3 Vide
PostSubject: Re: Calvinism   Calvinism - Page 3 Icon_minitime1Thu Feb 25, 2010 12:13 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoQ860GEIp0&feature=channel

This fits a bit, what i am talking about, when comparing CandA.
Back to top Go down
BryneVampyr

BryneVampyr

Number of posts : 250
Age : 57
Location : Utah
Registration date : 2009-07-26
Points : 5633

Calvinism - Page 3 Vide
PostSubject: Re: Calvinism   Calvinism - Page 3 Icon_minitime1Thu Feb 25, 2010 12:30 am

lord voldemort wrote:
BryneVampyr wrote:
Yes...they do...but that doesn't mean that either side thinks that the other side doesn't possess salvation...just because they think they are wrong about salvation. That is my point.

Holding either position doesn't mean that you think the other side is damned.

I am not sure if you are understanding what I am saying.

The point is both contradict each other, if ONE IS CORRECT, the OTHER IS WRONG. Thus, if Christ says that all are saved who come under Christ is correct, than the one who states that you can lose your salvation by the same Christ, is WRONG. They are condemned. The logic is true, if reversed.

Both can not be true AT THE SAME TIME. Thus, if Christ is true in one, he is wrong in the other. Thus, Christ of one will not save the other, because his stance are 180 from each other.


I understand what you are saying...but I am saying that you are wrong about what you are saying.

If, for example, I believe that one cannot lose one's salvation, that doesn't mean that I must also believe that someone who believes that one can lose one's salvation cannot be saved.

Both sides affirm that we are saved by grace through faith in Christ...this is the essential doctrine...and both sides hold to this doctrine. There is no reason that one side being right must mean that the other side can't be saved.


Quote :
But according to Calvinism, aren't only Calvinists "elected"?

There may be some that do, but I have never met a Calvinist who taught this. I went to a Calvinist high school. Most of the teachers were Calvinist, but not all of them were, and only about half the students were Calvinists. Chapel speakers came from various denominations from the community. No one even hinted that the non-calvinists weren't among the elect.
Back to top Go down
eternalmystery

eternalmystery

Number of posts : 730
Age : 36
Location : Franklinton, Louisiana, USA
Registration date : 2008-11-03
Points : 6168

Calvinism - Page 3 Vide
PostSubject: Re: Calvinism   Calvinism - Page 3 Icon_minitime1Thu Feb 25, 2010 12:40 am

LastFirstborn wrote:
But according to Calvinism, aren't only Calvinists "elected"?

That I can answer. It is a solid, resounding "No".

And no, we don't think that Arminians are "hellbound". That's just purely ridiculous. The other night I went to a gig at an Assemblies of God church, and gave money to their missionary fund. Why? Because regardless of whether they hold to Calvinism or Arminianism, the Gospel is still being spread. Calvinism/Arminianism, while they are interesting to discuss, are not essentials. They aren't things that must be believed or held to for someone to be truly Christian.
Back to top Go down
http://www.eternalmystery.co.nr
BryneVampyr

BryneVampyr

Number of posts : 250
Age : 57
Location : Utah
Registration date : 2009-07-26
Points : 5633

Calvinism - Page 3 Vide
PostSubject: Re: Calvinism   Calvinism - Page 3 Icon_minitime1Thu Feb 25, 2010 12:52 am

lord voldemort wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoQ860GEIp0&feature=channel

This fits a bit, what i am talking about, when comparing CandA.

That video seems to be saying the same thing that I am saying. The Calvinist, Charles Simeon, fully accepted Wesley as a Christian, and stated that those who didn't believe in the same way that Calvinists do could still be pleasing to God.

I also agree that a theology or a bible translation or a denomination or even the Bible itself can be made into an idol.
Back to top Go down
lord voldemort

lord voldemort

Number of posts : 550
Age : 45
Location : Toccoa, GA
Registration date : 2009-11-07
Points : 5907

Calvinism - Page 3 Vide
PostSubject: Re: Calvinism   Calvinism - Page 3 Icon_minitime1Thu Feb 25, 2010 12:53 am

BryneVampyr wrote:
lord voldemort wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoQ860GEIp0&feature=channel

This fits a bit, what i am talking about, when comparing CandA.

That video seems to be saying the same thing that I am saying. The Calvinist, Charles Simeon, fully accepted Wesley as a Christian, and stated that those who didn't believe in the same way that Calvinists do could still be pleasing to God.

I also agree that a theology or a bible translation or a denomination or even the Bible itself can be made into an idol.

I think we are saying the same thing in two very different ways.
Back to top Go down
CorpulentCripple

avatar

Number of posts : 421
Age : 34
Registration date : 2009-01-17
Points : 5964

Calvinism - Page 3 Vide
PostSubject: Re: Calvinism   Calvinism - Page 3 Icon_minitime1Thu Feb 25, 2010 1:30 am

LastFirstborn wrote:
But according to Calvinism, aren't only Calvinists "elected"?

absolutely not.

we may say "calvinist's know more about church history and exegesis than arminians,...but doesnt mean a person isnt "elected" as an arminian and stayed an arminian till death

that being said i dont see how you can say both cant be right but both can be wrong...arminianism is nothing but the opposite of calvinism, (In regards to the 5 points) both free will and predestination cant be wrong, nor can both be right. at the same time
Back to top Go down
BryneVampyr

BryneVampyr

Number of posts : 250
Age : 57
Location : Utah
Registration date : 2009-07-26
Points : 5633

Calvinism - Page 3 Vide
PostSubject: Re: Calvinism   Calvinism - Page 3 Icon_minitime1Thu Feb 25, 2010 1:50 am

Well, as a Lutheran, I am neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian. I think both are wrong. Lutheran teachings don't agree with either. So, yeah...both are wrong.

Lutherans do not accept the Calvinist view of predestination, we also don't believe in free will...we don't accept irresistible Grace, and we don't think one chooses to accept Christ...we basically disagree with both sides on several issues.
Back to top Go down
therockismighty

therockismighty

Number of posts : 923
Age : 41
Location : Aussieland
Registration date : 2009-06-14
Points : 6447

Calvinism - Page 3 Vide
PostSubject: Re: Calvinism   Calvinism - Page 3 Icon_minitime1Thu Feb 25, 2010 2:34 am

So lots of rules and hoo haa....


Basic Gospel pawns all imho.

All this stuff gets in the way of Christs teachings and what we are here for.
Back to top Go down
Death over Life

Death over Life

Number of posts : 632
Age : 34
Location : The Inner Sanctum known as my Insanity and Damnation
Registration date : 2008-11-02
Points : 6276

Calvinism - Page 3 Vide
PostSubject: Re: Calvinism   Calvinism - Page 3 Icon_minitime1Thu Feb 25, 2010 5:45 am

[quote="againsttheantichrist"] Ignorance to the Law is no excuse for breaking it. Even if we've NEVER heard the Gospel, we are still accountable to Him for what we have done.

And your point is? I never argued against that point for anything.

againsttheantichrist wrote:

It also sounds like you're trying to justify Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses as saved men, women, and children in Christ. As they fall in the category below that you described.

How you got Mormonism and Jehovah’s Witnesses into this makes me want to call the kettle black. But anyways, from your views, some of them are and some of them are not, because God elected the saved. Just because they are currently what they believe means jack. Maybe go back to my Paul/Judas Iscariot post for examples? Also, if you want to throw them in, how about I throw in Calvinism, Baptist, Lutheran, Catholic, Pentacostal, Orthodox, 7th day advenist, House of Yahweh, Messianic Judaism, Reformed, Assemblies of God, Methodist, Non-denomination, etc. Now I really get what Voldemort is saying. Since you brought those 2 in, tell me, out of all these and the ones I never mentioned, which one has the correct view? Who has the True understanding of God? You can’t tell me they are not all flawed and they are not all perfect, so that kind of rules out your point. If not, enlighten instead of judge.

againsttheantichrist wrote:

That is a hair width from heresy, because it sounds like you're implying that the written word of God, which is everything we need to know about Him, is not enough.

Research the Scriptures, and you will see they were written by Man, not God. However, God did inspire them. With that being said however, how do you know the Bible is complete? When I researched on how the Bible came to be, I actually discovered that there were many books to go through, but alas, 1 man (who was Catholic) chose which books to be the Bible and which books were to be burned. So, there may be many Truths about God that we may never know about because of 1 man choosing which books are cannon and which books are heresy. Let us take the Apostles for example. 12-13 men who were closest to Christ, and due to what they wrote, because someone didn’t like what was said, only 4 were canonized. That is about 1/3 of the Apostles valid, 2/3 incorrect. Now, this would make a great thread on the Books and canonocity, but I hope you see where I’m going with this. Apocrypha as well shows what I’m speaking of. I’m sorry, but I don’t believe God just outright created 66 Books and dropped it to us on a silver platter. There are many more books and etc. that we may never know, because they were burned or hidden away.

againsttheantichrist wrote:

If I am the inventor of a particular kind of vehicle, do I not have the right to use it as I see fit, up to and including the destruction of said vehicle?

Straw man, especially since vehicles don’t have souls and aren’t living. Try using your child as the example next time, since you did co-create the child. (I’m not saying you are a Daddy, but I really hope you see the contradiction in what you said. I am not just a mere item, I am a living, breathing, soul. Thank you for thinking of us as mere items.)

againsttheantichrist wrote:

God is our creator, and He can use us as He sees fit. He does not bend to the laws of the world, only to His law and His promises. And nothing in that law and those promises says He ever has to do anything for you. He is perfectly just in standing by and letting you destroy yourself in your sin.

At least I have an actual heart for the non-living things I create. Just imagine how much more compassion I would have on a living creation that would come from me. I may never know since I’ve never had a wife or will ever get one.

Even with my mess ups, I don’t see them as just something to crumble up and throw away, I change them to suit my wants and needs for them. Why can’t God do the same? And if you bring up the Law, actually, maybe not the law, but Prophecies did state that He had to save us with a Messiah. What you are saying here is actually wrong, because if He doesn’t need to fulfill His promises, then that makes God a liar and a hypocrite. I’ll even go one further.

Why is it you constantly tell me God hates His enemies, then I turn around and I read so much we are supposed to love our enemies? Okay, so God commands us to do a command that apparently He can not even do. Why does God condemn us for not loving our enemies when He very well does NOT love His own enemis? Once again, hypocritical God there.

againsttheantichrist wrote:

Man owes God everything, He owes us nothing. To say He is in debt to us is to say that what He has done for man is worthless.

So, Man owes God everything for throwing them into the Lake of Fire to be burned, and eternally separate from His grace and love? I’m starting to see where Ihsahn from Emperor claimed Christianity is a Sado-Masochist faith. Garm from Ulver claimed that as well. Now it is making sense from their perspective.

againsttheantichrist wrote:

You keep saying you don't have the choice. When you are the creation of the creator, who said you ever had a choice?

Something to research on. Then again, if God chooses certain people and condemns the rest to the Lake of Fire, then God is an evil tyrant and Satan is the True Messiah.

Also, I thank you LastFirstborn, Olias, and Jim for the kind words! When I am really looking at what I’ve just experienced and what is being said here, I think I’m now starting to see the picture of why God put me in that particular void. Maybe there was a reason for it all afterall.

I’m sorry Atac, but I won’t lie here. Much of what you have spoken of is what did cause me to back off and even Apostasied Christianity. While looking at it all, I finally see why. You truly do paint God as evil and destructive. You do have pride in what you believe and you do become the Satan that you condemn. Because God elected you, you constantly judge instead of selflessly humbling yourself with compassion to answering a question to someone who truly wishes to know. I felt I was apostasieing, when I now see that the true apostasy is the ones you least expect.

therockismighty wrote:
So lots of rules and hoo haa....


Basic Gospel pawns all imho.

All this stuff gets in the way of Christs teachings and what we are here for.

In my eyes, this is actually denouncing the importance of such discussions. Once again, if we have differing views of Christ and what views Christ brought forth, then which Christ is correct and which Christ is the deceiver? A Truth that must be stated, is the essentials lie within the non-essentials. Yes, we all agree on the essentials, but it is the non-essentials that truly reveal just what kind of God/Christ we do worship. I’m sorry, but to denounce the importance of this just for us all to go with the general idea, then maybe the cults and false doctrines out there are worshipping the same Jesus afterall. (Like Atac was trying to point with the Jehova’s Witness and Mormons). Let us face it, when we say God predestines vs. God giving us free will to choose, we really aren’t worshipping the same God. Why we aren’t is because we are worshipping the God WE view as His’ nature is. When I see Broc saying: Painting God into our own image, I can’t help but agree that Christianity has officially done this and you see why we are seeing the Death of Christianity.
Back to top Go down
wizardovmetal

wizardovmetal

Number of posts : 1056
Age : 32
Location : COLD
Registration date : 2009-08-17
Points : 6617

Calvinism - Page 3 Vide
PostSubject: Re: Calvinism   Calvinism - Page 3 Icon_minitime1Thu Feb 25, 2010 6:58 am

about the books of the bible, beleive it or not, i have done alot of research and reading on the "lost books" of the bible or the ones taken out of it. they aren't as important as you think, alot of it is just historical accounts and it explains a bit more about who satan is and his fall. the book of enoch explains why god had to send the flood in the first place and the fall of several of the angels such as azazel.
Back to top Go down
http://www.myspace.com/jbmetalhed
Shamax

Shamax

Number of posts : 701
Age : 46
Location : Charleston, WV
Registration date : 2008-11-09
Points : 6354

Calvinism - Page 3 Vide
PostSubject: Re: Calvinism   Calvinism - Page 3 Icon_minitime1Thu Feb 25, 2010 8:21 am

LastFirstborn wrote:
But according to Calvinism, aren't only Calvinists "elected"?

Actually, no. No one can easily point a finger and say "ahh, that person's elect, that other one isn't". That's why whenever someone says that Calvinists don't evangelize because they believe they only need to preach to the elect, I shake my head knowing that the person doesn't understand the position they're ridiculing. We don't know who the "elect" are, God alone does. Therefore, it's our job to take the gospel into all the world and proclaim it, because the proclaimed word of God is what the Spirit uses to bring conviction to a heart and to manifest repentance within a person.

As for only "Calvinists" being elected, a person can be one of God's "elect" and never have even heard of a theological the term or may not be able to describe in detail what they know about the grace of God, yet there is genuine fruit of repentance in their life. They know they're a sinner whose only hope of salvation is a sure one promised by Christ, purchased through his blood.

I'm still going through all the replies since my post last night, but this one in particular just jumped out at me.
Back to top Go down
http://www.myspace.com/Shamax
graybeardheadbanger

avatar

Number of posts : 167
Age : 57
Registration date : 2009-07-26
Points : 5533

Calvinism - Page 3 Vide
PostSubject: Re: Calvinism   Calvinism - Page 3 Icon_minitime1Thu Feb 25, 2010 11:22 am

Let me throw my Catholic hat in the ring (as someone who grew up Arminian).

Againsttheantichrist stated that salvation implies we are being saved from something, i.e. wrath of God. This reflects a limited understanding, IMO. I think the Eastern Orthodox approach is most helpful here--salv-ation actually does not imply "saved" as much as "healed," as "salve" is what we put on a wound, etc. In our fallen condition, we are wounded in our ability to properly respond to God's love. This IS a state of damnation because only in knowing the love of God can we be saved. It seems to me, however, that the Calvinist problem (though I understood rooted in Stoicisim, which tends toward determinism--Calvins first work, I've read, was actually on Stoic philosophy) is that, while being in certain senses deterministic, is also problematically voluntaristic--that is, it conceives of a god who is so sovereign (supposedly) that absolutey nothing can limit His will--thus, there is no standard beyond Him which dictates that it would be "unjust" to predestine some to saving grace, and not others. They hold that to say that God should not do that undemrines God's sovereignty, and in fact, since God owes none of us anything, then really there would be nothing wrong with us all being condemned--so the fact that He is selectively merciful should be no skin off the nose of those to whom He doesn't predestine this grace.


This has an element of truth, but much error. This kind of voluntarism in God is only partly correct. The essence of God is NOT "freedom" (voluntarism) or "sovereignty," but it is LOVE.
The Scripture is very clear on this. This love is ultimately rooted in trhe Trinity as a community of divine persons, one of whom also entered directly into the human community. The Orthodox also provide help from the problems of Calvinism in understanding the value of emphasizing the threeness--the interpersonal love--of God as much as His "oneness," which seems to be the focus of thos those who emphasize His "power." But the fact is, God's power IS the love of the three persons. Love is power, something we also see time and again in the life of Christ. So what's the point? If God is love, and we are truly made in His image, then we must all be capable of entering nto this love--yet this capability is totally dependent upon his gift of grace, BEGINNING IN THE FACT THAT OUR CREATION ITSELF WAS A GIFT! To suggest that some have been predestined for this love and others are not essentially denies, it seems to me, that all of us were created in the image of the Triune God.

In the end, Calvinism actually undermines the sovereignty of God. In order to make everything due to the "power" of God, and thus deny all power to us (as though God's power is subject to the CREATED LAWS such as the laws of of conservation of energy, etc.) is to basically hold that God cannot have the power to create things that are truly in His image--that is, which truly have the power to love. Only some are in God's image-those predestined toward salvaiton--and even they are not truly in His image because their reception of this grace is not the result of free love.

I suspect that in the end, for all its implied voluntarism emphasizing God's freedom and sovereignty, the determinsitic side of Calvinism points to a problem with the Trinity itself. The persons of the Trinity are not "determined" to love one another, as though they are they somehow complelled (presumably by the Father). If the love of the Trinity is truly free, then love must be free, and for uis to truly be in the image of the freely-loving Triune God, we must have the ability to freely enter into this love (though once again, only by the initiative--but not the determining intiative--of God). God';s initiative cannot be determining, because this would logically cancel out its truly bieng the product of free love.

Some may say, "This sounds great, but where is it in Scripture?" Once again, one can read Scriptures in a way which support this, or in a way which support Calvinism. How one reads certain Scriptures in terms of others is typically guided by which interpretive framework one goes into the process with, whether or not they are cognizant of having this framework of interpretation.

On the view I am describing, when we speak of God's wrath, we should take this as a voluntaristic "choice" by God of how to treat certain people. In fact, for Calvin, God's sovereignty is such that they only reasons sin warrants death is because He willed it. It seems to me that the Calvinist view of sovereignty is such that God is not beholden even to rules of consistency, so God could have willed that certaina cts not be sin, or not warrant death, or whatever. But since God's will is seens as being absolutely sovereign--in fact, as sovereignty more than love is seen as being the essence odf God!--then God cannot and will not violate His own willed standards. Hence,. the only way that He can save those who have done the acts that He was willed warrant death is if He also wills in a deterministic way that these violations which He was willed warrant death He also wills can be overriden by an equally radically free choice to be overlooked for the sake of those Son for a predestined few. In this respect, there is SOME notion of the Triune love--the Father's love of the Son is such that He can allow the Son's death to be determine the salvation of those whose actions would otherwise have been willed by by God to warrant death. In this sense, His love of His son, it seems, can trump the sovereignty of His wil regarding the penalty of sin. This is a somewhat redeeming feature of Calvinism, BUT still full of distortions.

Instead ot the Calvinist view described above, I would suggest the 'wrath" of God is NOT the reuslt of His voluntaristic will. Rather, it is a consequence of God's very own nature. Becuase God is perfect love, this love simply is intolerable to those who do not wish to be defined by this love. Much as in the OT it says no one can look upon the face of God and not die (though later it suggests Moses did just that!), this is not because God "wills" that looking upon His face equals death. Rather, God's face is absolutely glory--it is not wrathful in any way--BUT for us as imperfect creatures, we cannot handle this love all at once, directly. Even in everyday life, we have had experience of this. I have witnessed a few precious times when someone confronted another with pure, unconditional love where it was not expected. Even though it moved the person who was loved, it also unnerved them--there is an immediate discomfort, a sense that "I don't deserve this." It seemed 'weird" that someone loved them. And yet, it had the power to be incredibly transforming. But for one who does not want sucdh love, this love is annoying, something to be scoffed at, and the person hwo offers it ridiculted. The continued presence of this love is so bothersome--because it is a reminder of what that other person has chosen not to be, even while knowing that this is what he or she should desire to be--that the annoyance and ridicule turns to outright hate. It can be very ugly. This love basically is viewed b y such a person as painful, and as a kind of "wrath." On this way of looking at it, God hardended Pharaoh's heart not because He willed that Pharaoh be hardencded, butbecause Pharaoh himself was hard, so that the more God tried to reach to Him, the more Pharaoh reacted harshly and became increasingly hardened.

Looked at this way, of course one who rejects life-giving love experience such love as a kind of "will for destruction." If a person shuts this love out, they cut off the source of life--indeed,cv the very gifting love which brought them into existence in the first place!---and they essentially in doing so will their own destruction. Some "vessels" are formed for "wrath" and "destruction" not because God made it impossible through an arbitrary caveat of His will to condemn such people, but because God made us in His image so that if we reject His love, the natural consequence of this is that we choose to be formed unable to continue to receive love--and the consequence of tis, by the very nature ofour being--is that we will received destruction, and experience the lving presence of God as wrath.

I'll tie this in with another discussion here a bit later, but I'll leave ti here for now.

graybeardheadbanger
Back to top Go down
graybeardheadbanger

avatar

Number of posts : 167
Age : 57
Registration date : 2009-07-26
Points : 5533

Calvinism - Page 3 Vide
PostSubject: Re: Calvinism   Calvinism - Page 3 Icon_minitime1Thu Feb 25, 2010 11:49 am

lord voldemort wrote:
BryneVampyr wrote:
Yes...they do...but that doesn't mean that either side thinks that the other side doesn't possess salvation...just because they think they are wrong about salvation. That is my point.

Holding either position doesn't mean that you think the other side is damned.

I am not sure if you are understanding what I am saying.

The point is both contradict each other, if ONE IS CORRECT, the OTHER IS WRONG. Thus, if Christ says that all are saved who come under Christ is correct, than the one who states that you can lose your salvation by the same Christ, is WRONG. They are condemned. The logic is true, if reversed.

Both can not be true AT THE SAME TIME. Thus, if Christ is true in one, he is wrong in the other. Thus, Christ of one will not save the other, because his stance are 180 from each other.

Okay, this is the other post I wanted to touch on (htough I know Lord V and others have already followed up some). I agree that Lord V's position is consistent with how some Calvinists take thing, even though Ih have yet to meet such a Calvinist who will admit the logic of their view (more in a moment). Another form of Calvinism (less Evangelical) can only get around it, but only by appealing to other problematic points in their position. Though Lord V's are consistent for an evangelically-oriented Calvinism, they are ultimately wrong for reasoins I note in my other recent long post, which I will develop a bit more here in relation to this point.

Okay, here goes. If the evangelically oriented Calvinist holds that only those who believe that salvation is ENTIRELY the work of God, with no contribution of their own whatsoever (so that even the willingness to accept saving faith is completely outside their control), then it seems to me, as Lord V suggests, that those who hold that our free decision to accept this grace, which is truly possible by us (even if necessarily supported, though not determined by, grace) cannot be saved. They simply do not hold Christ's grace to be entirely sufficient without any contribution from us, and thus,. they do not trust entirely and solely in the saving grace of God. Therefore, since as Calvinists they must hold that God has willed that only those who trust entirely on God alone will be saved, logically they MUST conclude that Arminians and the like cannot be saved. I know no evangelical Calvinist who will 'fess up to this, but I really do think it is the logic of their position.

Now, a less evangelical Calvinist COULD get around it as follows (but with major problems from an evangelical point of view). Since Calvinism holds to a voluntaristic notion of God's will (so it seems to me), then a Calvinist COULD hold that God could will it that some would be predestined for salvaiton, despite being predestined to not believe the right thing. HOWEVER, two HUGE problems arise from this: 1) it says that salvaiton is not necessarily a product of proper belief/faith (since one can both be predestined to not have the right faqith, and still be saved--so God's will even trumps sola fide), and 2) it seems to erase any abiluty for us to KNOW whether we are saved or not (since the rule that we can know we are sagved based on what we beleive has now been shot). PERHAPS they could weasle around this by saying that
God has sovereignly willed it that those who express proper belief can have asurance of their salvatio n(assurance being critical to evangelicals), BUT those who do not express proper faith COULD in theory still be predestined for salvaiton, despite this false belief. But in this caser, assurance would only be possible for some of the saved, and not for others. This also seems to be a huge problem.

Here's how all these problems can be avoided. Simply put, at the end of the day, one is not saved by what one assents to rationally (proper "belief"). "Faith" should not be construed so much as the mental assent to certain propositions, which strikes me as a modern obsession with epistemologcial certainity and the like, carried over into theology. "Faith" is more like living in a trustful state. In the end, the one who
is open to God's love, so that it is possible to be transformed by grace into true Christlikeness, will be saved. In effect, God will see us as akin to Christ, because we have allowed ourselves to be transformed in His likeness. We are not just "counted"as righteous--we actually become righteous, thorugh grace.
Now, certainly I would think that one who is consciously aware of what Christ did, and consciously assents to this, etc. is in a better place to understand why he or she should be open to such love, and thus be saved. BUT, it does not seem impossible to me (because I do not accpet a Calvinist "utter depravity" view) to say that one could live thier life with a sense of openness to a love greater than themselves without consciously having learned the Gospel, etc. One may ask, "why evangelize then?" The answer to this is simple--we evangelize because the point is not "save" someone by giving them proper informaiton, b ut rather, because those who are opened to such love (even potentially) would desire to know as much about the source of this love as possible. They would WANT to know about Christ, and what He did for them, and have a more direct opportunity to know how He lived, so that they can ask Him to help them imitate Him, etc. We do such persona disservice by not sharing hte Gospel not because we leave them in a state of certain damnation, but because we deprive them of an opportunity to know this love as well as possible (and a consequence of this COULD be salvaiton). It might be comparable to someone who is in a marriage who could live without knowing certain wonderful facts about their spouses' life, BUT they would still WANT to know them, because knowing these things helps them know their spouse, and grow in love, even more.

So, in the end, proper raitonal assent/beleif does not save. Openness to the love of Christ--whether consciouswly understood or not--does. But one who loves, or wants to love, would want to consciously understand this as much as possible. And THAT is why folks can be saved, whether they are Calvinist, Arminian, etc. (As a Catholic, I also SUSPECT that lack of explicit knowledge MIGHT make purgatorial purificaiton necessary-so this would be another reason to evangelize, to provide an opportunity to avoid purgatory0. Note that Christ Himself tells the Pharisees "He who blasphemes the Son can be forgiven, but He who blasphemes the Holy spirit cannot be forgiven ,in this life or tne next). We seem to be left the initimation that blasphemy of the Son is forgivable in hte next life--this suggests something like purgatory. Why? Because one could "reject" Christ as a propositonal belief because they really did not understand who He was. HOWEVER, if the Spirit is one of love, one who is open to love WOULD not have blasphemed Christ IF they had not been ignorant of who He truly was. Ignorance can be forgiven. But one who rejects the Spirit rejects love, and thus simply would not accept Christ, EVEN IF they truly understood who He was. In fact, the more they understood this, the more they would hate Him (much as the Devil does). One who understands that Christ is God will understand God as love better--but one who rejects love itself rejects the very essence of God, who is Triune Love--and thus rejects Christ who shows us the Love of God in hte most direct way.


Peace, and good to get back into these discussions Smile, graybeardheadbanger
Back to top Go down
CorpulentCripple

avatar

Number of posts : 421
Age : 34
Registration date : 2009-01-17
Points : 5964

Calvinism - Page 3 Vide
PostSubject: Re: Calvinism   Calvinism - Page 3 Icon_minitime1Thu Feb 25, 2010 11:58 am

graybeardheadbanger wrote:
Let me throw my Catholic hat in the ring (as someone who grew up Arminian).

Againsttheantichrist stated that salvation implies we are being saved from something, i.e. wrath of God. This reflects a limited understanding, IMO. I think the Eastern Orthodox approach is most helpful here--salv-ation actually does not imply "saved" as much as "healed," as "salve" is what we put on a wound, etc. In our fallen condition, we are wounded in our ability to properly respond to God's love. This IS a state of damnation because only in knowing the love of God can we be saved. It seems to me, however, that the Calvinist problem (though I understood rooted in Stoicisim, which tends toward determinism--Calvins first work, I've read, was actually on Stoic philosophy) is that, while being in certain senses deterministic, is also problematically voluntaristic--that is, it conceives of a god who is so sovereign (supposedly) that absolutey nothing can limit His will--thus, there is no standard beyond Him which dictates that it would be "unjust" to predestine some to saving grace, and not others. They hold that to say that God should not do that undemrines God's sovereignty, and in fact, since God owes none of us anything, then really there would be nothing wrong with us all being condemned--so the fact that He is selectively merciful should be no skin off the nose of those to whom He doesn't predestine this grace.

There are so many issues here, in this part i had to adress. first of all, where do you get us being wounded? that's not what the scriptures say whatsoever. we're DEAD in tresspasses and sins. a dead man cant respond to God's call to be saved. if the bible said we were spiritually wounded, im sure i'd be arminian in doctrine as well but it doesn't...

also, are you insinuating God's only partially sovereign? i've never heard a believer say this and its awfully close to blasphemy, though your wording could just be confusing. absolutely nothing CAN limit his will, that's absolute truth,
isaiah 14:27 For the LORD Almighty has purposed, and who can thwart him? His hand is stretched out, and who can turn it back? and lastly, the fact that he is "selectively merciful" isn't even aware to them,...they're oblivious. they HATE god.
Back to top Go down
graybeardheadbanger

avatar

Number of posts : 167
Age : 57
Registration date : 2009-07-26
Points : 5533

Calvinism - Page 3 Vide
PostSubject: Re: Calvinism   Calvinism - Page 3 Icon_minitime1Thu Feb 25, 2010 12:37 pm

CorpulentCripple wrote:
graybeardheadbanger wrote:
Let me throw my Catholic hat in the ring (as someone who grew up Arminian).

Againsttheantichrist stated that salvation implies we are being saved from something, i.e. wrath of God. This reflects a limited understanding, IMO. I think the Eastern Orthodox approach is most helpful here--salv-ation actually does not imply "saved" as much as "healed," as "salve" is what we put on a wound, etc. In our fallen condition, we are wounded in our ability to properly respond to God's love. This IS a state of damnation because only in knowing the love of God can we be saved. It seems to me, however, that the Calvinist problem (though I understood rooted in Stoicisim, which tends toward determinism--Calvins first work, I've read, was actually on Stoic philosophy) is that, while being in certain senses deterministic, is also problematically voluntaristic--that is, it conceives of a god who is so sovereign (supposedly) that absolutey nothing can limit His will--thus, there is no standard beyond Him which dictates that it would be "unjust" to predestine some to saving grace, and not others. They hold that to say that God should not do that undemrines God's sovereignty, and in fact, since God owes none of us anything, then really there would be nothing wrong with us all being condemned--so the fact that He is selectively merciful should be no skin off the nose of those to whom He doesn't predestine this grace.

There are so many issues here, in this part i had to adress. first of all, where do you get us being wounded? that's not what the scriptures say whatsoever. we're DEAD in tresspasses and sins. a dead man cant respond to God's call to be saved. if the bible said we were spiritually wounded, im sure i'd be arminian in doctrine as well but it doesn't...


The Bible uses a variety of metaphors to convey its truth (or, i should say God uses a variety of metaphors in Scripture to convey that He is truth). The idea of "death" is certainly fitting. But "salvation" does imply a "salve," which is something one puts on a wound (I don't know the Greek, so I am admittedly limited, BUT
it is the Greek Orthodox tradition which favors the "wound" imagery). Christ, for example, does call Himself the Great Physician. Yes, this can be in reference to physical healing, but it applies to spiritual as well. In fact, the lepers--physically healed for real--also symbolize that we are all "lepers" in our sin. Lepers are literally falling apart, but they are not yet dead. But they will fall apart until they do die. This would get into a whole other discussion about sola Scriptura as well, but basically, Orthodox and Cahtolics take Cjhrist to be revealed in the Church Apostolic, with the Scripture being at the center of that--but Christ is also revealed through the tradition, which they see as being brought trhough the saints--those who model Christ for is--in a way that is entirely consistent with Scripture. The saints are in essence living Scripture. Scripture is God-breathed--but so are we, and we are the ones filled with the Spirit (or can be!) To be filled with hte Spirit is basically to BE "Scripture." That's why Christ Himself is the WORD of God. The Bible gives us access through the written word to THE Word--just as those who model Christ do. Why do I say all this? because, we find saints who compare the Church to a hospital (e.g. John Chrysostom). i'm sure one who has not thought about things in a certain way will simply dismiss the "saints" views as being "just" their opinions, but this is a very limited perspective, for reasons i have noted above. (Bear in mind that Scripture itself comes to us through saints, and saints are active in its canonization, etc.)



Anyway, it is true that without grace, we would be dead--in htis sense, it is true to say that we are dead in our trespasses, as we would have no life in us if not for grace. Bear in mind that even Paul writes the heathen know the law on their heart (basically, natural law). Calvinists read this one way, but it seems to me this can convey that our knowledge is not utterly destroyed. It is damaged, and our ability to respond to this is damaged, BUT (because of grace) I would read Paul as conveyin that even the heathen can possibly be saved by living according to the natural law. The Calvinist will read this as saying, 'They know the law, but cannot live by it," BUT once again, as I have said elsewhere, this simply results from privileging certain verses, and certain interpretations of them, in interpreting others, which taken on their own face would sound less "utter depravity."

Quote :
also, are you insinuating God's only partially sovereign? i've never heard a believer say this and its awfully close to blasphemy, though your wording could just be confusing.

I'll clarify. My view, I did not mean to convey that God is only "partially sovereign." What I mean to cnvey is that the Calvinist view of "absolute sovereignty" actually itself undermines the absolute sovereignty of God. Calvinism equates absolute sovereignty with voluntaristic freedom in God. However, it follows logically frrom this that the Calvinist view of such sovereignty precludes that we can truly be created in the image of God! The idea is, if God's essence is radical freedom (as their view of sovereignty demands), then the fact that we do not have such freedom, and must be utterly predestined, means that we are not really in God's image. It thus MUST downplay what it means to be in the "image" of God. But it seems to me that their view of sovereignty in fact undermines this truth of Scripture--that we are truly in God's image. What does it mean to be in God's image? To be able to FREELY LOVE---NOWHERE does Scripture tell uis that God is "will." It DOES says that God is love. This love is most realized in the Trinity. And this points to another inconsistency within Calvinism. If God's essence is voluntaristic freedom, then it seems that it must hold that the love of the Trinity cannot be determined. BUT, in this case, if God is love, and we are in His image, then love cannot be redefined as not involving true freedom in the case of human beings. If the concept of "love" is compatible with determinism (as God's love for humans is taken to be for it), then it seems to me either that 1) the love God predestines us to have for Him is something fundamentally different than His love for Himself (in which case calling it "love" seems pointless), or 2) the Triune Love of the persons is determined, But if the latter is true, it contradicts the view that God is absolutely free (and thus not determined).

This ties in the with the question of "is God's will absolute?" I would submit that yu don't think it is in the most radical sense either. Can God both exist and not exist? Can God both be sovereign and not be sovereign? If not, then even God apparently is subject to the logical principle of non-contradiction. This seems to place reason "beyond" God, UNLESS one says that reason somehow reflects the very being of God (the route I would go). But n this case, God cannot will things that are inconsistent with His own nature. Since His own nature is love, and since as even the Calvinist says God must be non-deterministically free, then somehow being truly love involves true freedom. Hence, if we are in His image, we must be capable of both love, and of genuine freedom. In fact, I would submit that it is a logical contradiciton to talk about love being determined. And since even the Calvinist admits that the laws of non-contradiciton apply to God, it seems to me that our being in His image means that we cannot be radically determined. This does not point to a limit of God's sovereignty, however, precidely because His sovereignty should be understood in terms of His being free love. As I suggested, the Calvinist position actually limits God's sovereignty, becuase it logically implies that He cannot create a being that is truly in His image (undeterministically free). So, in the end, I completely affirm complete divine sovereignty, but take it to refer to something importantly different than what the Calvinist takes "sovereignty" to be.
From the Calvinist perspective, it is true that I do not affirm "complete sovereignty"--but this is only because, I submit, the Calvinists misunderstand the nature of true sovereignty to begin with.

thanks for the discussion, graybeardheadbanger


Last edited by graybeardheadbanger on Thu Feb 25, 2010 12:47 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
graybeardheadbanger

avatar

Number of posts : 167
Age : 57
Registration date : 2009-07-26
Points : 5533

Calvinism - Page 3 Vide
PostSubject: Re: Calvinism   Calvinism - Page 3 Icon_minitime1Thu Feb 25, 2010 12:44 pm

[quote="CorpulentCripple"]
graybeardheadbanger wrote:
absolutely nothing CAN limit his will, that's absolute truth,
isaiah 14:27 For the LORD Almighty has purposed, and who can thwart him? His hand is stretched out, and who can turn it back? and lastly, the fact that he is "selectively merciful" isn't even aware to them,...they're oblivious. they HATE god.

Let me say a bit about this verse as well--the image of God stretching out His hand, particulary if Isaiah is read in light of the coming of the Messiah, suggests to me an image of unstoppable love, not one of unstroppable wrath. I think it supports what I have written above pretty well. Because God is love, nothing can stop Him from reaching out in love to us. This shows that sovereignty is love, as I have suggested. And if sovereignty also implies freedom, then us being in God's image means we are free, and capable of love. Of coruse, none of this can ever be apart from their presence of God, for even our existence requires His presence. Our power is never "just" "our" freedom, because we LITERALLY are nothing (do not exist) without God.

graybeardheadbanger
Back to top Go down
lord voldemort

lord voldemort

Number of posts : 550
Age : 45
Location : Toccoa, GA
Registration date : 2009-11-07
Points : 5907

Calvinism - Page 3 Vide
PostSubject: Re: Calvinism   Calvinism - Page 3 Icon_minitime1Thu Feb 25, 2010 1:01 pm

Yeah for Graybeardheadbanger contributing cheers

Quote :
Therefore, since as Calvinists they must hold that God has willed that only those who trust entirely on God alone will be saved, logically they MUST conclude that Arminians and the like cannot be saved. I know no evangelical Calvinist who will 'fess up to this, but I really do think it is the logic of their position.

BINGO! That is what I was saying.

The same would be for Arminians as well. Since they believe in a lesser strictness of Christ, therefore, the Christ that is willing to predestine people to salvation can not exist. Therefore, in their eyes and in their logic, a Calvinist is a heretic. Just as much a Calvinist in his logic would assume an Arminan to be a heretic.

Heresy is defined as one who takes Christ and puts him in a place that is not biblical and then wants people to accept Christ through that prism. Paul and the Judaizers would be a good example of the difference of Christ in Salvation.

Modernly, that is seen in Calvinism and Arminism. Both are wrong and both are heresies.

As you stated neither side will 'fess up to this, this is the logic of both sides. Thus, both are idolatry not ideology.

When both sides are pushed to their logical conclusion, what me and Graybeard state are true.
Back to top Go down
eternalmystery

eternalmystery

Number of posts : 730
Age : 36
Location : Franklinton, Louisiana, USA
Registration date : 2008-11-03
Points : 6168

Calvinism - Page 3 Vide
PostSubject: Re: Calvinism   Calvinism - Page 3 Icon_minitime1Thu Feb 25, 2010 1:20 pm

Death over Life wrote:
When I see Broc saying: Painting God into our own image, I can’t help but agree that Christianity has officially done this and you see why we are seeing the Death of Christianity.

Ridiculous. Do a little bit more thinking.

If Christianity was to die out, it surely would not be in today's time. Had it not really been true, it would have died not long after it's birth in the 1st Century AD. No one would have endured the persecution they had then if it wasn't genuine.

11 out of the 12 apostles died martyrs deaths. They were in a unique position, having ate, talked, walked, and hung out with Christ Himself. And they went to the death defending this. Would they had really given up their lives for this had it not been true?


Last edited by eternalmystery on Thu Feb 25, 2010 1:24 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
http://www.eternalmystery.co.nr
eternalmystery

eternalmystery

Number of posts : 730
Age : 36
Location : Franklinton, Louisiana, USA
Registration date : 2008-11-03
Points : 6168

Calvinism - Page 3 Vide
PostSubject: Re: Calvinism   Calvinism - Page 3 Icon_minitime1Thu Feb 25, 2010 1:23 pm

lord voldemort wrote:
Yeah for Graybeardheadbanger contributing cheers

Quote :
Therefore, since as Calvinists they must hold that God has willed that only those who trust entirely on God alone will be saved, logically they MUST conclude that Arminians and the like cannot be saved. I know no evangelical Calvinist who will 'fess up to this, but I really do think it is the logic of their position.

BINGO! That is what I was saying.

The same would be for Arminians as well. Since they believe in a lesser strictness of Christ, therefore, the Christ that is willing to predestine people to salvation can not exist. Therefore, in their eyes and in their logic, a Calvinist is a heretic. Just as much a Calvinist in his logic would assume an Arminan to be a heretic.

Heresy is defined as one who takes Christ and puts him in a place that is not biblical and then wants people to accept Christ through that prism. Paul and the Judaizers would be a good example of the difference of Christ in Salvation.

Modernly, that is seen in Calvinism and Arminism. Both are wrong and both are heresies.

As you stated neither side will 'fess up to this, this is the logic of both sides. Thus, both are idolatry not ideology.

When both sides are pushed to their logical conclusion, what me and Graybeard state are true.

Neither one of you obviously have a clue what it is we affirm.

Neither Calvinism nor Arminianism deny anything that is absolutely essential for a person to be deemed Christian. They are merely theological takes on the Scriptures, and nothing more. Did you not read any of the previous posts? Do research before making these ridiculous claims and strawman arguments.
Back to top Go down
http://www.eternalmystery.co.nr
wizardovmetal

wizardovmetal

Number of posts : 1056
Age : 32
Location : COLD
Registration date : 2009-08-17
Points : 6617

Calvinism - Page 3 Vide
PostSubject: Re: Calvinism   Calvinism - Page 3 Icon_minitime1Thu Feb 25, 2010 2:31 pm

eternalmystery wrote:
Death over Life wrote:
When I see Broc saying: Painting God into our own image, I can’t help but agree that Christianity has officially done this and you see why we are seeing the Death of Christianity.

Ridiculous. Do a little bit more thinking.

If Christianity was to die out, it surely would not be in today's time. Had it not really been true, it would have died not long after it's birth in the 1st Century AD. No one would have endured the persecution they had then if it wasn't genuine.

11 out of the 12 apostles died martyrs deaths. They were in a unique position, having ate, talked, walked, and hung out with Christ Himself. And they went to the death defending this. Would they had really given up their lives for this had it not been true?

"i will establish my church and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it" christianity is not going anywhere.
Back to top Go down
http://www.myspace.com/jbmetalhed
Sponsored content




Calvinism - Page 3 Vide
PostSubject: Re: Calvinism   Calvinism - Page 3 Icon_minitime1

Back to top Go down
 

Calvinism

View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 3 of 9Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
BlabberBoard - Archives :: General Discussion :: Christian Discussion :: Theology-
Free forum | ©phpBB | Free forum support | Report an abuse | Forumotion.com