eternalmystery wrote:

lord voldemort wrote:

Yeah for Graybeardheadbanger contributing

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.

Broc, I have read the Institutes, certain parts more than once. While I certainly don't know it like the back of my hand, I htink I get the general logic of it pretty well.

I disagree with Lord V's position on Arminianism, but I do think what I say about the logical implicaitons of evangelical Calvinism is true. You have changed the argument here. You have said that Arminianism is not heresy because it does not deny anything which is essential to salvation. BUT this is LOGICALLY not true for an evangelical Calvinist position, regardless of what evangelical Calvinists actually admit (and as I said, I haven't met any who are willing to take it to its logical position). But simply put, Broc, if one to be saved must hold that we must believe that the death of Christ ALONE--meaning no free contribution on our part, even if aided by grace--provides salvation. On this claim--which is what it seems clear to me you and others say--then it follows logically that one who holds that we DO contribute something from our genuinely free will are not, as you define it, relying on Christ alone, but on Christ plus our free (read: non-deterministically predestined) acceptance. This clearly suggests that such people do not rely on Christ alone, as you see it, and so to be consistent, you must hold that they cannot be saved (unless, of coruse, they move away from their Arminian belief).

Please answer this point specifically. Thanks.

graybeardheadbanger

Quote :

Please answer this point specifically. Thanks.

The answer to your point, specifically, is that you're changing the whole argument. If you can clearly say with a straight face through all of your walls-o-text that because Calvinists & Arminians have different understandings of how God alone (the source of our salvation) effects regeneration upon human hearts, therefore they're both wrong, then I can say comfortably that you've totally missed the point. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you've never hung around many reformed folks that can or have been willing to share their views at length. But the point of contention between Calvinists and Arminians is not whether salvation is by Christ alone, but rather the understanding of HOW Christ enacts that grace and who is able to accept it or how is it applied.

Calvinists would state that although the Arminian may *think* they made the smart choice of "accepting" Christ, The Calvinist knows that God had to make the first move for that to happen, and they're just missing a step. Arminians, I assume, would say that while the Calvinist thinks it's all God's work they had to have made *some* kind of decision at *some* point, so they're just downplaying their own personal experience.

Just because an Arminian doesn't believe that God makes the first move in regenerating a human heart dead in its sin against God does not mean that they aren't saved. I don't care how many flowcharts you might point to or times you try to make the rule of non-contradiction say something it doesn't say (that Calvinists MUST believe Arminians aren't saved), you're just flat out wrong in your assertion - primarily because I really don't think you understand what Calvinists are saying (the blame for which may lie largely with the Calvinist side of the aisle). So please, don't put words into the mouths and hearts of people whom you already admit you don't have a full understanding of.

Yeah....what he said.

I have had the following discussion with people in the "you must accept Christ to be saved" camp:

As a Lutheran, I believe that faith is a gift given by the Holy Spirit...so I argue that by the time you actually accept Christ, you are already saved, since you can't make the choice to accept something until you already have faith in your heart to do so, and that faith is imparted by the Holy Spirit through hearing the Word of God. It doesn't matter that they think they are accepting Christ first in order to be saved...because the reality is that they are accepting Christ because they already are saved.


The person usually argues back in some way...but oh well...I still think the person is saved...there is no logic that would demand that I come to a different conclusion. Being saved isn't dependent on knowing exactly how the process works. Being saved depends on God's Grace...period.

Quote :

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.

I will go point by point between the two arguments later today, to show what I am talking about.

Both are theological takes, both are ideologies, and both are intellectual idolatry.

Both sides opposes each other on many issues and both claim scriptural support. Thus both can not be right, I do not agree with either side, thus I tend to hold the position that both views have turned into, nothing less than intellectual idolatry.

BryneVampyr wrote:

Yeah....what he said.

I have had the following discussion with people in the "you must accept Christ to be saved" camp:

As a Lutheran, I believe that faith is a gift given by the Holy Spirit...so I argue that by the time you actually accept Christ, you are already saved, since you can't make the choice to accept something until you already have faith in your heart to do so, and that faith is imparted by the Holy Spirit through hearing the Word of God. It doesn't matter that they think they are accepting Christ first in order to be saved...because the reality is that they are accepting Christ because they already are saved.


The person usually argues back in some way...but oh well...I still think the person is saved...there is no logic that would demand that I come to a different conclusion. Being saved isn't dependent on knowing exactly how the process works. Being saved depends on God's Grace...period.

exactly... i like this post alot

im gonna speak in arminian language for a second,...why did you make a decision for Christ? because you realised you were a very sinful person who has broken Gods every law broken his commandment's and HE has shown this to you....THEN you choose

ok so lets take this one step forward. God shows you your sin, he reveals it to you, LEADING you to repentance and true regenerate faith,...how come your bestfriend stayed an atheist for his entire life? Did god not reveal himself to your friend?...something to ponder, atleast

Shamax wrote:

Quote :

Please answer this point specifically. Thanks.

The answer to your point, specifically, is that you're changing the whole argument. If you can clearly say with a straight face through all of your walls-o-text that because Calvinists & Arminians have different understandings of how God alone (the source of our salvation) effects regeneration upon human hearts, therefore they're both wrong, then I can say comfortably that you've totally missed the point. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you've never hung around many reformed folks that can or have been willing to share their views at length.

Only some of the walls dealt with the point you address here--there are walls because I'm actually trying to address points from several posts, having only recently entered the discussion. I believe you'll find that altough I tend to repeat points with different wording, add clarifying parantheticals or touch on related issues, the vast majority of what I say contributes something to the discussion.

In any case, I should stress that I intentionally distinguished the "evangelical" Calvinist position from a classical Calvinists one. Actually, I confess that the former is a bit of a misnomer, because very few evangelicals hold to true blue double predestination and the like. But in any case, the reason I brought this up because evangelicals typically hold that one is saved by acknowledging that Christ died for their sins. The Calvinist addition to this is that one must confess that for us to believe that it is ONLY by this death, and this death alone, that we are saved. Brock himself has said before that we must hold that, and that one who holds that we add anything does not take Christ's death to be sufficient. (Of coruse, to the best of my knowledge, he hasn't address the point some make that "acceptance" itself constitutes something we do, UNLESS it is radically predestined by God). I still don't think anything you've said really addresses this point. I'll touch below on why what you say there doesn't really solve the logic of the problem, IMO.

I should note too that I have had a very close friend who is Reformed--in fact a graduate of Calvin College who has studied theology extensively and is an ordained minister in the RCA. I've also known similarly educated American Presbyterians, etc., as well as some others, and of course, there are the Calvinists I've encountered on the internet. Of course, my friend would hesitate to call himself an "evangelical"--I did address elsewhere how a "non evangelical" Calvinist could respond to the problem I raised, though I think it would obscure the possibility of "assurance," though this too is likely more a specifically evangelical concern, I suppose.

Quote :

But the point of contention between Calvinists and Arminians is not whether salvation is by Christ alone, but rather the understanding of HOW Christ enacts that grace and who is able to accept it or how is it applied.

Actually, though, logically it still seems clear to me that if one addresses it carefully, this in principle amounts to a debate about whether it is by Christ alone. They may not use that term to describe their difference, but that is the difference. For example, if the Arminian says, "Salvation is by Christ alone, BUT I believe that it has been predestined that any who freely repent--with the aid of grace--wil be saved," without particular people being predestined to receive the grace which makes this freedom possible (ie. a rejection of the predestination for damnation, or more precisely, the predestination to not recieve saving grace, whereby damnaiton results), then he or she is in fact, by the Calvinist standard, NOT holding that it is by Christ alone, in the way the Calvinist means "alone." This quesiton of "how" the grace works is precisely the question of whether grace enables people to respond freely to saving grace in a non-particularly predestined way. So, it may couch itself in the language of being a debate about "how," but the issue of "aloneness" and what is meant by it really is the key, it seems to me.

Quote :

Calvinists would state that although the Arminian may *think* they made the smart choice of "accepting" Christ, The Calvinist knows that God had to make the first move for that to happen, and they're just missing a step.

This isn't quite the Calvinist view, I don't believe. The Calvinist wouildn't just say that God "made the first move"--Arminians believe that. The free acceptance of saving grace itself requires prevenient grace. For the Calvinist, it isn't just about divine initiative--it is about the claim that the entire process, free acceptance and all, is IRRESISTIBLY predestined by God. Thus, we really do nothing, unless one can say that what is determined by God "in us" is done "by us," but I take this to be misleading. This is FAR more than just "initiative," isn't it?

Quote :

Arminians, I assume, would say that while the Calvinist thinks it's all God's work they had to have made *some* kind of decision at *some* point, so they're just downplaying their own personal experience.

This part sounds right. Once again, I emphasize that I do not share Lord V's claim that the Arminian logically has to hold that the Calvinist is damned for holding that he has no freedom in the matter, pretty much for the reasons you say here. One could freely respond to saving grace without realzing that it was free--so the Arminian has room to accept the Calvinist view, but not vice versa, it seems to me.

Quote :

Just because an Arminian doesn't believe that God makes the first move in regenerating a human heart dead in its sin against God does not mean that they aren't saved. I don't care how many flowcharts you might point to or times you try to make the rule of non-contradiction say something it doesn't say (that Calvinists MUST believe Arminians aren't saved), you're just flat out wrong in your assertion - primarily because I really don't think you understand what Calvinists are saying (the blame for which may lie largely with the Calvinist side of the aisle). So please, don't put words into the mouths and hearts of people whom you already admit you don't have a full understanding of.

Once again, I have said all along that Calvinist don't say that--BUT that their logic should lead themn to say it. (Actually, I can think of one person I've known, a graduate of Dallas Theologicakl Seminary, with some Calvinist leanings--he held to predestined of the saved but not the damned, another position I think is inconsistent, but fdairly common among quasi-calvinists--who conceded that those holding to the Arminian position, if they really held to it as it is, may in fact not be saved.) The way around this conclusion, which you somewhat allude to, is what I addressed in what I termed the "non evangelical" Calvinist alternative answer--and it encounters problems.
To repeat, the view would be something like this: "One does not have to believe that God did it alone, apart from any free will we contribute. God could predestine it that one could be saved, despite falsely believing that it was his/her free will plus grace that led to salvation." The problem with this is, though , that assurance for such folks is ruled out. IF the evidence of salvation is that one confesses that they are saved from Christ alone, but then concedes that God could predestine it that some be saved despite not believing this, then it must be held that at least for these folks, there are some saved for whom there can be no assurance. (I don't recall "assurance" being a Calvinist concern per se, but certainly Calvinists with any degree of evangelical sensibilities would not want to let go of this notion. Otherwise, one is left with the idea that no one can know whether they are among the predestined or not. I believe Calvin himself touches on this difficluty, though i'd have to review the details of his response).

I suppose a Calvinist could modify his view further to hold that assurance is granted to anyone who acknowledges the necessity of Christ, even if he/she takes his/her free response to be necessary (though being wrong in doing so). In this case, the Calvinist could say that Arminians could be assured, even though they'd be wrong. But this concession certainly would require holding that predestinaiton allows absolutely for salvation people who do not believe it is by Christ alone (as they understand "alone") to be saved. This seems to save assurance for Arminians, but significantly downplays the importance of accepting the Calvinist view of salvation. It would amount to saying that the Calvinist view is right, but it isn't important at all that one knows or believes that it is right. Indeed, it also leads to the somewhat peculair view that predestinaiton of salvation is not necessarily acocmpnaied by predestinaiton of proper understanding of what salvation is. And I agree that God being God could, especially from the Calvinist point of view, divorce salvific predestination from predestination of proper understanding. BUT in this case, i'm not sure on what basis the Calvinist could be confident that the Calvinist understanding of salvaiton was correct. After all, if one can be predestined to be saved and also predestined to have incorrect understanding of salvation, how does the Calvinist know that he or she is not among those who have been predestined to have the false understanding? AND, for that matter, in this case, we are right back to the other problem I mentioned--namely, if one can be predestined to be wrong in their understanding of salvation, how does the Calvinist know that somone can be predestined for salvation even if he or she is predestined to not understand salvation properly? Maybe the Calvinist has been predestined to be wrong about THIS, etc.


graybeardheadbanger

BryneVampyr wrote:

Yeah....what he said.

I have had the following discussion with people in the "you must accept Christ to be saved" camp:

As a Lutheran, I believe that faith is a gift given by the Holy Spirit...so I argue that by the time you actually accept Christ, you are already saved, since you can't make the choice to accept something until you already have faith in your heart to do so, and that faith is imparted by the Holy Spirit through hearing the Word of God. It doesn't matter that they think they are accepting Christ first in order to be saved...because the reality is that they are accepting Christ because they already are saved.


The person usually argues back in some way...but oh well...I still think the person is saved...there is no logic that would demand that I come to a different conclusion. Being saved isn't dependent on knowing exactly how the process works. Being saved depends on God's Grace...period.

But you would agree that this position amounts to saying that one need not believe that is by Christ alone that we are saved, right? I personally tend to agree with what you say here, BUT I also do not hold to assurance. So, I believe you rightly show how one can be saved even if they believe wrong things about the process (though I would tend to favor the view of the process you as a Lutheran disagree with, of course), BUT I do think this seriously damages the case for "assurance" (which I'm not sure you hold to anyway--but most folks here, especially those defending Calvinism, seem to). I also think it damages the case for sola fide, as I said in an earlier post, IF one takes "faith" to mean faith in Christ ALONE. So, we might be able to have
a Calvinist predestination that allows for assurance for those with wrong views, but this would seem to mean that sola fide can alow for "fide" to mean different things--and if it means the one thing (faith plus free acceptance), how is it really "sola?" I do htink there are Catholic-like ways of explaining this (which I tend to think you would find some agreement with),but I would think it would make most sola-fideists here uncomfortable--i may explain my htoughts on this later.


Good to talk, graybeardheadbanger

graybeardheadbanger

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?

wizardovmetal wrote:

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.

Apparantly you both missed the entire message of what I am saying. I know Christianity isn't going to die that's obvious. I was saying that Christianity is being destroyed because we are making God in our own image, and it is turning off the non-believers, which is why Christianity is losing it's followers and dieing out. It is stuff like this which is showing why many view Christianity or even religion as irrelevant.

Now, as I was speaking of earlier, making God in our own image. We both read the same book, yet we both get completely different views. Now it goes back to what Lord Voldemort has said, one might be right, but both views can't be right. So, if one is wrong, than that means that at least one of them has made God into their image instead of making them into God's image. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that is the Sin of Blasphemy and Idolatry) Goes back to what I told Atac, which is it? Is it Calvinism, Armenianism, House of Yahweh, Catholicism, Baptist, Methodist, etc.? As I said earlier, how you view the essentials is based on the non-essentials, you can not get around this, and these threads prove it. So, it all goes back to my quote. I wasn't saying Christianity is dead, cause it's not.

I was saying Christianity has created God in Christianity's Image instead of God creating Christianity in God's image, which is how it should be.

reminds me of the verse "They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.' You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men." i see alot of this in the "organized" religions such as catholoscism, no im not picking on all catholics, some of them are good god fearing people, but alot of them have ideas that are totally unbiblical.

Hi--I have much more to look at, but actually, going through the Institutes, it appears that Calvin DOES emphasize the concept of assurance (wihtout using that term), though I think the option of downplaying assurance is logically open to the Calvinist (though with all the problems I have discussed).

here is something from Vol. 3, part 3, ch. 2 of the Institutes:

We shall now have a full definition of faith, if we say
that it is a firm and sure knowledge of the divine favor toward us,
founded on the truth of a free promise in Christ, and revealed to
our minds, and sealed on our hearts, by the Holy Spirit.

++++++++++

So, faith does seem to involve "sure knowledge of salvation." As for whether or not he takes this to require understanding of predestination (Christ alone), I'm still looking, but this seems to suggest it (vol. 3, part 26, chp. 21)

If to make it appear
that our salvation flows entirely from the good mercy of God, we
must be carried back to the origin of election, then those who would
extinguish it, wickedly do as much as in them lies to obscure what
they ought most loudly to extol, and pluck up humility by the very
roots. Paul clearly declares that it is only when the salvation of a
remnant is ascribed to gratuitous election, we arrive at the
knowledge that God saves whom he wills of his mere good pleasure,
and does not pay a debt, a debt which never can be due. Those who
preclude access, and would not have any one to obtain a taste of
this doctrine, are equally unjust to God and men, there being no
other means of humbling us as we ought, or making us feel how much
we are bound to him. Nor, indeed, have we elsewhere any sure ground
of confidence.=====

Now, this seems to say that we must understand the nature of our election to have confidence in our salvation--and confidence to me sounds like "sure knowledge." So, it may be that the sure knowledge of salvation which occurs if one is saved (so one is not saved if lacking it) requires knowledge of the nature of election. The small caveat here is that he speaks of election as meaning that God does not owe a debt to us in saving us, as a response to works--BUT no one, even Catholics, hold that God pays it as a debt. So, it seems to me that when Calvin talks of the necessity of knowing the nature of election, he doesn't just mean knowing that God doesn't owe it to us, but that one must know election as Calvin understands it. But there may be other places where he qualifies this, i'll continue to look. At this point, though, it appears a case can be made that only one who believes in Calvinistic predestination can be confident that s/he is saved, and only one who is confident IS saved. If this is the case, then the logic of his position IS that salvaiton requires proper understanding of election. But as I said, he may "soften" this elsewhere (once again, I acknowledge that virtually none who call themselves Calvinists are willing to go this far--BUT what I have provided here does seem to support hte claim that this is where his logic leads--though the emphasis on Gopd's freedom would have made it possible for God to sever propere understanding, and assurance, from salvation (though Calvin doesn't thinj that God does sever them this way--but it seems he would think that God COULD have done this).


I'll be interested in hearing what some others have to say.


Peace, graybeardheadbanger

wizardovmetal wrote:

reminds me of the verse "They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.' You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men." i see alot of this in the "organized" religions such as catholoscism, no im not picking on all catholics, some of them are good god fearing people, but alot of them have ideas that are totally unbiblical.

It's funny. You put stuff you pulled out of thin air into quotations.
*Cough* *Cough* I am choking on the words you are shoving into my mouth *cough*

A lot more of what you support is MORE unbiblical then the stuff even moderate protestants support.

The traditions of the Catholic Church was set not by men, but by A man. Can you guess who I am talking about? Everything we do has a biblical explanation. If you don't believe ME, pick up a Catholic Cathecism, pick any random theological point and look it up. Everything is biblically based.

To me it seems you want the spirituality of Christianity without all the hard stuff involved with being a Christian.

Olias....first two lines = not bright.

http://bible.cc/matthew/15-9.htm

Quote :

it appears a case can be made that only one who believes in Calvinistic predestination can be confident that s/he is saved

Take the word "only" out of that statement, and I'll agree. Having a solid understanding of doctrine and knowledge of God's word is a tremendous comfort. I almost want to cry with thankfulness when I read John 6:39 - "And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day."

Quote :

and only one who is confident IS saved.

...and then you say this like it's "6 of one, half-dozen of the other". This is a HUGE leap to make, and one I know you'd be hard-pressed to prove in any kind of honest way. Much the same way earlier when you equate "understanding [the doctrine] of predestination" with Sola Fide. From the Calvinist view, our exercise of faith (sola fide) is an outworking of God predestining us by His grace (sola gratia). You're confusing the two, and that's why I think we're talking in circles.

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.

It is not an addendum to Basic Gospel, but the interpretations of their theological implications.

You can act like you don't have them, but if you truly examined what you believed, you would realize that you also intepret scripture a certain way, even if it is without the denominational label.

againsttheantichrist wrote:

Olias....first two lines = not bright.

http://bible.cc/matthew/15-9.htm

I assume you are talking about John Calvin's teachings.

The quotation you were blasting in wizardovmetal's post was actually in the bible (see referenced link in previous post). It was the only one in his post, so unless you were referring to another quote (which you need to clarify if it be the case), it seemed like you jumped the gun on that.

I saw that. I was looking at the wrong part. My bad. However the rest of my post still stands. I am so used to Jon's posts being messy. But, I knew that part was from the bible. For some reason I thought that his commentary past the verse was in quotes. But I looked back there and saw they werent. Oops.

Shamax wrote:

Quote :

it appears a case can be made that only one who believes in Calvinistic predestination can be confident that s/he is saved

Take the word "only" out of that statement, and I'll agree. Having a solid understanding of doctrine and knowledge of God's word is a tremendous comfort. I almost want to cry with thankfulness when I read John 6:39 - "And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day."

So if it's not "only," is it acceptable for one to believe that Christ's grace alone does not save him or her?

Quote :

and only one who is confident IS saved.

...and then you say this like it's "6 of one, half-dozen of the other". This is a HUGE leap to make, and one I know you'd be hard-pressed to prove in any kind of honest way. Much the same way earlier when you equate "understanding [the doctrine] of predestination" with Sola Fide. From the Calvinist view, our exercise of faith (sola fide) is an outworking of God predestining us by His grace (sola gratia). You're confusing the two, and that's why I think we're talking in circles.[/quote]
I actually didn't address the order of faith and salvation per se as far as I can tell, but yes, as I was re-reading through hte Institutes, I was reminded that faith, in a sense, is subsequent to salvation. I htink more precisely, it would be correct to say that for Calvin, election precedes faith. However, faith is still taken to be necessary for salvation--but God has predestined who will have this faith, so in a sense, our salvation is determined by election prior to us actually having the faith. However, we are not actually saved per se until faith--BUT we have been predestined to be saved, so our salvation is assured, even if not actually effective, until the faith necessary for it is exercised (though predestined). Since God is taken to be outside of time, however, I suppose one could say in a sense that the elect have always been saved for God, even before they existed in time.

In any case, when I said only one who is confident IS saved, I was not trying to say that the confidence itself creates salvation. Rather, I was saying that because confidence necessarily accompanies salvaiton, a lack of confidence can be equated with a lack of salvation (or, at least with the idea that election has not yet been made effective in time--obviously, all who are predestined had a time when they did not uyet have faioth, even though they were predestined to have it). So, what I am saying has the logical form of a modus tollens argument: "If saved, then confident. Not confident, therefore not saved" (though perhaps predestined to be saved at some point).

The only thing that is variable to me at this point is that I cannot find anything in Calvin which makes it unambiguously clear that the understanding of election we must have to have confidence (without which we can know there is no salvation) is precisely election as he understands it. But it doesn't seem to me this is much of a stretch---certainly, it's hard for me to believe that he wouldn't find the view that we need to add something apart from God's particular predestination (our free assent) very troublesome, and undermining of proper understanding of salvation. If what we have faith in is Christ's work PLUS mour assent, it seems to me Calvin would be hard-pressed to call this "faith" as he defines it elsewhere.
Part of the difficulty might be that he doesn't directly address, as far as I can tell, the view that grace can be a necessary prerequisite for exercising authentic freedom. He makes it clear that he rejects "merti" as a debt owed by God, or in the Pelagian sense, etc., but the Arminian view (which I am confident he rejects) does not seem to be addressed per se, from what I read. But it may be alluded to somewhere
in what I passed over here (not Arminius himself, obviously, as Calvin predates him, but an awareness of something like his ideas).

graybeardheadbanger

If I get a chance tomorrow, I'd like to respond line-by-line because there's a lot of parts, especially when you're referring to the Ordo Salutis that you're spot on, then there's a point or two where I think you're missing something particular or making an assumption that's a bit off and set's the whole chain of thought a bit off-kilter. I do have to apologize though, because there's times I have to re-read over certain statements about 5 or 6 times because I'm trying to figure out exactly what it is you're saying or asserting.

I can't promise I'll get to a reply tomorrow (work and all that), but there's a lot you're spot-on about. I think you're still assuming some kind of necessary link between a person's eternal state and their acceptance of a certain understanding of the Ordo Salutis that's never asserted by Calvinists though. Well, at least, it's not asserted by most Calvinists who have left the dreaded "Cage Stage"

The five points of Arminianism and Calvinism.
http://www.fivesolas.com/cal_arm.htm

As I have stated, both are wrong. Both have turned into intellectual idolatry.

1. Free Will or Human Ability (Arminianism).
1. 1. Total Inability or Total Depravity

1A. One states that man has free will. The sinner can cooperate with God.
1C. One is not free, one can not chose God, they are so evil that God is the only one who can save them.

2. Conditional Election
2. Unconditional Election

2A. God gave a condition and man had to meet it. Man decided to accept it or not.
2C. God chose who he will, no choice by man. God is the one who saves.

3.Universal Redemption or General Atonement
3. Limited Atonement or Particular Redemption

3A. Christ died for all men, though all men will not chose Christ.
3C. Christ died only for the elect, everyone is damned.

4. The Holy Spirit Can be Effectually Resisted
4. Irresistible Grace or The Efficacious Call of the Spirit

4A. The Holy Spirit leads all men to Grace, but man can reject it.
4C. The Holy Spirit leads all those who were elected to be saved. Eventually He leads all, no choice by man.

5. Falling from Grace
5. Perseverance of the Saints

5A. A Christian can lose their salvation by doing keeping to the faith.
5C. God preserves the Saints, no matter what.

Logically, as I have been stating, how can these two options be viable? They both serve a different Christ and a different God. One God who is willing to let anyone go who wants to, while the other is willing to keep only those he chose and they have no say in the matter.

So logically. . .

lord voldemort wrote:

As I have stated, both are wrong. Both have turned into intellectual idolatry.

(snip)

I won't make this too long, because it's posts like this that are detrimental to my sanctification. But the fact that you make this statement alone shows that you have no interest in discussing the topic at all on a mature level, nor do you understand much of what Calvinists believe. Thanks for your contribution, though.

olias wrote:

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.

It is not an addendum to Basic Gospel, but the interpretations of their theological implications.

You can act like you don't have them, but if you truly examined what you believed, you would realize that you also intepret scripture a certain way, even if it is without the denominational label.

againsttheantichrist wrote:

Olias....first two lines = not bright.

http://bible.cc/matthew/15-9.htm

I assume you are talking about John Calvin's teachings.

your right, still I do not need to attach a label to them.. they divide.. they cause arguments... if we can agree on the basics... that is what matters to me, unless there is heretical, false and distorted things being thrown about... it doesn't matter. Sick of denominations, labels.. divisions.. when at this point in time we need to rally around and stand together... not to continually nit pick and be proven right in one theory or another.

therockismighty wrote:

olias wrote:

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.

It is not an addendum to Basic Gospel, but the interpretations of their theological implications.

You can act like you don't have them, but if you truly examined what you believed, you would realize that you also intepret scripture a certain way, even if it is without the denominational label.

againsttheantichrist wrote:

Olias....first two lines = not bright.

http://bible.cc/matthew/15-9.htm

I assume you are talking about John Calvin's teachings.

your right, still I do not need to attach a label to them.. they divide.. they cause arguments... if we can agree on the basics... that is what matters to me, unless there is heretical, false and distorted things being thrown about... it doesn't matter. Sick of denominations, labels.. divisions.. when at this point in time we need to rally around and stand together... not to continually nit pick and be proven right in one theory or another.

Actually, what you said reminded me of a quote that I shall speak of: Better to be separated in Truth than united in error.

If I don't think like you do and yet we stand together, who has the correct view? Even if we stand together, because we think differently, we are still separated.

therockismighty wrote:

olias wrote:

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.

It is not an addendum to Basic Gospel, but the interpretations of their theological implications.

You can act like you don't have them, but if you truly examined what you believed, you would realize that you also intepret scripture a certain way, even if it is without the denominational label.

againsttheantichrist wrote:

Olias....first two lines = not bright.

http://bible.cc/matthew/15-9.htm

I assume you are talking about John Calvin's teachings.

your right, still I do not need to attach a label to them.. they divide.. they cause arguments... if we can agree on the basics... that is what matters to me, unless there is heretical, false and distorted things being thrown about... it doesn't matter. Sick of denominations, labels.. divisions.. when at this point in time we need to rally around and stand together... not to continually nit pick and be proven right in one theory or another.

But unfortunately, part of the problem is that folks do not even fully agree on what the "basics" are. So, we have to wrestle through with these questions, even though we can hopefully do it in love. Rigorous debate, BTW, NEED not be unloving, though it can deteriorate into that. I think sometimes we confuse telling someone we think their view is wrong as being unloving, but it's not unloving if this does not lead us to pass judgment on the person in terms of where he/she stands with God (and if it is done in the spirit of discerning truth, and not just about "outdoing" the other). I admit that I have said that the Calvinist logic requires passing such judgment, but fortunately, I think most Calvinists are loving enough (or, I hope so--at least many of those I've known were) to not necessarily live by what I think are the logical implications of the system to which they adhere.

graybeardheadbanger

Do you accept Jesus as your saviour and follow his ways? that the word is the living word of God? that your will must conform to His? That we are to be fishers of men?....


Those are the basics at the core of my beliefs... you agree... then thats cool.

We all believe in Christ and that God is mighty hey? thats a start... to me, thats better than nothing.

*underlining is mine*

graybeardheadbanger wrote:

Rigorous debate, BTW, NEED not be unloving, though it can deteriorate into that. I think sometimes we confuse telling someone we think their view is wrong as being unloving, but it's not unloving if this does not lead us to pass judgment on the person in terms of where he/she stands with God (and if it is done in the spirit of discerning truth, and not just about "outdoing" the other). I admit that I have said that the Calvinist logic requires passing such judgment, but fortunately, I think most Calvinists are loving enough (or, I hope so--at least many of those I've known were) to not necessarily live by what I think are the logical implications of the system to which they adhere.

graybeardheadbanger

This. Exactly. I still stand by the adage (might have been John Piper that said it) that "Calvinism" is nothing more than an ugly name for a precious understanding of the Gospel.

I agree with therockismighty to this extent:

Quote :

still I do not need to attach a label to them.. they divide.. they cause arguments... if we can agree on the basics... that is what matters to me, unless there is heretical, false and distorted things being thrown about...

Denominationalism merely for the sake of denominationalism is an grievous evil that sullies the name and Word of God, and disparate groups of believers need to unite around the core truths of the faith (which is why I'm thankful for things like T4G).

For the most part, I (and most other Calvinists I know personally) consider this all an "intramural" debate. Are differences on this issue a reason to call one's eternal state into question? Absolutely not! Does that mean we should just ignore the issue and not really think about the implications of things like the Ordo Salutis? Again, absolutely not!

Theology matters. It colors everything we do as believers. How you understand things like predestination, the work of the Spirit, and the believer's nature post-regeneration have HUGE impacts on how you do ministry, evangelize, your heart for missions-work, etc.

There are two traps we can fall into. One is to divide and argue uncivilly about any and every minor eccentricity under the sun. The opposite is silence and unity at the cost of everything else. The biblically-mandated path we must walk lies between these two.

But I digress, I've kind of wandered off the whole topic of tulips and such. I'm thankful for the "breather" and obligatory group-hug though!