Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

C_Fresh · (This post was last modified: 04-13-2012 12:39 PM by C_Fresh.)

(04-13-2012 11:55 AM)Poomp Wrote: I actually registered here just to respond to this, because it is an idea that is so often misunderstood, but really helped me to make sense of some verses that are in tension.

Basically, the idea is that God can honestly desire (or will) one thing, but because He values something else more highly, that is not what actually happens. A verse that fairly explicitly lays this out is Lamentations 3:33, "For He does not afflict willingly or grieve the sons of men." So although God is indeed afflicting (see the wider context), He is not doing so "willingly" (or "from the heart"). In other words, He has one will (to not afflict), but He values something else more highly, so He violates that will.

This same concept pops up in ordinary life all the time. I could honestly say that I don't want to spank my son, I don't "will" to do so, but sometimes I violate that will because of a higher value. We often desire one thing, but a higher value supersedes it.

The basic dilemma that this view is trying to make sense of is the fact that some verses like 1 Timothy 2:3-4 ("... God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved...") speak of God's desire for all to be saved, yet it is quite clear from Scripture that this is not what happens. Note that this is not a dilemma just for Calvinists, this is a dilemma for everyone, and ultimately almost everyone answers in that same way, that God values something else more than He desires universal salvation (Calvinists typically say His own glory, Arminians typically say the type of love that requires free will).

This sounds pretty much like my view.

Poomp · 04-13-2012, 12:56 PM

@greg -- I'd be happy to provide my thoughts, at least. Personally, I am not a fan of the term "Calvinism". It has too many wide-spread and varied connotations, and is not a very accurate name anyway (Augustine was a "Calvinist" 1100 years before Calvin).

But the basic distinction, I think is an important one. Does God offer "prevenient grace" to all people and those who freely choose to believe are saved, or does God choose whom to save and draw them to Himself? Those are two fairly different views of God.

The problem with quoting verses like Romans 1:16 ("... power of God to salvation for everyone who believs...") in the light of that question is that it really doesn't address it. Both Calvinists and Arminians affirm that, happily. But the question naturally arises, why do some believe and others not? Is it purely a matter of their libertarian free will? Or is it that as many as are appointed to eternal life believe (Acts 13:48)? That no one can come to Jesus unless the Father draws him (John 6:44)? That, in fact, it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy (Romans 9:16)?

That is my point, really, that the core of what is called "Calvinism" is simply Scripture. "Total depravity" is just a term for what is taught in John 6:44. "Unconditional election" is just a term for what is taught in Romans 9:11-12. "Irresistible grace" is just a term for what is taught in John 6:37. Don't let the theological terms make you think it is man-made doctrine; they are simply terms for what is in Scripture.

Elijah Craig · 04-13-2012, 12:58 PM

You are wasting your time trying to argue with greg on this. But you're free to learn it the hard way.

D-Stan · 04-13-2012, 02:03 PM

(04-13-2012 12:56 PM)Poomp Wrote: @greg -- I'd be happy to provide my thoughts, at least. Personally, I am not a fan of the term "Calvinism". It has too many wide-spread and varied connotations, and is not a very accurate name anyway (Augustine was a "Calvinist" 1100 years before Calvin).

But the basic distinction, I think is an important one. Does God offer "prevenient grace" to all people and those who freely choose to believe are saved, or does God choose whom to save and draw them to Himself? Those are two fairly different views of God.

The problem with quoting verses like Romans 1:16 ("... power of God to salvation for everyone who believs...") in the light of that question is that it really doesn't address it. Both Calvinists and Arminians affirm that, happily. But the question naturally arises, why do some believe and others not? Is it purely a matter of their libertarian free will? Or is it that as many as are appointed to eternal life believe (Acts 13:48)? That no one can come to Jesus unless the Father draws him (John 6:44)? That, in fact, it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy (Romans 9:16)?

That is my point, really, that the core of what is called "Calvinism" is simply Scripture. "Total depravity" is just a term for what is taught in John 6:44. "Unconditional election" is just a term for what is taught in Romans 9:11-12. "Irresistible grace" is just a term for what is taught in John 6:37. Don't let the theological terms make you think it is man-made doctrine; they are simply terms for what is in Scripture.

Your earlier description of the doctrine is one of the best I've heard. Indeed, I read something similar a few days ago. Lamentations is a very poetic book, and I believe the author is trying to figure out why such terrible things were happening to Israel. That is not to say that the author is wrong, but I think that Scripture is deeper than we imagine. What I mean by that is that I don't think all the authors are necessarily concerned with giving us a systematic answer to things(I know this is kind of a side issue, though).

In my opinion, the problem with all of these debates is that just as one person can post verses saying that people have no choice at all in the matter of salvation...another person can post other verses to say that people do have a free choice. Romans 9 definitely points to election, but what does Romans 11:17-23 say? That is a little bit hard to fit in with unconditional election. I believe that Romans 9 is apart of the same argument that Paul presents in chapters 10 and 11. Those chapters are difficult to interpret...at least I think they are. I believe that Romans 11:25-32 sums up Paul's argument....that a partial hardening has come upon Israel so the Gentiles might come to know God. Verse 32 says, "For God has consigned all to disobedience that He may have mercy on all."

The difficulty with that passage is that earlier in chapter 11 Paul says that there is a remnant of Israel left...chosen by grace, but reading 25-32 almost sounds like hopeful Universalism. Ultimately, I feel that the whole hidden will/revealed will doctrine assumes certain things that are not always advocated by Scripture. It helps explain certain passages, but it runs into trouble with other passages. I think it is better to live in the tension.

**redbeardiam** · (This post was last modified: 04-13-2012 02:13 PM by redbeardiam.)

(04-13-2012 12:32 PM)greg Wrote: (for the record my beliefs are "all" from scripture, I have followed no man. I respect my own opinion much more than I respect Calvin's or any other man, this statement seems to make so much sense to me, but not to alot of calvinists)

Well, since the book of shoes 6:67 says I must pipe in, I will just say one thing. Wink

This anti-authority bias when it comes to understanding the Bible... well, the kindest thing I can say is that it is arrogant and short-sighted. It is downright foolish not to avail oneself of the history of Christian thought in any area of theology. I'm not saying that we should unquestioningly accept what our fathers believed - after all, they disagreed a lot of the time. But if we have a couple of thousand years of the Holy Spirit working in the corporate church, for me to respect my own opinion above all others is laughable.

Oh, and Elijah... you are so right. I know. But if you'll notice, I didn't even argue Calvinism there.

greg · (This post was last modified: 04-13-2012 03:25 PM by greg.)

(04-13-2012 02:11 PM)redbeardiam Wrote:
(04-13-2012 12:32 PM)greg Wrote: (for the record my beliefs are "all" from scripture, I have followed no man. I respect my own opinion much more than I respect Calvin's or any other man, this statement seems to make so much sense to me, but not to alot of calvinists)

Well, since the book of shoes 6:67 says I must pipe in, I will just say one thing.

This anti-authority bias when it comes to understanding the Bible... well, the kindest thing I can say is that it is arrogant and short-sighted. It is downright foolish not to avail oneself of the history of Christian thought in any area of theology. I'm not saying that we should unquestioningly accept what our fathers believed - after all, they disagreed a lot of the time. But if we have a couple of thousand years of the Holy Spirit working in the corporate church, for me to respect my own opinion above all others is laughable.

Oh, and Elijah... you are so right. I know. But if you'll notice, I didn't even argue Calvinism there.

I'm fine with the criticism of being short-sighted and arrogant, but kinda wondering where I disavowed the entire history of christian thought.

If you exaggerated like this as a child, you must have spent alot of time in the corner, oh no, wait a minute, that wasn't a corner that was a vast sea with wondrous sailing vesssels and.............. Big Grin

**redbeardiam** · 04-13-2012, 03:41 PM

(04-13-2012 03:23 PM)greg Wrote: I'm fine with the criticism of being short-sighted and arrogant, but kinda wondering where I disavowed the entire history of christian thought.

If you exaggerated like this as a child, you must have spent alot of time in the corner, oh no, wait a minute, that wasn't a corner that was a vast sea with wondrous sailing vesssels and..............

Whatever are you talking about? Wait, I guess if you wanted to, you could misread what I said.

(04-13-2012 02:11 PM)redbeardiam Wrote: It is downright foolish not to avail oneself of the history of Christian thought in any area of theology.

Let me be more clear. Here, I'll reverse the clauses:

In any area of theology, it is downright foolish not to avail oneself of the history of Christian thought.

Is that better?

04-13-2012, 03:42 PM

(04-13-2012 12:32 PM)greg Wrote: (for the record my beliefs are "all" from scripture, I have followed no man. I respect my own opinion much more than I respect Calvin's or any other man, this statement seems to make so much sense to me, but not to alot of calvinists)

Greg,
A lot of people say that. the Arminians at my seminary said that. the Calvinists in my church say that.

TIA

greg · (This post was last modified: 04-13-2012 04:21 PM by greg.)

Bob M - I'm neither calvinist or arminian. If they follow/identify with these men, then their statements would seem non-sensical. I think what you are saying is that they follow one of these belief systems, but have arrived there by their own study, in which case, I see what you're saying.

Redbeard - I don't believe one should put too much emphasis into what simple, sinful men have to say about the things of God. Isn't that the main reason why SFL was even invented? I don't believe in divine inspiration of men, beyond those that wrote down the "God-breathed" words of scripture. We still have those "inspired" words, I say let's pay attention to those. If men's words line up with those fine if not let's toss em out.

Listening to men's words have led to baby baptisms, magical a,b,c, repeat after me prayers, only accapella singing in church, ties and suits for church services, wine is from the devil, calling wicked men infallible, raised platforms, sacred desks, choir robes, or for that matter choirs themselves. Some of these are not necessarily bad, but yea, they came from men not from the Scripures. (oh my, almost forgot the most important ones, man-made theology like calvinism and armianism)

04-13-2012, 04:20 PM

(04-13-2012 04:18 PM)greg Wrote: Bob M - I'm neither calvinist or arminian. If they follow/identify with these men, then their statements would seem non-sensical. I think what you are saying is that they follow one of these belief systems, but have arrived there by their own study, in which case, I see what you're saying.

So, you're saying that you have come to conclusions independent of anyone, and you have a unique belief on these things?