PDA

View Full Version : Calvinism/Arminianism- One-sided Theologies?


Benja32one
June 25th, 2005, 11:47 AM
Calvinism and Arminianism — One-sided Theologies?
C. H. Mackintosh

We have lately received a long letter, furnishing a very striking proof of the bewildering effect of one-sided theology. Our correspondent is evidently under the influence of what is styled the high school of doctrine. Hence, he cannot see the rightness of calling upon the unconverted to "come", to "hear", to "repent", or to "believe". It seems to him like telling a crab-tree to bear some apples in order that it may become an appletree.

Now, we thoroughly believe that faith is the gift of God, and that it is not according to man's will or by human power. And further, we believe that not a single soul would even come to Christ if not drawn, yea, compelled by divine grace so to do; and therefore all who are saved have to thank the free and sovereign grace of God for it; their song is and ever shall be, "Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto Thy name give glory, for Thy mercy, and for Thy truth's sake".

And this we believe not as part of a certain system of doctrine, but as the revealed truth of God. But, on the other hand, we believe just as fully, in the solemn truth of man's moral responsibility, inasmuch as it is plainly taught in Scripture, though we do not find it amongst what are called "the five points of the faith of God's elect".

We believe these five points, so far as they go; but they are very far indeed from containing the faith of God's elect. There are wide fields of divine revelation which this stunted and one-sided system does not touch upon, or even hint at, in the most remote manner. Where do we find the heavenly calling? Where, the glorious truth of the Church as the body and bride of Christ? Where, the precious sanctifying hope of the coming of Christ to receive His people to Himself? Where have we the grand scope of prophecy opened to the vision of our souls, in that which is so pompously styled "the faith of God's elect"? We look in vain for a single trace of them in the entire system to which our friend is attached.

Now, can we suppose for a moment that the blessed apostle Paul would accept as "the faith of God's elect" a system which leaves out that glorious mystery of the Church of which he was specially made the minister? Suppose any one had shown Paul "the five points" of Calvinism, as a statement of the truth of God, what would he have said? What! "The whole truth of God"; "the faith of God's elect"; "all that is essential to be believed"; and yet not a syllable about the real position of the Church — its calling, its standing, its hopes, its privileges!

And not a word about Israel's future! A complete ignoring, or at best a thorough alienation, of the promises made to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David! The whole body of prophetic teaching subjected to a system of spiritualizing, falsely so called, whereby Israel is robbed of its proper portion, and Christians dragged down to an earthly level — and this presented to us with the lofty pretension of "The faith of God's elect"!

Thank God it is not so. He, blessed be His name, has not confined Himself within the narrow limits of any school of doctrine, high, low, or moderate. He has revealed Himself. He has told out the deep and precious secrets of His heart. He has unfolded His eternal counsels, as to the Church, as to Israel, the Gentiles, and the wide creation. Men might as well attempt to confine the ocean in buckets of their own formation as to confine the vast range of divine revelation within the feeble enclosures of human systems of doctrine. It cannot be done, and it ought not to be attempted. Better far to set aside the systems of theology and schools of divinity, and come like a little child to the eternal fountain of Holy Scripture, and there drink in the living teachings of God's Spirit.

Nothing is more damaging to the truth of God, more withering to the soul, or more subversive of all spiritual growth and progress than mere theology, high or low — Calvinistic or Arminian. It is impossible for the soul to make progress beyond the boundaries of the system to which it is attached. If I am taught to regard "the five points" as "the faith of God's elect", I shall not think of looking beyond them; and then a most glorious field of heavenly truth is shut out from the vision of my soul. I am stunted, narrowed, one-sided; and I am in danger of getting into that hard, dry state of soul which results from being occupied with mere points of doctrine instead of with Christ.

A disciple of the high school of doctrine will not hear of a world-wide gospel — of God's love to the world — of glad tidings to every creature under Heaven. He has only gotten a gospel for the elect. On the other hand, a disciple of the low or Arminian school will not hear of the eternal security of God's people. Their salvation depends partly upon Christ, and partly upon themselves. According to this system, the song of the redeemed should be changed. Instead of "Worthy is the Lamb", we should have to add, "and worthy are we". We may be saved to-day, and lost to-morrow. All this dishonors God, and robs the Christian of all true peace.

We do not write to offend the reader. Nothing is further from our thoughts. We are dealing not with persons, but with schools of doctrine and systems of divinity which we would, most earnestly, entreat our beloved readers to abandon, at once, and for ever. Not one of them contains the full, entire truth of God. There are certain elements of truth in all of them; but the truth is often neutralized by the error; and even if we could find a system which contains, so far as it goes, nothing but the truth, yet if it does not contain the whole truth, its effect upon the soul is pernicious, because it leads a person to plume himself on having the truth of God when, in reality, he has only laid hold of a one-sided system of man.

Then again we rarely find a mere disciple of any school of doctrine who can face Scripture as a whole. Favorite texts will be quoted and continually reiterated; but a large body of Scripture is left almost wholly unappropriated. For example, take such passages as the following, "But now God commandeth all men everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30). And again, "Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Timothy 2). So also, in 2 Peter, "The Lord ... is long-suffering toward us, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" (chapter 3:9). And, in the very closing section of the volume, we read, "Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely".

Are these passage to be taken as they stand, or are we to introduce qualifying or modifying words to make them fit in with our system? The fact is, they set forth the largeness of the heart of God, the gracious activities of His nature, the wide aspect of His love. It is not according to the loving heart of God that any of His creatures should perish. There is no such thing in Scripture as any decree of God consigning a certain number of the human race to eternal damnation.* Some may be judicially given over to blindness because of deliberate rejection of the light (see Romans 9:17; Hebrews 6:4-6; 10:26-27; 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12; 1 Peter 2:8). But all who perish will have only themselves to blame. All who reach Heaven will have to thank God.

If we are to be taught by Scripture we must believe that every man is responsible according to his light. The Gentile is responsible to listen to the voice of creation. The Jew is responsible on the ground of the law. Christendom is responsible on the ground of the full-orbed revelation contained in the whole Word of God. If God commands all men, everywhere to repent, does He mean what He says, or merely all the elect? What right have we to add to, or alter, to pare down, or to accommodate the Word of God? None whatever.

Let us face Scripture as it stands, and reject everything which will not stand the test. We may well call in question the soundness of a system which cannot meet the full force of the Word of God as a whole. If passages of Scripture seem to clash, it is only because of our ignorance. Let us humbly own this, and wait on God for further light. This, we may depend upon it, is safe moral ground to occupy. Instead of endeavoring to reconcile apparent discrepancies, let us bow at the Master's feet and justify Him in all His sayings. Thus shall we reap a harvest of blessing, and grow in the knowledge of God and His Word as a whole.

A few days since, a friend put into our hands a sermon recently preached by an eminent clergyman belonging to the high school of doctrine. We have found in this sermon, quite as much as in the letter of our correspondent, the effects of one-sided theology. For instance, in referring to that magnificent statement of the Baptist in John 1:29, the preacher quotes it thus, "The Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the whole world of God's chosen people".

But there is not a word about "God's chosen people" in the passage. It refers to the great propitiatory work of Christ, in virtue of which every trace of sin shall yet be obliterated from the wide creation of God. We shall only see the full application of that blessed Scripture in the new heavens and the new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness. To confine it to the sin of God's elect can only be viewed as the fruit of theological bias.

* It is deeply interesting to mark the way in which Scripture guards against the repulsive doctrine of reprobation. Look, for example, at Matthew 25:34. Here, the King, in addressing those on His right hand, says, "Come, ye blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world". Contrast with this the address to those on His left hand: "Depart from Me ye cursed [He does not say 'of My Father'] into everlasting fire, prepared [not for you, but] for the devil and his angels". So also, in Romans 9. In speaking of the "vessels of wrath", it says "fitted to destruction" – fitted not by God surely, but by themselves. On the other hand, when speaking of the "vessels of mercy", it says "which He had afore prepared unto glory". The grand truth of election is fully established; the repulsive error of reprobation, sedulously avoided.

From Miscellaneous Writings, by C. H. Mackintosh. (About 1850-60)


http://plymouthbrethren.com/chmm604.htm

hopehome
June 25th, 2005, 12:32 PM
So we are going to argue from emission are we? Keep in mind that the bible doesn't "say" Trinity or....rapture! (GASP!)

Arguing a position based on what the bible does not say is folly.

Benja32one
June 25th, 2005, 12:53 PM
So we are going to argue from emission are we? Keep in mind that the bible doesn't "say" Trinity or....rapture! (GASP!)

Arguing a position based on what the bible does not say is folly.
:rolleyes

:spit
Arguing about emissions is the EPA's domain.
If that is all you have to say about CHM's work, you need to read a little more of his writings, IMHO.
:nod

hopehome
June 25th, 2005, 01:04 PM
I read that one.

FrankDH
June 25th, 2005, 01:41 PM
hopehome,

Originally Posted by hopehome
So we are going to argue from emission are we? Keep in mind that the bible doesn't "say" Trinity or....rapture! (GASP!)

Arguing a position based on what the bible does not say is folly.

I have talked with many preterists who refer to an intraadvent period. What verse is this found in? We often give labels to biblical concepts in order to enhance communication. Ans all positions participate in this practice.

There is a concept referred to as an arguement from silence. Meaning that knowledge can be derived from what has not been said.This is not how you are using the term.

Frank

Benja32one
June 25th, 2005, 03:21 PM
hopehome,



I have talked with many preterists who refer to an intraadvent period. What verse is this found in? We often give labels to biblical concepts in order to enhance communication. Ans all positions participate in this practice.

There is a concept referred to as an arguement from silence. Meaning that knowledge can be derived from what has not been said.This is not how you are using the term.

Frank
:thumb :nod

HeIsEnough
June 26th, 2005, 08:21 AM
Nice article....needs a bump for the conceptually constrained among us.

Benja32one
June 26th, 2005, 09:14 AM
Nice article....needs a bump for the conceptually constrained among us.
:wave
HeIsEnough.....Thanks for that. Mackintosh was a favorite when I was studying the Pentateuch, and wanted to know something....I'd go to his
"Notes on the Pentateuch". However, he wrote before JND and Kelly who
it fell to to further develope timing and more precise interpretation of the prophetic scriptures. Progressive revelation, in my view.
:nod

HeIsEnough
June 26th, 2005, 10:30 PM
:wave
HeIsEnough.....Thanks for that. Mackintosh was a favorite when I was studying the Pentateuch, and wanted to know something....I'd go to his
"Notes on the Pentateuch". However, he wrote before JND and Kelly who
it fell to to further develope timing and more precise interpretation of the prophetic scriptures. Progressive revelation, in my view.
:nod

Any links on Mackintosh? Ya, I know, I'm lazy. :D:

Benja32one
June 26th, 2005, 10:38 PM
Any links on Mackintosh? Ya, I know, I'm lazy. :D:

:confused
<plymouthbrethren.org> or <plymouthbrethren.com>?
One or the other.
:nod

AndyPLS
June 27th, 2005, 12:30 AM
Calvinism and Arminianism — One-sided Theologies?
C. H. Mackintosh
...


Thanks for posting! A very reasonable assessment (imo). :thumb

Benja32one
June 27th, 2005, 07:06 AM
:thumb
One has to remember this man wrote in the 1800's. But I thought he had some great insight and knew him from 50 years ago by reading his "Notes on the Pentateuch".
:nod

joy4Him2day
June 27th, 2005, 07:47 AM
I wouldn't have read it if it wasn't for HeIsEnough's post.......I dislike the Calvinistic election theory so much.......but I am glad to have read the piece. I think that his writing is very edifying and balanced. I have never read any of his stuff, nor have I heard of him before.
thanks for sharing.
JOY

Benja32one
June 27th, 2005, 08:02 AM
I wouldn't have read it if it wasn't for HeIsEnough's post.......I dislike the Calvinistic election theory so much.......but I am glad to have read the piece. I think that his writing is very edifying and balanced. I have never read any of his stuff, nor have I heard of him before.
thanks for sharing.
JOY

:wave
Early on in my christian life, I found a set of his "Notes on the Pentateuch" at the old Acres of Books store in Long Beach. When I wanted a balanced view of some teaching in the O.T., I read CHM. He predated John Nelson Darby and William Kelly, etal, early writers of the 'Plymouth Brethren', I think he wrote around 1820-40, maybe later.
:nod
You can read more of them at <plymouthbrethren.org?, com?>

HeIsEnough
June 27th, 2005, 01:15 PM
Yep----->plymouthbrethren.org

aslieren
June 28th, 2005, 06:03 PM
Good article. I believe in Calvinism for the most part (It is quite a few volumes) and man's responsibility. I don't agree with having correct theology and using it incorrectly. You can be a liar and never lie, you can be an adulterer and never cheat, and you can be a false prophet with correct theology. Know when to use it and how to use it and don't dismiss other counsels of God thereby by default dismissing the whole counsel of God.

Whoever made that ommission comment I'm not sure I understand his point. If a verse ommits some theology and we accept it as it's stated that doesn't mean you necessarily reject other verses theology. It just means you believe them both. When you read verses about God changing His mind that is what the verse is trying to tell you and you should just see it as so. When you read verses that God doesn't change His mind believe that too. It is in perspective of that scriptures context not in perspective of Calvinism glasses. If you always have your Calvinism glasses on you will miss a lot of what the bible is trying to teach you.

wilberforce15
June 28th, 2005, 07:21 PM
It just means you believe them both. When you read verses about God changing His mind that is what the verse is trying to tell you and you should just see it as so. When you read verses that God doesn't change His mind believe that too. It is in perspective of that scriptures context not in perspective of Calvinism glasses. If you always have your Calvinism glasses on you will miss a lot of what the bible is trying to teach you.

So it is ok to believe diametrically opposed things about God? Is this not the definition of absurdity? If I was to affirm both 2+2=4 and 2+2=5, they would call me a lunatic....but if you affirm that God is sovereign and has eternally decreed all events in this world, great and small, yet changed his mind at certain times...that's ok?

AndyPLS
June 28th, 2005, 11:06 PM
So it is ok to believe diametrically opposed things about God? Is this not the definition of absurdity?
Antinomy.

but if you affirm that God is sovereign and has eternally decreed all events in this world, great and small,
What does this mean? Are you saying that when someone wipes their nose or cusses ... ? I'm trying to determine at what level of detail you mean.

yet changed his mind at certain times...that's ok?

Instead of complete deterministic control, could this decree have consisted of a set of rules set forth to the effect of ... if they do A then I will do B but if they do not do A then I will do C, etc? This seems to be a theme throughout the Word of God.

aslieren
June 29th, 2005, 07:16 AM
So it is ok to believe diametrically opposed things about God?

Ya for the most part I think it's ok to believe this way if there is no other choice. Regarding this topic I think you have to believe that God changes His mind and He is sovereign and supreme and immutable all at the same time. It's possible to believe all of these things at once simply because God allows himself to be this way. If He is God He can limit His power like for instance when Jesus was the Man-God on earth. He was limited but still God. That's how you have to see these verses where God specifically changes His mind.

AndyPLS
June 29th, 2005, 01:23 PM
Ya for the most part I think it's ok to believe this way if there is no other choice. Regarding this topic I think you have to believe that God changes His mind and He is sovereign and supreme and immutable all at the same time. It's possible to believe all of these things at once simply because God allows himself to be this way. If He is God He can limit His power like for instance when Jesus was the Man-God on earth. He was limited but still God. That's how you have to see these verses where God specifically changes His mind.

This is a good point. :nod

AndyPLS
June 29th, 2005, 01:46 PM
I wouldn't have read it if it wasn't for HeIsEnough's post.......I dislike the Calvinistic election theory so much.......but I am glad to have read the piece. I think that his writing is very edifying and balanced. I have never read any of his stuff, nor have I heard of him before.
thanks for sharing.
JOY

Hi Joy,
I share your dislike for the Calvinist position. Sometimes though, I think this dislike stems from the way in which it is presented. Here is a website that discusses this idea in terms of how the larger denominations have historically viewed it. His analysis of the Reformed view is presented in way that even I could sign on to. Kind of like a "well, when you put it that way ..." type of thing. (Though I still believe that God elects "believers" and "believers" are whosoever will) :):

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/nowhim.html

pilgrimian
June 29th, 2005, 09:54 PM
So it is ok to believe diametrically opposed things about God? Is this not the definition of absurdity? If I was to affirm both 2+2=4 and 2+2=5, they would call me a lunatic....but if you affirm that God is sovereign and has eternally decreed all events in this world, great and small, yet changed his mind at certain times...that's ok?

How funny man is.

God is three...God is one. Get over it.

Benja32one
July 8th, 2005, 07:41 AM
How funny man is.

God is three...God is one. Get over it.


:wave
Great succinct rejoinder!
:nod

AnyDayNow
July 8th, 2005, 11:39 AM
Wow.These Calvinist/Arminian threads are exciting, aren't they? :yawn

For the benefit of the uninformed:

Origin of Calvinist/Arminian Debates

Early in the seventeenth century the Presbyterian Church of Holland was much troubled by a species of new-school minority, headed by one of its preachers and professors, James Harmensen, in Latin, Arminius (hence, ever since, Arminians). Church and state have always been united in Holland; hence the civil government took up the quarrel. Professor Harmensen (Arminius) and his party were required to appear before the States General (what we would call Federal Congress) and say what their objections were against the doctrines of their own church, which they had freely promised in their ordination vows to teach. Arminius handed in a writing in which he named five points of doctrine concerning which he and his friends either differed or doubted. These points were virtually: Original sin, unconditional predestination, invincible grace in conversion, particular redemption, and perseverance of saints. I may add, the result was: that the Federal legislature ordered the holding of a general council of all the Presbyterian churches then in the world, to discuss anew and settle these five doctrines. This was the famous Synod of Dort, or Dordrecht, where not only Holland ministers, but delegates from the French, German, Swiss, and British churches met in 1618. The Synod adopted the rule that every doctrine should be decided by the sole authority of the Word of God, leaving out all human philosophies and opinions on both sides. :freaked The result was a short set of articles which were made a part thenceforward of the Confession of Faith of the Holland Presbyterian Church. They are similar in substance with those of the Westminster Confession, enacted twenty-seven years afterward.

Let's see, 21st Century - 17th Century = 400 years. Hasn't it gone on long enough? Ho-Hum. Why can't we all just "get along"? Don't we all agree that the only way a person is saved is through Jesus' Work on the Cross? And that a person must repent in order to be saved? What else matters? :noidea

wilberforce15
July 8th, 2005, 08:52 PM
What does this mean? Are you saying that when someone wipes their nose or cusses ... ? I'm trying to determine at what level of detail you mean.

I mean exactly what I said: "that God is sovereign and has eternally decreed all events in this world, great and small." I don't know where there is any ambiguity in this statement: All things great and small. That includes you wiping your nose or someone cussing.


Ya for the most part I think it's ok to believe this way if there is no other choice. Regarding this topic I think you have to believe that God changes His mind and He is sovereign and supreme and immutable all at the same time. It's possible to believe all of these things at once simply because God allows himself to be this way. If He is God He can limit His power like for instance when Jesus was the Man-God on earth. He was limited but still God. That's how you have to see these verses where God specifically changes His mind.

Somewhere in this long strain of mere assertion and strained logic, it seems you are affirming that it is perfectly acceptable to believe two things that directly contradict each other.

If so, I see no point in continuing any discussion, because it is impossible for the laws of logic to mean anything to you. If one is willing to affirm that something both IS and IS NOT, at the same time in the same sense, then there is no hope for rational discussion. None at all. No critique of your position could ever make you question your own tradition....because any critique relies partially on showing internal inconsistency. But you don't appear to care if you're internally consistent. "So what if I contradict myself?" This destroys, essentially, all possibility of knowledge or coherence in the universe.

If I was an unbeliever and told you "God both exists and does not exist. He is both holy and sinful simultaneously....at the same time He still does not exist." How would you respond? You couldn't! Why? Because I'm only doing the same thing you do. I can just say "Hey, you allow for contradiction, and so do I. What's the difference?" And you can have no response.

God is three...God is one. Get over it.

This may just be the most asinine thing I've ever read. Seriously, this whole thread makes my jaw drop - from those who sum up their thoughts on Calvinism as "dislike," to those claiming to be at least parital Calvinists who couldn't define a single term within it rightly, and finally to folks who claim that something and its opposite can be equally true at the same time. This, however, takes the cake. I am terribly offended by this comment above, and I will show why.

First, this quote was posted as evidence that one can simultaneously affirm things which are "diametrically opposed" to one another. Pilgrimian then proceeds to assume common ground (that we're both Trinitarian - I am, though I can't speak for him). He uses this common ground to effectively say to me "Look, you affirm contradictory things too! God is three and God is one! So there!"

A few points on this madness:

1) Pilgrimian cannot properly define any coherent position on the Trinity. He has shown this by his own implicit admission that Trinitarian doctrine is internally inconsistent. If being Trinitarian required us to say that God is both One and Three, simultaneously and in the same sense, then yes it would be incoherent and internally inconsistent. And if that was the case, I would reject it. And so should he. But that is NOT what the doctrine of the Trinity states, and it is CERTAINLY not what Scripture teaches. Frankly, he has just proven that he has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. He cannot articulate historical formulations of Trinitarian doctrine, or understand any distinctions that orthodox theologians have made on this point. If he could, he would understand that the Doctrine of the Trinity is not a contradiction.

Ok, I'll stop at one point, because this is more for those viewing the thread than those I'm addressing. As long as someone is willing to affirm both A and ~A, no critique or questioning will be fruitful, and I am currently addressing someone with an impenetrable shield of irrationality.

ATTN ALL: Drop the comics. Turn off the tube. Read a book. Non-fiction. Study logic. Your brain will thank you.

Benja32one
July 8th, 2005, 09:32 PM
I mean exactly what I said: "that God is sovereign and has eternally decreed all events in this world, great and small." I don't know where there is any ambiguity in this statement: All things great and small. That includes you wiping your nose or someone cussing.




Somewhere in this long strain of mere assertion and strained logic, it seems you are affirming that it is perfectly acceptable to believe two things that directly contradict each other.

If so, I see no point in continuing any discussion, because it is impossible for the laws of logic to mean anything to you. If one is willing to affirm that something both IS and IS NOT, at the same time in the same sense, then there is no hope for rational discussion. None at all. No critique of your position could ever make you question your own tradition....because any critique relies partially on showing internal inconsistency. But you don't appear to care if you're internally consistent. "So what if I contradict myself?" This destroys, essentially, all possibility of knowledge or coherence in the universe.

If I was an unbeliever and told you "God both exists and does not exist. He is both holy and sinful simultaneously....at the same time He still does not exist." How would you respond? You couldn't! Why? Because I'm only doing the same thing you do. I can just say "Hey, you allow for contradiction, and so do I. What's the difference?" And you can have no response.



This may just be the most asinine thing I've ever read. Seriously, this whole thread makes my jaw drop - from those who sum up their thoughts on Calvinism as "dislike," to those claiming to be at least parital Calvinists who couldn't define a single term within it rightly, and finally to folks who claim that something and its opposite can be equally true at the same time. This, however, takes the cake. I am terribly offended by this comment above, and I will show why.

First, this quote was posted as evidence that one can simultaneously affirm things which are "diametrically opposed" to one another. Pilgrimian then proceeds to assume common ground (that we're both Trinitarian - I am, though I can't speak for him). He uses this common ground to effectively say to me "Look, you affirm contradictory things too! God is three and God is one! So there!"

A few points on this madness:

1) Pilgrimian cannot properly define any coherent position on the Trinity. He has shown this by his own implicit admission that Trinitarian doctrine is internally inconsistent. If being Trinitarian required us to say that God is both One and Three, simultaneously and in the same sense, then yes it would be incoherent and internally inconsistent. And if that was the case, I would reject it. And so should he. But that is NOT what the doctrine of the Trinity states, and it is CERTAINLY not what Scripture teaches. Frankly, he has just proven that he has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. He cannot articulate historical formulations of Trinitarian doctrine, or understand any distinctions that orthodox theologians have made on this point. If he could, he would understand that the Doctrine of the Trinity is not a contradiction.

Ok, I'll stop at one point, because this is more for those viewing the thread than those I'm addressing. As long as someone is willing to affirm both A and ~A, no critique or questioning will be fruitful, and I am currently addressing someone with an impenetrable shield of irrationality.

ATTN ALL: Drop the comics. Turn off the tube. Read a book. Non-fiction. Study logic. Your brain will thank you.

:wave
"All Things Great and Small" was a great series on PBS, once.
:lol

kingdomgospel
July 8th, 2005, 10:24 PM
Benja32one,

I'm a Calvinist to the degree that I believe God has unilaterally selected whom He would ultimately give the faith to believe that Jesus is the Saviour of the whole world.

I'm an arminian to the degree that the scriptures teach that everyone must, and will, choose to believe that Jesus is Lord, each in their own order.

KingdomGospel

Benja32one
July 9th, 2005, 08:19 AM
Benja32one,

I'm a Calvinist to the degree that I believe God has unilaterally selected whom He would ultimately give the faith to believe that Jesus is the Saviour of the whole world.

I'm an arminian to the degree that the scriptures teach that everyone must, and will, choose to believe that Jesus is Lord, each in their own order.

KingdomGospel
:wave
I have one question for you, I've been meaning to ask...to whom does this verse refer?.......

Matthew 24.......
13 But he that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved.

:wave

AndyPLS
July 9th, 2005, 10:34 PM
I mean exactly what I said: "that God is sovereign and has eternally decreed all events in this world, great and small." I don't know where there is any ambiguity in this statement: All things great and small. That includes you wiping your nose or someone cussing.

Are we simply biological automotons carrying out some cosmic instruction-set written long ago? Murderers, torturers, rapists, child-killers, etc. all decreed by God? Is this what you are suggesting?


http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=automaton

Automoton
2. a machine or control mechanism designed to follow automatically a predetermined sequence of operations or respond to encoded instructions

kingdomgospel
July 9th, 2005, 11:57 PM
Benja32one,

You said: "I have one question for you, I've been meaning to ask...to whom does this verse refer?......."

Matthew 24.......
13 But he that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved.

I would say that it applies to the same group that is being referred to in this verse:

Philippians 2
12 work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

KingdomGospel

MrsMac
July 10th, 2005, 07:02 AM
Thank you Benja for that article. I hope it will set some free of the false doctrines of darkness.

Blessings, Mrs Mac

..................http://photos.imageevent.com/ethandron/blinkies//3cvalblink.gif

Benja32one
July 10th, 2005, 10:16 AM
Benja32one,

You said: "I have one question for you, I've been meaning to ask...to whom does this verse refer?......."

Matthew 24.......
13 But he that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved.

I would say that it applies to the same group that is being referred to in this verse:

Philippians 2
12 work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
:wave
KingdomGospel
Actually, kingdom, you have put your finger right on the point I had in asking the question, thanks.

Matt. 24.13, by the context is to people during the 7 years of the tribulation.

Phil. 2 is to born-again, grace age believers, to 'work out' the salvation which is already in them.

But you needed to point out this before using the 2nd chapter.....
Phil 1...........

6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good
work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ.

:nod

Benja32one
July 10th, 2005, 10:18 AM
Thank you Benja for that article. I hope it will set some free of the false doctrines of darkness.

Blessings, Mrs Mac

..................http://photos.imageevent.com/ethandron/blinkies//3cvalblink.gif
:wave
Thank you!.........and Blessings on you!
:clap

pilgrimian
October 10th, 2005, 07:32 PM
First, this quote was posted as evidence that one can simultaneously affirm things which are "diametrically opposed" to one another. Pilgrimian then proceeds to assume common ground (that we're both Trinitarian - I am, though I can't speak for him). He uses this common ground to effectively say to me "Look, you affirm contradictory things too! God is three and God is one! So there!"

A few points on this madness:

1) Pilgrimian cannot properly define any coherent position on the Trinity. He has shown this by his own implicit admission that Trinitarian doctrine is internally inconsistent. If being Trinitarian required us to say that God is both One and Three, simultaneously and in the same sense, then yes it would be incoherent and internally inconsistent. And if that was the case, I would reject it. And so should he. But that is NOT what the doctrine of the Trinity states, and it is CERTAINLY not what Scripture teaches. Frankly, he has just proven that he has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. He cannot articulate historical formulations of Trinitarian doctrine, or understand any distinctions that orthodox theologians have made on this point. If he could, he would understand that the Doctrine of the Trinity is not a contradiction.

Ok, I'll stop at one point, because this is more for those viewing the thread than those I'm addressing. As long as someone is willing to affirm both A and ~A, no critique or questioning will be fruitful, and I am currently addressing someone with an impenetrable shield of irrationality.

ATTN ALL: Drop the comics. Turn off the tube. Read a book. Non-fiction. Study logic. Your brain will thank you.

Hmmmm...very interesting. I just found this response, and felt led to respond. There are numerous assumptions in the above response...numerous implications, as well, that I am (to be blunt) an idiot. I'm not sure how Wilbur came to this deduction from one simple (extremely simple) post.

The Scriptures teach that God is one (Deut. 6:4, et al), and that He is three (Is. 48:16, et al). What else would you like to see? You say that the doctrine is inconsistent. I don't see it as such. This is your knee-jerk reply to what I stated. God is one...and God is three. Is this a contradiction? Perhaps in our English language it seems like a contradiction. Perhaps to someone's linear western mind it seems like a contradiction. But I don't see it as such. God is transcendent...and we are finite. I didn't mean to post a glib statement, but it doesn't bother me that Scripture teaches what might be thought to seem contradictory.

I never stated it was a contradiction. It doesn't take much to get you fired up and making assumptions about what other people believe, does it. I hope you're not an EMT, or someone in a high stress job. I certainly wouldn't want to under the knife with you holding the scalpel.

Bless you,
Matthew

How funny man is.

God is three...God is one. Get over it.

I suppose this was a little too simple for you, Wilbur. The Hebrew Elohim is plural. But I believe that God is one. What a crazy guy I am. Or, to put it in your words, I have no idea what I'm talking about. I just read Scripture and believe it. I guess I'm good for nuthin...:doh