For and Against Calvinism (Part 1)

"This isn't a debate; it's a conversation. It's based on twenty years of mutual respect. Sadly, these kinds of conversations don't happen nearly often enough. Most of the time we're looking for a fight, for a debate, for an opportunity to score points. But for the church to know and experience a modern Reformation, we need to engage those in and outside of our circles with respect and a willingness to listen."

- White Horse Inn

Category:

Education

Tags:

• For and Against Calvinism
• Michael Horton
• Roger Olson
• Biola University
• White Horse Inn
• Reformed Faith
• Reformation

[theearstohear]

The Calvinist / Arminian debate is plagued with the horns of the dilemma fallacy. Primitive Baptists, for example, hold to TULIP and the Sovereignty (dominion) of God but do not believe in the absolute predestination of all things (APoaT). Arminians fail to embrace man's abject spiritual deadness (Eph 2:1). The Calvinist's APoaT makes God the author of sin, but God is not the author of confusion (I Cor 14:33) and sin is nothing if not confusion. PBs understand this - A's and C's don't.

[rtgray7]

@R1K2G3 You accused me of being bound by tradition before I said you were. I would say that I refuted your position. You accuse me of immature argumentation yet you have chosen the "I'm taking my ball and going home" attitude. I'm sorry. I apologize for my tone. Your position on the subject here is so offensive to God in my opinion that I get heated and don't act like a Christian at all. I've got to get back to work but I can honestly say I love you and I think I'll see you in Heaven :)

[rtgray7]

@R1K2G3 See previous thread.(Obviously God is writing to Christians) You are still left with the fact that GOD IS LOVE. That doesn't make me a liberal brother. You are taking common sense out of the equation as happens with reformed thinking. The Bible itself is much simpler than Reformed Theology. Il believe in "Transformed Theology" the Bible teaches. I do appreciate that you admit consistent Calvinism teaches God only truly loves the elect.

[R1K2G3]

@rtgray7 said, "Paul used the pronoun "us" does not defend your position. I would say you are bound by Reformed tradition causing you to read into the text"

To whom was Paul writing in Rome? BELIEVERS!

I have engaged in the exegesis of the text (Rom.5:8) which you utilized as a proof text for "the universal love of God".

You have been refuted.

You are beginning to use immature argumentation.

I will not enable you to do it anymore.

[R1K2G3]

@rtgray7 Of course, there is no such thing as an atheist, if you believe what the Scriptures teach in Rom.1:18-32 (which I do).

And why should a Christian be concerned with what God-haters think about God's doctrine, anyway? I've never understood that.

Professing atheists need to hear about the powerful TRIUNE GOD of the Bible;

not some "beggar" god, who is just trying, and trying to get someone to worship him.

[rtgray7]

@R1K2G3 Of course Paul used pronouns because of who he was writing to. You won't find "The Book Of Reprobates" anywhere. Had Paul been writing to the lost, he would have used different pronouns and terminology. Obviously Romans was directed at the Church there and God used the Bible as part of training His called men to preach to the lost. Paul used the pronoun "us" does not defend your position. I would say you are bound by Reformed tradition causing you to read into the text.

[R1K2G3]

@rtgray7 said, "God is love (1Jn.4:8)".

So, look at the next verse, please: "In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that WE might live through him" (ESV).

To whom is the apostle writing?

The "beloved", not "the many false prophets" (v.1);

The "Little children", not "them" (v.4); Not "they (v.5), but "we" (v.6).

Who does God LOVE? The "Beloved" (v.7)...the saints, His elect...not the antichrists!

[rtgray7]

@R1K2G3 This is why 15 syllable words are needed to defend Calvinism brother. All the euphemisms simply disguise the bottom line. Can you imagine how many people have become atheist as a result of this view of God? " Oh He didn't send them to hell. He just created a situation where they would choose freely to sin and then He chose not to save them from hell". You see, God couldn't be sovereign in a true freewill environment. Why, that would defy logic and take a miracle". :)

[R1K2G3]

@rtgray7 That they (the reprobate) will be "without a defense" in the eschatological judgment is the very reason God has, "made it evident to them" (Rom.1:19) that He is the Creator! To read this text in any other way is to abuse God's Word. Rom.5:8 is speaking to, and about the elect!

Notice the pronouns: "us", "we", "us"? Why twist this text into saying that it is speaking of every, single, individual human being w/o distinction?!? Eisegesis, and tradition, my friend.

[rtgray7]

@R1K2G3 Ok, so you are a "soft" determinist I would say. If I am not elect-no matter when God decreed it-is their anything I can do to be saved? No, I'm assuming you reply.? If I am elect-no matter when God decreed it-did I have any choice in the matter? No, I again assume you'd reply.? So God COULD have saved me, but He didn't. He did, however, graciously choose you. You spend eternity with God and I spend eternity in eternal torment. Why was born? Ah.for His glorification..