You Must Be a Calvinist or an Arminian!
- 19 views
[Larry]seem to demand a via media
What is a third way between unconditional election and conditional election?
That depends on what you mean by unconditional election. I believe in it, but I disagree with its usual formulation in Calvinist theologies.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
Ephesians 1:13-14
In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
… ye trusted …. after ye heard …
That depends on what you mean by unconditional election. I believe in it, but I disagree with its usual formulation in Calvinist theologies.
Generally, there’s not of debate, right? Unconditional election means that God, in eternity past, chose individuals to salvation without regard to anything in the individual.
… ye trusted …. after ye heard …
Thanks for those verses. But they seem off topic, don’t they? No one here is discussing the relation of hearing to faith. Everyone agrees that hearing comes before faith. The discussion here is about election.
[Larry]seem to demand a via media
What is a third way between unconditional election and conditional election?
There is no third way, but there are many Christians who believe man has to make the choice to believe or not believe the gospel (so they can’t be Calvinist), but for those who choose do believe they are sealed with the Holy Spirit unto the day of redemption (so they can’t be Arminian).
There is no third way, but there are many Christians who believe man has to make the choice to believe or not believe the gospel (so they can’t be Calvinist)
What leads you to believe that Calvinists think man doesn’t have to make a choice to believe?
I would think ultimately the main issue is salvation and salvation comes to those who believe after hearing the gospel.
[Larry]If God is the ultimate decider, then isn’t choice by man simply an illusion? We may feel, from our perspective, that we are choosing, but if God is doing the ultimate deciding, then how could it, in reality, actually be a choice of man?There is no third way, but there are many Christians who believe man has to make the choice to believe or not believe the gospel (so they can’t be Calvinist)
What leads you to believe that Calvinists think man doesn’t have to make a choice to believe?
What if he is elected, but doesn’t make the choice to believe?
[Kevin Miller]Larry wrote:
There is no third way, but there are many Christians who believe man has to make the choice to believe or not believe the gospel (so they can’t be Calvinist)
What leads you to believe that Calvinists think man doesn’t have to make a choice to believe?
If God is the ultimate decider, then isn’t choice by man simply an illusion? We may feel, from our perspective, that we are choosing, but if God is doing the ultimate deciding, then how could it, in reality, actually be a choice of man?
And if God is the one doing the ultimate deciding, then how is this doctrine any different from fatalism or determinism?
THAT’S the reason why I don’t like the term ‘Calvinist’. And I’ve been trying to get an straight answer to that question from a Calvinist for literally years now.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Paul Henebury]“In Calvinism faith is the result of election…”
Not in some forms of preparationism it isn’t (necessarily). Nor is it in the related doctrine of temporary faith taught by Calvin.
“in Arminianism election is the result of faith.”
But not faith exercised independently of the Holy Spirit
I understand Dr Combs (and Roger Olson) when they make it either/or, but the subtleties of the question, especially when one introduces e.g. K. Keathley’s arguments in Salvation & Sovereignty seem to demand a via media.
Bingo
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
I had to preach this little passage this past Sunday. What a difficult message to preach with a delicate touch! You can’t escape the sovereignty of God in this passage:
But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him. (Jn 12:37-41).
You can try with all your might, but you just can’t make man the ultimate decider from this passage. You have to come down in favor of monergism. We may quibble about which flavor of monergism, but the passage upholds the fact of monergism quite clearly. As for myself, I emphasized preterition (not reprobation), God’s freedom to bestow grace (election) and the fact that when people go to hell God is only giving them what they wanted. Not sure I did a good job, but I tried.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[TylerR]Tyler,I had to preach this little passage this past Sunday. What a difficult message to preach with a delicate touch! You can’t escape the sovereignty of God in this passage:
But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him. (Jn 12:37-41).
You can try with all your might, but you just can’t make man the ultimate decider from this passage. You have to come down in favor of monergism. We may quibble about which flavor of monergism, but the passage upholds the fact of monergism quite clearly. As for myself, I emphasized preterition (not reprobation), God’s freedom to bestow grace (election) and the fact that when people go to hell God is only giving them what they wanted. Not sure I did a good job, but I tried.
Does the context of this passage in John speak of all people at all times being blinded and hardened by God, or might it refer to a particular group of people being blinded at a particular time in fulfillment of a prophesy by Isaiah?
[Kevin Miller]TylerR wrote:
I had to preach this little passage this past Sunday. What a difficult message to preach with a delicate touch! You can’t escape the sovereignty of God in this passage:
But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him. (Jn 12:37-41).
You can try with all your might, but you just can’t make man the ultimate decider from this passage. You have to come down in favor of monergism. We may quibble about which flavor of monergism, but the passage upholds the fact of monergism quite clearly. As for myself, I emphasized preterition (not reprobation), God’s freedom to bestow grace (election) and the fact that when people go to hell God is only giving them what they wanted. Not sure I did a good job, but I tried.
Tyler,
Does the context of this passage in John speak of all people at all times being blinded and hardened by God, or might it refer to a particular group of people being blinded at a particular time in fulfillment of a prophesy by Isaiah?
Bingo
Discussion