Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Objections to God's Sovereignty Answered..........Some

I have been doing this a long time. Any one who has been a Christian will agree if asked do they believe God is sovereign. Reformed people see it everywhere, all parts of life, over all men and over the will of man. Not everyone agrees with that as we know.:rolleyes We will offer on all these topics.
Everytime a Reformed person calls the opposition an uncomplimentary name, they show they don’t believe it at all. Everytime a reformed believer gets angry at anyone else, they show they don’t believe it all. The reason is they show that at that moment of irritation they abandon completely the theology that God is sovereignly behind everything everyone does and are angry at the PERSON CHOOSING TO DO THAT WHICH THEY DON’T LIKE. God was NOT sovereign in those moments or they’d be angry at God or not angry at all.
 
Watch the video by Dennis .

He mentioned election , predestination and also indirectly perseverance of the saints.

My elders and I know one deacon for sure are reformed and they aren't caged but will correct improper doctrine.
How do they know it wasn’t foreordained for that person to believe that? How do they avoid correcting what God had predestined?
They know as Dennis ,my pastor and one other elder that I'm not reformed but I don't undermine them the earlier post is my own way of saying what they say .I also believe that
How come they don’t correct you?
 
I am somewhat simple in my understanding.It is not complicated to me at all. I do not struggle with this question.

1] God is light,and In Him is no darkness at all.

2] God has created everything that exists, including angelic beings and man.

3] man and angelic beings, not being confirmed in holiness are able to do sinful, evil rebellious acts.

4] Nothing exists outside of the control of God...there is not one random molecule outside of His control.[if anything existed outside of God or His control he would not be God.]

5] God is righteous and good. He is all wise.

6] all evil will be punished by God. He is fully aware of the evil that takes place in this fallen and sinful world as well as among principalites and powers.

Benjamin, I do not get into philosphical speculation, I think there is a place for that[a small place].... I know this....for God to put up with and save me from my sin and wickedness is a great mercy...that he gives life eternal as an inheritance is beyond what any of us deserve.
I never will think or ascribe any evil motive to a sinless and Holy God who has purposed to save me and a multitude of sinners in His Son.

I do not go beyond what is written. When God allowed satan to come against Job...Job did not ascribe evil to God...neither will I.


Evil exists in the universe of an omnipotent, benevolent God, who is completely sovereign over it and uses it for his own glory and the highest good—the argument of the consistent Calvinist.
GOD IS SOVEREIGN OVER EVIL
The last view—that God is absolutely sovereign over both natural and moral evil,11 and uses evil for his own glory and the highest good—is the only view that can be consistently aligned to the teaching of Scripture. Every other view, deriving from sinful [incapacitated by the noetic effects of sin and willful rebellion against God and his truth] humanistic reasoning, and so calling God and his actions into question, seeks to point out an incoherence in the Christian system. These views either deny God and evil, or limit God and seek to bring him down to the finite level and destroy his moral self–consistency—and thus any sufficient or consistent basis for morality.12
The truth of the sovereignty of God over evil may be clarified by the following considerations and implications:
• The existence of evil in a universe created and governed by a benevolent God is not incoherent if God has a morally sufficient reason for this evil to exist. This “problem” is more psychological than logical or philosophical.13 Man would rather call God and his actions into question than submit himself in complete trust (Rom. 9:11–24), even to a God who is benevolent in the context of his righteousness.
10 Some of this group hold that God is either working in a utilitarian fashion as best he can, or that he merely foresaw evil and its results, but was not able to prevent them; or that there are some situations brought about by morally free agents that even God did not foresee. While the latter two are somewhat extreme, the idea that God merely foresaw or foreknew evil would not remove culpability from God. If God foresaw what would happen and then laid his plans accordingly, then he could have prevented sins, but evidently chose not to do so. Thus, God would be ultimately responsible for sin by allowing it, yet not controlling it for the highest good and his glory. Further, if God merely foresaw evil as a certainty—and it must have been certain for God to foresee it as such in the biblical sense—then God himself could not have prevented sin. Sin would have existed and been determined by a force outside God. He would thus finitely exist within a “universe” over which he exercised no ultimate control, a “universe” controlled in the final sense by an atheistic determinism!
11 Natural evil is evil that occurs in the realm of nature (calamities such as floods, famine, disease, suffering, earthquakes and pestilence). Moral evil is evil or sin that occurs because of the wickedness of man against man (e.g., wars, rapes, torture, murders, hatred, deceit, theft, destruction, etc.).
12 This is often the approach by the secular college or university professor in his challenge to students who are professing Christians, but doctrinally unsound and inconsistent in their faith. He seeks to destroy both their faith and their basis for morality.
13 This issue is fully dealt with by Greg Bahnsen in Always Ready. Texarkana: Covenant Media Foundation,
 
Last edited:
For many of us who are now called calvinists...we saw in scripture the teaching of election and predestination first as truth without even thinking out the implications fully.
That comes in time. Benjamin while it is good to investigate and think things out, try not to over think. What i mean is you seem to be searching for one magic bullet. The answer to this might be more along the line of some positive verses about some of the teaching

What is predestination
What is reprobation
What is biblical foreknowledge.

The fact that God has ordained the sin and evil would exist,and yet without Him causing the evil...in other words..it was not like pharoah wanted to bless the Israelites...and God said no pharoah..I will force you to perform evil.

or Judas...Jesus did not say go and do what I am forcing you to do.

God restrained Abimelech from commiting sexual sin....but abimelech was the one who was planning the sin.

notice in this account from Dan 3 that these three were confident in God's providence in their life, in vs 17,and 18...they were willing to trust God unto death,and yet God allowed the evil men to come against them first before he intervened.
17If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king.

18But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.

19Then was Nebuchadnezzar full of fury, and the form of his visage was changed against Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego: therefore he spake, and commanded that they should heat the furnace one seven times more than it was wont to be heated.
20And he commanded the most mighty men that were in his army to bind Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, and to cast them into the burning fiery furnace.

21Then these men were bound in their coats, their hosen, and their hats, and their other garments, and were cast into the midst of the burning fiery furnace.

22Therefore because the king's commandment was urgent, and the furnace exceeding hot, the flames of the fire slew those men that took up Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.

23And these three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, fell down bound into the midst of the burning fiery furnace.

24Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonished, and rose up in haste, and spake, and said unto his counsellors, Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered and said unto the king, True, O king.

25He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.
The doctrine I hold has no philosophy to it. It is simple. God is in complete control of all things whatsoever comes to pass.
Living in a fallen world there is all manner of evil, sin, and death, as a result of the fall and the curse.
Jesus is the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world, [ the fact that he is described as the Lamb slain before the world was..indicates that God had already ordained for sin and evil to be in the world after the fall]
and ordained to conquer sin, satan, and death on behalf of the multitude of covenant Children he came to save.
Gal4:4 tells us ...
4But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

5To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
Nothing random..the cross was not random

23Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: 24Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death
But the resurrection and ascension were not random either.

Benjamin..... I believe it all..if it is written..I believe it. I think all Christians believe it. Even if there are parts that each one of us are not clear on.

As we live in luxury here in America, millions are dying in horrid conditions worldwide. Both are happening at the same time.
There are reasons for both situations.
you said;
[Yet you claim to be simple minded and at the same time say it is not complicated to you at all; apparently you accept Calvinist philosophy without thinking about it./QUOTE]

Well , that's just the thing I am talking about. I start with the attributes of God and this verse.....vs 25..in this section....all Calvinists start with this kind of verse.
23And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?

24Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein?

25That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?
26And the LORD said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes.

27And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the LORD, which am but dust and ashes:

28Peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty righteous: wilt thou destroy all the city for lack of five? And he said, If I find there forty and five, I will not destroy it.

29And he spake unto him yet again, and said, Peradventure there shall be forty found there. And he said, I will not do it for forty's sake.

30And he said unto him, Oh let not the LORD be angry, and I will speak: Peradventure there shall thirty be found there. And he said, I will not do it, if I find thirty there.

31And he said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the LORD: Peradventure there shall be twenty found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for twenty's sake.

32And he said, Oh let not the LORD be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake.

33And the LORD went his way, as soon as he had left communing with Abraham: and Abraham returned unto his place.
I believe the God of all the earth will do right! he is Holy,wise and Good, righteous and just, all knowing all powerful.

Nothing is going to contradict that. We must begin with clear teaching, to help understand what is not as clear to our sin darkened minds.

When God told Ezekiel he was going to take His wifes life, but he was not to mourn but to preach instead.....unless Ezekiel had a full God given faith and trust...how could he go on in life?

The answer you might be pursuing might be found in a clearer understanding on these kinds of verses considered together rather than one magic verse.
 
  1. Iconoclast

    IconoclastWell-Known Member


    This figures in,
    The Scriptural authority for the doctrine of decrees will appear from the following statements and references, gathered with slight modifications from Hodge's Outlines, pp, 205-213:

    1. God's decrees are eternal. Acts 15:18; Eph. 1:4; 3:11; 1 Pet. 1:20; 2 Thess. 2:13; 2 Tim. 1:9; 1 Cor. 2:7.

    2. They are immutable. Ps. 33:11; Isa. 46:9.

    3. They comprehend all events.

    (1.) The Scriptures assert this of the whole system in general embraced in the divine decrees. Dan. 4:34, 35; Acts 17:26; Eph 1:11.

    (2.) They affirm the same of fortuitous events. Prov. 16:33; Matt. 10:29, 30.

    (3.) Also of the free actions of men. Eph. 2:10, 11; Phil. 2:13.

    (4.) Even the wicked actions of men. Acts 2:23; 4:27, 28; 13:29; 1 Pet. 2:8; Jude 4; Rev. 17:17. As to the history of Joseph, compare Gen. 37:28, with Gen. 45:7, 8, and Gen. 50:20. See also Ps. 17:13, 14; Isa. 10:5, 15.

    4. The decrees of God are not conditional. Ps. 33:11; Prov. 19:21; Isa. 14:24, 27 ; 46:10; Rom. 9:11.

    5. They are sovereign. Isa. 40:13, 14; Dan. 4:35; Matt. 11:25, 26; Rom. 9:11, 15-18; Eph. 1:5, 11.

    6. They include the means. Eph. 1:4; 2 Thess. 2:13; 1 Pet. 1:2.

    7. They determine the free actions of men. Acts 4:27, 28 ; Eph. 2:10.

    8. God himself works in his people that faith and obedience which are called the conditions of salvation. Eph. 2:8 ; Phil. 2:13; 2 Tim. 2:25.

    9. The decree renders the event certain. Matt. 16:21; Luke 18:31-33; 24:46; Acts 2:23; 13:29; 1 Cor. 11:19.

    10. While God has decreed the free acts of men, the actors have been none the less responsible. Gen. 50:20; Acts 2:23; 3:18; 4:27, 28.
Benjamin said:
Anyone who attributes sin and evil to God is a liar and a child of the Devil, the truth is not them!
Iconoclast was completely Scriptural and Biblical in his rebuttal. Nothing he said is "attributing" sin to God. Nothing anyone has said has.

Simmer down.

Those are nice verses, but caustic conclusions. Yet your theory remains baseless, along with your proof-texting. Why? Because, again, no oneis attributing sin to Holy God.
#34preacher4truth, J
 
Benjamin said:
No reason to repeat myself, if the shoe fits, wear it.
Your post makes it obvious that this issue is beyond your ability to understand. You have been continuosly told that no christian, or calvinist believes or teaches God is the author of sin. You keep twisting it.

Even the wicked actions of men
God has ordained that Sin satan and evil would exist. They exist and are not outside of His control. They exist but he has had them exist yet, without him being the originator of sin in any way.

I have been patient with you. If however you insist on accusing the brethren, of ascribing sin to God, I will have to view you in another light.

Everyone else here sees it the same way. You have some sort of aversion to this truth. because God ordains something to come to pass does not mean he is the cause...here is yet another example;

The killing of christians by the ungodly is evil, yet God speaks here and says that these christians are also going to be killed by evil persons.
it is ordained, and decreed to happen.

10And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
11And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfill
This tells us not only that God is aware of their suffering and death,but He will be with them in their death,and they will be greatly rewarded in the eternal state.

Why does God do it this way? He has many reasons that all fit into His one plan. He does not reveal each detail of every circumstance.
Most of us just believe gen 18:25
 
"ordain" "decree" "determine" "predestine" "elect" "choose" "foreknowledge" "predetermine" "sovereign" "control" "inability" "none" "call"

All these terms scare the semi-pelagianism out of the free-willers.

Those who totally trust God in all this? It is comforting.

- preacher4truth,
 
Last edited:
http://www.puritansermons.com/willard/willard1.htm

Did God's Decree Bring About the Fall?


In the past week I have had several people ask me how Adam's original sin come about since he did not have a fallen nature to contend with. Thus it's not that Adam and Eve were originally prevented from obeying God due to a sinful nature, as we are now. Also since God is NOT the author of evil, didn't make Adam sin, nor did HE put the sinful desire within them, so the question is really how (or why) did Adam originally sin? This is really an attempt to understand the relationship between God's sovereignty and freewill in the beginning, prior to the fall.


By confession we believe that God created human beings "with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, after His own image; having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfil it; and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject unto change." (WSF IV.2) This is to say that man was created in such a way where he was not yet sealed in righteousness as he will be in glory, but created with a an inclination toward good. Why evil temptation was able to overcome that inclination, the Scripture does not reveal, so any dogmatic response would be speculative. So while there are indeed mysteries that are not fully revealed to us in Scripture ... on the other hand, there are some things revealed that we do know and from these we can draw some conclusions.

Did God's Decree Bring About the Fall?

It is important that we first consider the alternative to God ordaining the fall event to show that it is really quite and untenable and unsustainable position. The truth of God's word is honored not in holding exclusively to one truth to the exclusion of another truth, but in believing the whole counsel of God. The Bible plainly teaches that man is responsible for the sin he commits and it also teaches that God is sovereign. You would be correct theologically to say that God is not the author of evil and that man alone is culpable for the sin he commits. You must also consider, however, that God is sovereign and has thus left nothing up to chance. That word "nothing" is a universal negative. For if chance were to exist then, of course, God would not be sovereign and thus, God would not be God.

God did not coerce Adam to commit sin and fall, but he certainly ordained it. Even an Arminian who thinks that God merely allowed the fall, must admit that before God created the world he already knew what the future would be, and so it was within his Providence for such events to take place, for he could just have easily decided to prevent the fall...but He didn't. But we believe that while God did not make man sin coersively he certainly ordained such events to occur. Consider that if God did not decree the fall then evil is something completely outside His sovereign control ... If evil came into the universe by surprise for God, totally apart from His providence, then there are some things He does not know or things He is powerless over and therefore God would, by definition, lack omniscience and omnipotence. And then how do we know whether He will be able to defeat evil in the future if evil is outside God's control even though the Scripture plainly says that God ordains all events that come to pass (Eph 1:11).

As for how it could be that God decreed the fall. Obviously it is ultimately for His glory. In it He showed to the angels and all creation His manifest wisdom, justice and mercy and all of His perfections. He does not operate people like puppets. Adam freely chose to rebel ... God did not coerce him... and now fallen men freely choose to reject Christ, apart from grace. You ask, how could God ordain evil? Well, let me give you a clear biblical example which shows that he does, so you don't think I am just blowing smoke.

Consider that Christ's crucifixion was a certainty which God planed in eternity and prophesied would come to pass in the Old Testament. But also consider that men would freely choose to crucify the Son of God. See Acts 2:23 which brings the two together -- "this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death." This concurrent series of events taking place simultaneously is called compatibilism, which is how the Scriptures really answer this question.

So God foreordained the most evil event in history, the crucifixion, yet He lays blame for it completely on the choice of godless men, according to this passage. You must embrace the teaching in the Scriptures that God ordained an innocent man's death at the hands of sinners, yet they freely did so because they wanted to. You may not understand how God works in such a way without coercion, but you must submit to the fact the the Holy Scripture, through and through, teaches this quite matter-of-factly. Why does God do this? Well, for one, after the crucifixion event we now begin to understand that Christ did this for the good of His people, though we may not have seen it at the time. Prior to His execution, the disciples were told by Jesus, "you do not now understand what I am doing" and even Peter tried to dissuade Him. However, God used evil for good and did so blamelessly.

There is a similar idea in Acts 4:27-28 "For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur."

These Scriptures texts must be accepted as authoritative. Someone might argue that they were an exception ... but there is no biblical rationale for believing that. It must be admitted that the Scripture plainly teaches that God ordains evil events and remains blameless, events which include the self-determined choices of man.

God "works all things after the counsel of his will" (Ephesians 1:11).

This "all things" includes the fall of sparrows (Matthew 10:29), the rolling of dice (Proverbs 16:33), the slaughter of his people (Psalm 44:11), the decisions of kings (Proverbs 21:1), the failing of sight (Exodus 4:11), the sickness of children (2 Samuel 12:15), the loss and gain of money (1 Samuel 2:7), the suffering of saints (1 Peter 4:19), the completion of travel plans (James 4:15), the persecution of Christians (Hebrews 12:4-7), the repentance of souls (2 Timothy 2:25), the gift of faith (Philippians 1:29), the pursuit of holiness (Philippians 3:12-13), the growth of believers (Hebrews 6:3), the giving of life and the taking in death (1 Samuel 2:6), and the crucifixion of his Son (Acts 4:27-28). (Piper)

In conclusion, when determining the truth of a matter we must never simply use naked unaided human logic, but always let our logic be ruled by the highest presupposition which is the Holy Scriptures. We may not like the result but what God has revealed, this we must embrace and teach. Otherwise we make God in our own image, and present to others a God other than the one who reveals Himself in Scripture.
 
I saw no refuting.
This was spread out over a 4 year time frame. I was showing it took place to a few other posters,here is another example;
Thank you iconoclast.

This is what I have been trying to get Skandelon to see for months.

He does not understand compatabalism and he has not spoken with enough mainstream Calvinists deeply enough to get it.

He has literally said that all of us who say God PURPOSED for sin to exist and God ORDAINED it are outside the scope of mainstream Calvinists.

Of course that means that all the Puritans were outside the scope of mainstream Calvinism.

So was Jonathan Edwards and so is John Piper and Bruce Ware- oh- and so is John Calvin.
 
This was spread out over a 4 year time frame. I was showing it took place to a few other posters,here is another example;
Thank you iconoclast.

This is what I have been trying to get Skandelon to see for months.

He does not understand compatabalism and he has not spoken with enough mainstream Calvinists deeply enough to get it.

He has literally said that all of us who say God PURPOSED for sin to exist and God ORDAINED it are outside the scope of mainstream Calvinists.

Of course that means that all the Puritans were outside the scope of mainstream Calvinism.

So was Jonathan Edwards and so is John Piper and Bruce Ware- oh- and so is John Calvin.
None of that pertains to the topic.
 
The "you don't get it" defense is how many Calvinist's deflect from the full import of their doctrines. Essentially, until one uses Calvinist definitions of terms and accepts the systematic's assumptions about the biblical text - in other words, concedes the Calvinist view - one just "doesn't understand" Calvinism. This "defense" of Calvinism amounts to Begging the Question, really: To truly "understand" Calvinism one must agree with it.
 
The "you don't get it" defense is how many Calvinist's deflect from the full import of their doctrines. Essentially, until one uses Calvinist definitions of terms and accepts the systematic's assumptions about the biblical text - in other words, concedes the Calvinist view - one just "doesn't understand" Calvinism. This "defense" of Calvinism amounts to Begging the Question, really: To truly "understand" Calvinism one must agree with it.
Or you really and actually do not get it! You are wrong, mistaken, confused, or intentionally obtuse. Many run to philosophy, and carnal reasoning as to not face the truth that they do not like.
For example, you call the dividing line and ask a question. Dr. White answers you.
You do not like the initial answer, so you respond. Dr. White opens up the greek text and it makes it abundantly clear you were wrong, and offered error. Everyone listening knows it.
Do you thank Dr.White for opening up the text? For showing the truth?
Or do you accuse him of "
The "you don't get it" defense is how many Calvinist's deflect from the full import of their doctrines.
Then follow up by attacking him saying oh look he is so arrogant and rude. This is exactly what i see most often, not only on the dividing line, but in print.
Using your reasoning...a Christian corrects a cult member, a JW....the JW says you are using the I just do not get it defence to deflect from the full import of your doctrines.
That is nonsense. There is right, and wrong. Everything is not subjective. objective truth exists and has been revealed
 
Last edited:
Are you not aware of the other soteriological views that exist besides Arminianism?
This is another thing we see. When a person wants to engage in a debate format until their view gets refuted. Then they shift and say...I do not believe it that way, my view does not fit in that definition. I have a much more ;"nuanced view". Most times they just re-state it with a few different words.
 
Or you really and actually do not get it!

Yes. Or you do get it but the Calvinist expects when you do, it will be impossible that you won't agree with it. They can't get their minds around the idea that their view fully understood can be still rejected as erroneous.

Many run to philosophy, and carnal reasoning as to not face the truth that they do not like.

Reason and Logic are from God and employed even by Calvinists who are so often eager to dismiss both and cry, "Mystery!" instead. I don't reject Calvinism just because "I don't like it." The systematic is, I believe, both biblically and rationally in error. If by "don't like it" this is what you mean, then, yes I don't like Calvinism. My objections to Reformed doctrine have nothing to do, however, with rejecting truth, but with wanting to preserve it from the contortions of Calvinism.

Then follow up by attacking him saying oh look he is so arrogant and rude. This is exactly what i see most often, not only on the dividing line, but in print.

He is often (though, not always) arrogant and rude. That he might properly (or improperly) exegete some particular passage of Scripture doesn't negate this fact. His lack of graciousness, though, does reflect poorly on the Lord he claims to know and represent.

Using your reasoning...a Christian corrects a cult member, a JW....the JW says you are using the I just do not get it defence to deflect from the full import of your doctrines.
That is nonsense. There is right, and wrong. Everything is not subjective. objective truth exists and has been revealed

This isn't anything like what I've said.

Leighton Flowers is a great example of what I was talking about. He has taken great pains on his soteriology101 podcasts to let the leading experts from within Calvinism (past and present) frame-up their doctrines. But when Leighton has addressed the explanations of these experts, demonstrating a better, more rational and biblical alternative interpretation of God's word than what they've proposed, the response he often receives from Calvinists is the "you just don't understand" deflection. As far as I'm concerned, this sort of response is nonsense - particularly in light of Leighton's care to let leading Reformed thinkers speak for themselves.

I agree, however, with you that "there is right and wrong," and that "everything is not subjective." Yes, objective truth has been revealed, but it is, concerning salvation, being twisted by Reformed doctrine.

This is another thing we see. When a person wants to engage in a debate format until their view gets refuted. Then they shift and say...I do not believe it that way, my view does not fit in that definition. I have a much more ;"nuanced view". Most times they just re-state it with a few different words.

??? I know Calvinists are keen to describe the soteriological landscape as a strict dichotomy: Calvinism or Arminianism; if one is not a Calvinist, one must be some shade of Arminian (or, God forbid, a vile Pelagianist or Universalist!). But neither Molinism nor Provisionism (aka Traditionalism) are of either camp.

It's a little... rich, also, to have a Calvinist complain when a non-Calvinist wants to be more "nuanced" about their soteriological position. I can't count how many times I've heard Calvinists resort to this very "nuance" in escape from criticisms of their own views.
 
It is yelling for the reader and you can change the font back to normal without bold before you post it, you know. You could consider the reader and not merely yourself.
Others have said they find it helpful. Does it have to be about you?
Yes. Or you do get it but the Calvinist expects when you do, it will be impossible that you won't agree with it. They can't get their minds around the idea that their view fully understood can be still rejected as erroneous.



Reason and Logic are from God and employed even by Calvinists who are so often eager to dismiss both and cry, "Mystery!" instead. I don't reject Calvinism just because "I don't like it." The systematic is, I believe, both biblically and rationally in error. If by "don't like it" this is what you mean, then, yes I don't like Calvinism. My objections to Reformed doctrine have nothing to do, however, with rejecting truth, but with wanting to preserve it from the contortions of Calvinism.



He is often (though, not always) arrogant and rude. That he might properly (or improperly) exegete some particular passage of Scripture doesn't negate this fact. His lack of graciousness, though, does reflect poorly on the Lord he claims to know and represent.



This isn't anything like what I've said.

Leighton Flowers is a great example of what I was talking about. He has taken great pains on his soteriology101 podcasts to let the leading experts from within Calvinism (past and present) frame-up their doctrines. But when Leighton has addressed the explanations of these experts, demonstrating a better, more rational and biblical alternative interpretation of God's word than what they've proposed, the response he often receives from Calvinists is the "you just don't understand" deflection. As far as I'm concerned, this sort of response is nonsense - particularly in light of Leighton's care to let leading Reformed thinkers speak for themselves.

I agree, however, with you that "there is right and wrong," and that "everything is not subjective." Yes, objective truth has been revealed, but it is, concerning salvation, being twisted by Reformed doctrine.



??? I know Calvinists are keen to describe the soteriological landscape as a strict dichotomy: Calvinism or Arminianism; if one is not a Calvinist, one must be some shade of Arminian (or, God forbid, a vile Pelagianist or Universalist!). But neither Molinism nor Provisionism (aka Traditionalism) are of either camp.

It's a little... rich, also, to have a Calvinist complain when a non-Calvinist wants to be more "nuanced" about their soteriological position. I can't count how many times I've heard Calvinists resort to this very "nuance" in escape from criticisms of their own views.
Hello Tenchi,
Good post! We do not agree but you raise valid points of contention. I believe thought-provoking discussion can be quite beneficial. How so?
When we look in the mirror to shave in the morning, neither one of us says to himself, I am going to speak and think, and post, error today. Everyone thinks they have a valid point of view.
I believe in the freedom to express such views.
I believe in the freedom to be critical of what is expressed.
You have expressed your understanding, and I have expressed mine.
What I can respect in your posts is...you have listened to what is being broadcasted, even if we come to different conclusions.
I do advocate for that, so there is some common ground.
 
Others have said they find it helpful. Does it have to be about you?
Does it have to be about you? Most don't like getting yelled at. Most. But as usual, the personal attack when asked to use the fonts that the vast majority of people here use. Sigh! But frankly speaking, God ordained it that I would ask you to use the fonts that everyone else uses. Normal language volume.
 
Back
Top