Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Calvanism -vs- Arminianism? | Rom 5:6 | Morant61 | 6567 | ||
Greetings Orthodoxy! Thanks for the reply! Let me respond to each of your paragraphs for organizational purposes. 1) I really don't want to speak for anyone else, so I'll deal with my understanding of Arminianism. I really can't agree that Arminianism is any-kind-of-Pelagianism. Calvanism and Arminianism have much more in common than Pelagianism and Arminianism. Pelagianism did not believe: a) Depravity. b) Original Sin. c) Salvation by Grace alone. While Calvanism and Arminianism disagree on several major points, they do both teach that man is born a sinner, that man is born guilty, and that salvation is provided and obtained through God's grace alone. 2) Let me take a stab at your challenge. The following statements are very broad statements, but I think they illustrate the primary differene between Calvanism and Arminianism. a) Calvanism teaches that salvation is wholly a work of God. The only receipents of this salvation are those whom God has sovereignly elected to salvation. b) Arminianism teaches that salvation is whollly a work of God. The only receipents of that salvation are those who respond to God's sovereign offer of salvation. This salvation is a free gift offered to all alike and based entirely upon the death of Christ. Therefore, man adds nothing to salvation. God has simply sovereignly allowed man an option: accept or reject. However, acceptance or rejection does not add to or take away from the objective and accomplished fact of the atonement. Our choice only determines whether or not we get to receive the benefit of God's free gift. 3) I did a major paper (60 pages - Whew!) on Romans 9-11 in college. I also think that it clinches the argument (sorry, but I see Arminianism :-)). If you have any particulars that you would care to discuss or debate, I would be more than happy to discuss them with you. It would probably require another thread. 4) Great majors! I didn't plan on taking any philosophy (or at least as little as possible) when I was in college. However, I ended up with enough to almost major in it. If you have been studying philosophy, you might have read one of my professors - Dr. William Hasker. Keep up the good (I'm assuming) work! Your brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
2 | Calvanism -vs- Arminianism? | Rom 5:6 | orthodoxy | 6626 | ||
I know the distinctives of Pelagianism. I do not think that Arminianism is coherent unless it denies all three of those things. TULIP, as silly an acronym as it may be, is a self-referential system. You cannot pull one letter out without getting rid of all of them. Thus, since Arminians deny particular redemption, they must also deny total depravity and salvation by grace. At least, you have to do this if you want to remain consistant. Your statements in your second paragraph are immediately contradictory. Allow me to demonstrate. 1) Salvation is wholly a work of God. [This would mean that nothing we do is involved. Salvation depends on divine fiat.] 2) Salvation comes to those who receive the offer of salvation. [If salvation is only an _offer_ is not wholly an act of God]. You can't have it both ways. The time for man to make a choice ended with Adam. That was the covenant of works. As soon as you add any aspect of choosing you turn the atonement into a pass/fail prohibition test, just like eating the fruit. If you believe what you say you do, why aren't you Catholic? They believe exactly the same thing and they've got their theology worked out completely. Plus they've got good views on worship, and even though their opinions on the Sacrament are pretty weird, they're often better than most Protestant churches. So if you believe what you say you do, why aren't you Catholic? Where did you go to college? And how can you possibly get around the statements of God's sovereign choice in Romans? I'd be fascinated to hear how you can interpret "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy" as anything but elective in nature. You sat under _Hasker_?! Yes, I've read him. Heard him speak actually. May God have mercy upon you. In case you hadn't been following him lately, Hasker is currently at the forefront of the utterly godless and pagan "open theism" movement (and I will neither retract that nor apologize for it). I couldn't get through the book without throwing it across the room on a number of occasions. Don't get me started on Hasker. Suffice it to say that I do not regard him as a Christian brother. You can believe a lot, but open theism is too far. Enough on that. I really don't want to talk about it here or at all, for that matter. |
||||||
3 | Pelagianism or Arminianism? | Rom 5:6 | Morant61 | 6725 | ||
Greetings Orthodoxy! I actually responded to this post a couple of days ago, but for some reason it was lost (or non-elect :-) ). Allow me to respond to each of your paragraphs. 1) I partially agree with you about TULIP. If you have P, you must have TULI. However, you can have T, without having ULIP. Suppose for instance, that God elected everyone. Arimians believe in T. They just don't go along with ULIP. 2) This is a tough one to answer quickly. Let me state it this way. I believe in an unconditional atonement, but a conditional election. The atonement is an accomplished fact at Calvary. Nothing I do or say will ever change the fact (from my perspective) that He atoned for the sins of the world on the cross. However, I can choose whether or not I want to be a part of the elect body. 3) Semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism are not the same, so I don't know where this paragraph came from or why! 4) I share your concerns about Dr. Hasker's theology. He and I seldom agreed on anything when I was in class under him. However, He was an excellent professor. He was always fair and honest. I definitely would regard him as a brother in Christ, while whole heartedly disagree with his view's on the knowledge and nature of God. God Bless, Tim Moran |
||||||
4 | Pelagianism or Arminianism? | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 6775 | ||
Tim: Doesn't election (choosing) imply that some are set apart and that some are not? How can election really be called "election" if everyone is elected? Furthermore, does that jibe with Romans 9:15 ff.? Semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism are not identical, but what they do have in common is the notion that salvation is synergystic. In other words, that at some point we are capable of choosing Christ with only an "assist" from the Holy Spirit. Arminians declare that our depravity requires prevenient grace to enable us, while semi-Pelagians deny that we are completely and totally depraved in the first place (i.e. not spiritually dead, but spiritually "wounded"). Thanks! --Joe! |
||||||
5 | Pelagianism or Arminianism? | Rom 5:6 | Morant61 | 6784 | ||
Greetings Joe! I had a nice answer to your post and it just got wiped out! :-( Let me respond briefly to your first point. There are two different approaches to election. 1) Calvinist generally see election as the particular, unconditional election to salvation. Under this paradigm, some would have to be set apart and some rejected. 2) Arminians (my version) generally see election as corporate and conditional, in Christ. In other words, Christ is both the Elect and the Elector. It is only in Him that we are elect. From my perspective, this jibe's better with Romans 9-11 than does Calvanism. For the following reasons: a) Romans 9-11 deals primarily with national destinies, not individual destinies. b) Romans 9-11 deals primarily with the issue of why God's forknown people (Israel) have not accepted the Messiah. Paul's answer is that membership in Israel is through faith, not birth. c) Romans 10 specifically extends the gospel to all men. d) Romans 11 says that though some of God's foreknown have rejected Christ, they can be grafted in (into the elect Israel), if they do not continue in their unbelief - Romans 11:23. e) I believe that God's purpose in election is clearly spelled out in Romans 11:32- "For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all." This approach even makes better sense of the Ephesian 1 passage. What two groups does Paul talk about in Ephesians 1? Jews and Gentiles! What is the mystery that God has revealed concerning His purpose in Ephesians 1? He wants to bring both together into one body in Christ. I feel this view does the best justice to both the Sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man. Salvation is only through faith and grace, not works. The offer of salvation is legitimately made to 'whosoever will.' And, our assurance is grounded in the accomplised work of the cross, not human effort. Thanks! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6 | Pelagianism or Arminianism? | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 6786 | ||
You lost your original answer? Jesus saves...why don't you? :) Thanks for providing your perspective on Romans 9. It doesn't seem that many people who hold a "free-will" view want to go there. I would like to point out two things that keep me from accepting the "nations" view in Romans 9. The first is that God clearly is shown to not extend his mercy to some, which included Esau as an individual in Genesis, not the Edomites. The second is that the "vessels of mercy" referred to are not the Jews nor the Gentiles as a race, but those "of the Jews" and also "of the Gentiles," i.e. individuals within those nations (v. 24). Also, Paul takes the time to clearly delineate in the first part of Romans 9 that not all descended from Jacob are considered "all Israel" for the purposes of his discourse (v. 6). I don't see how one concludes that Paul is speaking of Gentiles and Jews in general in Ephesians 1. He is addressing Gentile believers, but he himself is a Jew, and he groups them both together (i.e. the church at Ephesus and Paul, not nations) as those chosen according to the kind intention of God's will. What do you think? --Joe! |
||||||
7 | Pelagianism or Arminianism? | Rom 5:6 | Morant61 | 6811 | ||
Greetings Joe! You won’t believe this, but I lost enough post! My computer disconnected! From now, I elect to save all of my posts to my word processor first, and the paste them into the forum. :-) I thank you so much for a great response! Your post is a fine example of what a discussion can be - interactive and specific. Calvinists and Arminians can toss Scriptures back and forth all day, but until we really start dealing with how we interpret the various passages, we really aren’t sharing anything meaningful. As I’ve said before, my point in a discussion isn’t necessarily to convert someone else to my view. My point is two-fold: to sharpen my ability to communicate and understand my beliefs, and to expose others on the forum to a reasoned presentation of the evidence from all perspectives. Allow me to respond to your posts in two replies! In this one, I will deal with the Romans questions. In the second one, I will deal with the Ephesians questions. You made two points that you feel mitigate against Romans 9 referring to nations rather than individuals. 1) You felt that God is dealing with Jacob and Esau the individuals, not nations. Notice however, that the context of all the quotes from the Old Testament have to do with national destinies, not individual salvation. Paul introduces Esau and Jacob precisely to prove (as you pointed out in your post) that not all who are physically descended from Israel are Israel. He then refers to God’s choice of Jacob over Esau, not for salvation, but for the working out of His purpose in election. It was through Jacob that the Law came. It was through Jacob that the Messiah was to be born, not Esau. Even Romans 9:13, is a quote from Malachi 1:2-5, describing God’s judgment upon the nation of Edom, not His attitude toward Esau. If I could summarize Paul’s point, Israel has no right to complain about how God determines the nature of the spiritual "Israel." If He wants to open Israel up to those who are "not His people - Rom. 9:25", He can. He can have mercy upon whomever He wants to have mercy - Rom. 9:15. 2) Secondly, you felt that vessels of mercy in Rom. 9:23, referred not to nations, but individual among the Jews and Gentiles. Obviously, I would agree that individuals are included. However, I think that again nations are primarily in view. Why? The vessels are contextually the same vessels described in the quote (Rom. 9:20-21) from the Potter and the Clay (Jer. 18:3-6.) If you look at Jer. 18:3-6, you will find that God is once again dealing with the fate of nations and His right to work or use them as He sees fit. Finally, you must consider Romans 10-11as well, when you interpret Romans 9. Romans 10 extends the gospel invitation to whomsoever will. Romans 11 specifically says that some of those who are not part of the spiritual Israel, can be grafted in again if they do not persist in their unbelief - Rom. 11:23. And, I believe that Romans 11:28-32 is the key to understanding election: "As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, 29 for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable. 30 Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God’s mercy to you. 32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all." What is the purpose of election? - to have mercy on them all! Now you see why I needed two posts! :-) I look forward to your reply! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||