Results 1861 - 1880 of 1928
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1861 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 5936 | ||
So then you are saying that Christ did not pay the penalty for their sins. Or He did and they are paying it again, which rendered Christ's payment ultimately useless. Or Christ's payment counted and the resident of Hell is paying the penalty again, which makes no sense at all with a just God. You also said that you believe that some can lose their salvation. That debate is outside the range of this thread, but let's assume for argument that this is the case. We have a sinner who accepts Christ. Therefore, Christ paid the penalty for his sins (both our views will acknowledge that Christ died for this individual). Then he loses his salvation. Does that mean that Christ paid the penalty and then didn't? It is these problems that lead me to reject limited atonement and to interpret Scripture to say that in many cases, the "world" does not mean every single individual who has ever or will ever live. What does atonement mean, after all? Finally, how is people accepting Christ up to the Holy Spirit? I thought in the Arminian view He provides all with prevenient grace, so salvation is ultimately up to the sinner who can accept or reject that prevenient grace? Think about what I am saying. If there is some logic that I am missing here, please bring it to my attention. Thanks, and God bless! --Joe! |
||||||
1862 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 5934 | ||
You didn't address anything I said about Saul or Jonah or Jeremiah. I also do not see the threat of the church dying out in an Arminian wordlview to be a "petty matter," and I don't think you really believe that, either. I am not trying to corner you, Nolan. If Arminianism is truly what is revealed in the entire biblical text, I will accept it. I need to be shown it, because I certainly don't see it myself. My own thinking itself did not move to Calvinism until a couple of years ago, because upon examining it (and not some straw man set up by its opponents), I became convinced that it offered the view consistent with the Bible, and answered a great deal of the questions I had regarding my previous views. If you do not have immediate answers to my questions, Nolan, that is fine. I am not in a rush here. I am simply pointing out what I consider to be serious flaws in Arminian thinking. We all should examine our views and let them be directed by the word of God itself. Take the time to think about the answers to these questions. Ask other Arminians you know how they would answer these questions. However, by no means IGNORE them and leave them unanswered, because I think we would both agree that God has not left his nature to be some "guessing game" where we do not know how he operates. If you come up with Arminian answers, please share them with me! May God bless you and lead us both into a complete knowledge of his revealed truth. --Joe! |
||||||
1863 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 5921 | ||
With all due respect, you didn't answer question 2. Whose sins are the damned dying for? The same ones that Christ died for? --Joe! |
||||||
1864 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 5920 | ||
And I contend that this not love. If you have children, do you let them play near a hot stove if they are determined to do so? If they are determined to play with a plugged-in hair dryer, would you say, "Well, I love you, but it's your choice."? I do not make the conclusion you do because I hold that your premeses are flawed. --Joe! |
||||||
1865 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 5919 | ||
That is not what the text says here, Nolan. Show me where Jeremiah HAD to cooperate with the Holy Spirit. Did King Saul cooperate with the Holy Spirit in 1 Samuel? In any case, the Old Testament prophets were by and large different from the NT believers, because, except for a few cases, they were not indwelt by the Holy Spirit, but rather He came upon them to accomplish His purposes. In the case of Jonah, when he was chosen, did he cooperate? Then why was he still a preacher to the Ninevites? God surely respected his "free will," right? ;) You believe in a very weak God, Nolan, if He can say something like he does to Jeremiah in 1:5 and then be thwarted by his creation. There is no "maybe" to God's plan. In your view, if everyone who is a believer suddenly decided to stop evangelizing, the church would DIE OUT! Don't you see the logical conclusions of having such an elevated view of mankind, one that Scripture does not support? --Joe! |
||||||
1866 | earth 6-10000 years old | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 5907 | ||
Of course, there are many folks who would disagree with Ryrie on this (well, at least points 1 and 3). That is definitely not a can of worms I intend to serve up here, though! --Joe! |
||||||
1867 | Does God have free will? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 5901 | ||
I think Free Will means the ability to act ACCORDING to our nature. God's nature has been, is, and always will be morally incorruptible, not fallible in the slightest. Man's initial nature was perfect, but fallible or corruptible (Genesis 1-2). After the Fall, man's nature was corrupted and now sinful (Romans 5:12). When the Holy Spirit regenerates us, He gives us a new nature, which allows us to please God once more (Romans 8:8). We are still corruptible, but we are now capable of pleasing Him and serving Him as well. Therefore, God acts according to His nature. The unsaved act according to theirs, and the believer has two competing natures. In the case of the Christian, depending on which one is "fed" the most, that nature will be the one whose will is carried out. Man, of course, does not have the power, perspective, and soverieignty of God; so by our very nature as creatures we do not have the ability to carry out our purposes the way God does His. That's a good thing considering our nature... :) Tag, you're it! |
||||||
1868 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 5890 | ||
With all due respect, you didn't address my post's content at all. Jeremiah 1:5 does not tell us that ALL are forewknown! It does not say, "I knew all humans." It says that he knew Jeremiah. If this passage is addressed to all of us, then are all humans also sanctified from the womb, and are we all ordained as prophets? Don't claim things that God spoke to individuals for yourself unless it is clear that God is speaking of a category to which you belong. In this case, He is clearly speaking to one man about him alone. By the way, where is Jeremiah's free will in this passage? Did he agree to be a prophet before he was in the womb? Doesn't it seem to you that God was 100 percent calling the shots here? This verse supports divine election much more than it does a free-will view. Thanks for your comments! Keep searching for truth. --Joe! |
||||||
1869 | Holy Spirit's power of Conviction | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 5888 | ||
I was not personally offended by your comments. If I got offended every time someone with a theologically different viewpoint questioned my motives, I would be curled up in a fetal position, crying in the corner. Forgiveness is no problem. I do, however, have a knee-jerk reaction to those who claim that those who hold to limited atonement having a dishonest heart. Jonathan Edwards the Great Awakener didn't have an honest heart? Francis Schaeffer didn't have an honest heart? R.C. Sproul does not have an honest heart? John Calvin the Reformer did not have an honest heart? See? Once you start lining up those who held/hold to limited atonement (and this is just the very tip of the iceberg), it becomes clear that either God used in tremendous, powerful ways those with "dishonest hearts" when it came to who Christ died for; or that just maybe their hearts were not dishonest after all. For the record, I did not directly call you a blasphemer. What I did intend to say is that if limited atonement is indeed Biblical, dismissing it as a "doctrinal slant" is treading dangerous water. For example, put the word "Trinity" in the place of "limited atonement." You and I both are Trinitarians, and if a Oneness Pentecostal came along and called the Trinity a doctrinal slant deriving from a dishonest heart, we should think that God would be extremely displeased at such an accusation. While I do not hold limited atonement to be a salvific issue, if there exists even a possibility that limited atonement is what is revealed in Scripture, we should not be so quick to brush it off. Sorry if that did not come out the way it was intended! In any case, I do not see how one can logically hold to unconditional election and unlimited atonement unless Christ didn't actually pay the full penalty for humanity's individual sins on the cross. If Christ actually died for the sins of all human beings (i.e. paid the full penalty), whose sins are those in Hell paying for? |
||||||
1870 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 5873 | ||
Well you are right about "being as Arminian as they come"! John Wesley would be proud! :) Thew view you presented, however, contends that Christ didn't die for any ACTUAL sins at Calvary unless we believe. Therefore, I need to point out two things, which I hope you can address for me: 1. In theory, then, if no one had "cooperated with God in salvation," then Christ would have died for nothing. Yes, I know that didn't happen, but it still was a theoretical possibility, right? 2. Did Christ pay for any ACTUAL sins on the Cross? If so, did he pay the penalty for the sins of the damned as well? That would seem consistent with a view of unlimited atonement if Christ actually paid the debt on the Cross. One other thing: where is the Scriptural support for prevenient grace? Thanks! I hope if nothing else that our dialogue has given you a clearer picture of Calvinism, even if you disagree with it. Too many people out there misrepresent the theology, and therefore there is a lot of confusion about it. Even if we disagree with each other, I do feel that it is important that we UNDERSTAND where one another is coming from. --Joe! |
||||||
1871 | Holy Spirit's power of Conviction | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 5870 | ||
See my response to your other post for the difference between election and regeneration. --Joe! |
||||||
1872 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 5869 | ||
What problems are those in saying that some are not chosen? Here is the Calvinist viewpoint on Hell: 1. It is what we all deserve. 2. If none of us were saved, God would be demonstrating his justice and wrath toward sinners, both of which are entirely Biblical concepts. 3. Therefore, Hell is the "default destiny" of sinful man. There is never a point at which we are neutral as far as our salvation was concerned. Before, all of us are spiritually dead. Christians are made alive in Christ. 4. This is not due to our choice, but rather to God's mercy and grace (UNDESERVED kindness). 5. God is not OBLIGATED to show undeserved kindness and mercy to all. He is the Creator after all. 6. If God is required to offer kindness to all, then it is not grace anymore, but rather a deserved right we have. 7. Therefore, those who go to Hell get what they deserve, which demonstrates God's justice. Those of us who are saved do not get what we deserve (Hell), which demonstrates God's mercy. In both, God is glorified. I think the problem comes with a God who intends to save everyone, but fails to do so. Is he not loving enough to work to change the minds of the damned, or is he just not powerful enough to do so? Saying that God loves us enough to let us make up our own minds is small consolation to those who are facing an eternity of judgment and wrath if He indeed intended to save them. Thanks for the dialogue! --Joe! |
||||||
1873 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 5867 | ||
I think that predestination (God's choosing or election) is being confused here with God's regeneration of human beings. Ephesians 1:4 tells us that we were chosen by him before the foundation of the world. However, I was not born "saved." No Christian believes that. What God's election means is that at some point in my life the Holy Spirit would regenerate me, actually cause me to be spiritually reborn so that I will put my trust in Christ. For me that happened around the age of eleven. Before that I was spiritually dead just as you were before you placed your trust in Christ. What unconditional election holds is that God chose you and I and all the rest of the elect to be reborn before time began. The actual spiritual rebirth takes place in time during our respective lifetimes, however. That is why there are people getting saved every day. God the Holy Spirit works through a variety of means, especially those who are already "new creations" to provide the message of the Gospel. The Holy Spirit transforms the heart of the unbeliever so that she will put her trust in Christ in response to the message. The fact that people are not actually saved until the moment at which they put their trust in Christ's substitutionary death is not a point of dispute between Arminians and Calvinists. We can stand together on that, and that does indeed make us brothers in Christ even if we disagree on the extent of God's role in the whole process. The people in foreign lands (I suppose you mean the people who never hear of Christ) die in their sins, since there is no gospel presented to them. This fits in more with a predestination view than a view that God intends on saving everyone. A God who intends on saving the savage in the jungle is not very powerful if He cannot get the message to them. If he must rely on human beings, that means that he NEEDS us, which is contrary to his sovereignty and omnipotence. Those in foreign lands who hear the message and accept Christ are part of the elect. No problem here. Contrary to your attack on the motives of Calvinists, the doctrine of predestination is no excuse to not evangelize. The largest revival in American history, the First Great Awakening, was spearheaded by Jonathan Edwards, who was a staunch, dyed-in-the-wool, Presbyterian 5-point Calvinist. He certainly didn't argue for sitting back and letting the chips fall where they may. Calvinists hold that God ordained believers as His means of spreading the message of Christ, to glorify God, to shine as lights in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation. God is sovereign, however, and no one's salvation hinges on my decision (or lack thereof) to preach the Gospel to every creature. God will provide the gospel to those who were chosen, and the Holy Spirit will regenerate them (in other words, no one comes to Christ "on their own" according to Calvinism). If it is through my evangelism, I am blessed to be part of God's plan, and I am living for the purpose for which I was re-created (Ephesians 2:10), and I am being obedient to the God who called me (1 Peter 2:9,10). An important point: Calvinists do not hold that the elect have been revealed to humanity. It is stepping way out of line to try and play God and decide for ourselves who God has chosen. This is a complete misrepresentation of unconditional election that some may use to shirk their responsibilities, but I stand with you in saying that it is completely unbiblical. I do not think I am better than anyone else. In fact, I hold that people who think they have any role in their own rebirth are giving themselves reason to boast. Here is what I mean: if the gospel is preached to two individuals at the same time, and one accepts Christ and the other one never does, does that mean that the saved one was wiser or smarter or better (or whatever you would say) than the other one? The Arminian would have a harder time showing how there was no room for boasting (and I have heard many a free-will type scoff at the "stupidity" of the unbeliever with quite the attitude of superiority). The Calvinist say that the Holy Spirit acted in the heart of one and not the other, causing the saved one to believe. This is not because one is better, because as Romans 3 says, we were all equally Christ-haters before God saves us. It is God's sovereign choice not based on our brains or charm or race or gender or eloquence or goodness or kindness or apparent usefulness or our connections. That is why it is termed "unconditional election." God did not save us due to any inherent condition we had that makes us superior to those who are not of the elect. The only atheists we as human beings know are predestined to Hell are the dead ones. People who declare enemies of Christ to be permanently beyond the reach of God's regeneration should take a hard look in Acts 9 at a Pharisee named Saul... Thanks for your comments! --Joe! |
||||||
1874 | Holy Spirit's power of Conviction | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 5859 | ||
Honestly, Chris, I haven't examined the Reformed arguments for the replacement of Israel. I do know the Dispensationalist argument, albeit without the Scriptural support behind it. I must admit at first glance I have a problem with the notion that the so-called "Church Age" is just a parenthetical period of time in God's larger dealing with Israel, which is most often the way it has been presented to me. God's promise to Abraham was that ALL nations would be blessed through his seed. It doesn't seem that that was some sort of "oh, by the way" kind of thing to me. I also have problems with the opposing notion that the church is identified 100 percent with Israel. What I mean by this is that every promise that was made to the nation of Israel is not something I as a Gentile believer can just claim as my own. It may just be lack of interest on my part in this area (which may be wrong in itself), but most of the "future glory of Israel" stuff is tied in heavily with eschatology, and I have a knee-jerk reaction against majoring in this area, since this is MUCH more speculative in nature and really doesn't occupy a central place in Scripture when compared to the nature of God and the person and work of Christ. I probably should investigate both sides a little more clearly, and look at the Scriptures in this area. Perhaps I will do that soon. The reason I said that I did not think it was germane, however, is that the vessels referred to in Romans 9 are not Israel and the rest of the world, but individuals. If we look at verses 22, 23 and 24, we see that the vessels of honor are plural, and the vessells of wrath are as well. In verse 24 Paul specifies that the vessels refer to us, who are OF the Jews and OF the Gentiles. Even if Paul speaks about the future of ethnic groups in Romans 9-12, I am not convinced that these "vessels" are nations, but rather I hold that they are people (such as the Jewish apostles and the Gentile believers and those from both groups who reject Christ). Sorry if I was too abrupt there. --Joe! |
||||||
1875 | Holy Spirit's power of Conviction | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 5851 | ||
Surely you don't think that Paul hypothetically using the excuse, "Who resists His will?" implies that there is any individual who can answer in the affirmative. This whole chapter is Paul defending divine election against the very accusations that free-will folks make against it. Who resists His will? The understood answer by both the hypothetical question-asker, and also Paul is agreed to be "No one." Read the previous verses to see why anyone would want to use that fact as an excuse. You see, if you sit down and read Romans, Paul uses hypothetical objections to the gospel in the form of questions to expound God's message Let's not change the subject to what Reformed theology believes about Israel. There are plenty of people who hold to Calvin's unconditional election who disagree on this, so it is not germane. In addition, this thread is starting to take up a great deal of my time, and the posts herein are quite sufficient to let others determine who is exegeting correctly. I warmly offer you the last word if you should decide to reply, and thanks for the debate! --Joe! |
||||||
1876 | Holy Spirit's power of Conviction | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 5843 | ||
"For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified." -- Romans 8:29-30 Since you think the interpretation of this passage hinges on "foreknowledge," let's see if skipping to the next point brings us to an Arminian conclusion: Let's start with those who are predestined. Note that it is not a means of salvation that is predestined, but individuals. These are the ones who are called. If all are not predestined, it does not logically follow that all are called. This statement would be meaningless otherwise. We both agree that at least some are called. You seem to think that ALL are called, and some do not heed the call. Well, those God called, He JUSTIFIED. If ALL men are called, do you hold that ALL are justified? It doesn't say that "those who answered God's call He justified." Let's go further: those whom he predestined and called and justified He GLORIFIED. Now those who have been called by God are all glorified (according to a "God calls everyone" point-of-view)? Again, there is no passage which explicitly says, "Mankind is free to accept or reject Christ." In fact, there are passages like these which explicitly state the opposite. God is the subject of all verbs having to do with choosing, electing, saving, predestining, adopting. We as Christians are the object of all those verbs. Yes, all who believe will be saved (John 5:24). But who will believe? Only those whom the Father gives to the Son. The rest are completely incapable (John 6:44,65; Romans 8:8). Christ saves completely those whom the Father gives to Him (John 6:37). This is not what somebody reads into the text. It is the text's message. If we cannot believe the rendering of clear-as-crystal biblical text, but insist that it "must" mean something else despite a long and clarifying explanation in its context, how can we be sure of any doctrines of the Bible? --Joe! |
||||||
1877 | Holy Spirit's power of Conviction | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 5798 | ||
When I have heard dispensationalists say that they cannot understand it all, it is usually because they pre-suppose free-willism. It is some "unfathomable mystery" until you put free-willism aside, then it does come together pretty nicely. Please take the time and inclination to take a hard look at Romans 9 to come up with some alternative interpretation. 1 Timothy 2:4 is not that much of a stretch. If we want to avoid the heresy of universalism and maintain that Scripture is inspired and non-contradictory, we have to look closely at the context of passages and correctly determine whether "all men" means "all individuals" or "all kinds of men." Wesley even argued with His own brother about a great number of the fundamentals of Scripture. The fact that sincere and fruitful Christians disagree does not mean that there is no clear revelation on the issue. People bring their own pre-suppositions to the Bible all the time. I think it would be a little much to assume that Augustine and Luther and Calvin and Wesley and others did not bring some of their own. Fallible human beings such as myself and yourself often interpret Scripture wrongly. That does not mean that there is not any answer revealed, but rather that we should as brothers in Christ vigorously debate the matters in order to come to a knowledge of the truth in matters that ARE addressed in Scripture, and God's role in salvation is extensively addressed in Scripture! Thanks again! --Joe! |
||||||
1878 | Not my will? | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 5797 | ||
Matthew 22:14 comes at the end of a parable in which Jesus compares the scribes and Pharisees and teachers of the law to those who were invited to a wedding nbut refused to attend. He then went out and pulled in outsiders, which refers to those who are not of the "inner circle." There is one who shows up without a wedding garment and is cast out (i.e. Hell). Therefore, there seems to be in the latter case (and therefore likely in the former) an outward call which was heeded by one person who was not worthy to attend. He attempted under his own terms to enter Heaven, but God would have none of it. In any case, we see that not only those who didn't even heed the call (and killed the prophets) are not included in the banmquet, but also those who answered the call under false pretenses. That would lead me to believe that the call here could be an outward one made to all men, but not all who seem to respond to the outward call are of the chosen. The whole passage indicates an outward, general, indiscrimintate call to all kinds of men, which is not inconsistent with Calvinism. False brethren as indicated in your second paragraph are not anti-Calvinistic, either. If you can put a suitable, non-Reformed explanation to Romans 8:28-30 and Romans 9:14-23, then we would have some basis for a non-predestination scenario. Predestination is not "calling," in any case. It is "choosing beforehand." I was chosen before the foundation of the world. I was called at about the age of ten, when I by faith trusted in Christ's death for my sins. Thanks for your input! --Joe! |
||||||
1879 | Holy Spirit's power of Conviction | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 5795 | ||
Well, in your view of God, you show a lack of understanding of the Reformed position. Let me help: God knows everything possible, but that isn't to say that knowing everything possible means that nothing will go wrong. It still requires God's intervention to some extent. I know you probably believe this, so we disagree as far as the extent to which God intervenes, especially concerning man's supposed "free will." It isn't whether God MUST control everything; but whether he only sits back and steps in where necessary, or that nothing at all exists or happens without his causing it or allowing it. The biblical God is an extremely active God. Now it isn't a question whether he "gives" his creatures free will or not. He indeed did so, and Adam ruined that right quick for us all. Romans 5:12 makes that pretty clear to me. Romans 3:10-18 settles what our true nature is, and the repetition throughout Romans of the unregenerate being slaves to sin reinforces that idea. Therefore, we sold ourselves into sin by breaking our fellowship with God. Bondage and slavery are the exact opposite of freedom, and the human race got itself into that predicament, not God. As far as irresistible grace, the view that God brings man "kicking and screaming" to His side is not the Reformed one, either. Before God changes the elect, we ALL hate God. None seek him. Regeneration is not a process of negotiation or a tug of war, but rather an instantaneous rebirth, a bringing us to life out of spiritual death. God supernaturally changes our hearts so that we do desire him; God does not make us grudgingly accept him even though we would rather go to Hell than do so. Regeneration by necessity must logically precede faith. Does God only have mercy for some? You think that God is required to show mercy to all or none. What does Romans 9:15-18 tell us? Which reflects God's true character? A God "that allows some to be saved and some to be lost" is more of a description of the image of God YOU hold to. First of all, do you disagree that God allows some to be lost? If God did not allow it, it would not happen. People will spend an eternity in Hell, so God does allow some to be lost. Calvinists hold that God does not merely ALLOW men to be saved, but rather that God is the sole and efficient CAUSE of salvation, from start to finish (Romans 8:28-30). Paul addresses irresistible grace in Romans 9:19-23. He addresses unconditional election in Ephesians 1:4-11 and the mercy issue in Romans 9:5-18. Total depravity is Romans 3:10-18,23. Perseverence of the saints is John 6:35-65 and Romans 8:1-2,37-39 and Ephesians 1:13-14. Contrary to your statement, it is not up to man to decide which God is "greater," but rather we need to look to Scripture to see who God truly is. I again ask you to refute the apparently blatant declaration of election in Romans 9:5-23. If there is some alternate explanation that Paul makes room for, I would be more than happy to hear it. So far it has not been forthcoming. By the way, you are right about the preachers: it doesn't sound like election at all! But then again, they aren't Scripture any more than you or I are. --Joe! |
||||||
1880 | Holy Spirit's power of Conviction | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 5792 | ||
I am sorry. I need to be clearer, I suppose. Are the disciples included in the "world"? No. Therefore the world does not include EVERYONE. I will suppose that you meant everyone but the disciples. In any case, I never claimed that John 17 was an ironclad defense of the doctrine of election, since as you said, that is not the prayer's primary purpose. Romans 9 and Ephesians 1 are the clearest examples of God's sovereign choice in my mind, and those passages I know you agree are divinely inspired as well. While John 17 could be taken both ways, I fail to find anyone yet who is able to explain away Paul's explanation of how God's mercy operates and the analogy of the potter (God) and the pots (us). If you can, I would love to hear a "free will" explanation of it. I just can't see one myself. Jesus's statements about the inability of man to come to him unless the Father gives them to him (John 6:35-65) also seems pretty compelling to me. When I alluded to Philippians 1:27,28, I was referring to just what you said, that even though the Holy Spirit speaks out in judgment (that is what conviction means, by the way -- one does not need to feel guilty of a crime to be convicted of it), there are some who reject it. Perhaps I could have used a different passage, but having the truth revealed clearly about sin through the power of the Holy Spirit does not mean that He works some inner change of any kind on ALL who hear the message. Just because one's need for salvation is made clear does not mean that God has extended it to everyone. As far as my own personal journey toward Calvinism, I grew up in Dispensationalist land (and, incidentally, still attend a church very much influenced by Dallas Theological Seminary). I wouldn't say that I ever wholeheartedly rejected unconditional election; rather, I would say that I never seriously examined it. Our wills are indeed free in a great many ways without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (just not morally capable of pleasing God), that without the words of Scripture it does seem that our choosing to follow Christ was to a large degree our decision. However, I also noticed that those troublesome passages mentioned above were pretty much skirted around by pastors who hold to the idea that salvation is co-operative. Either they explained it away by saying (wrongly) that God pre-ordained a means of salvation, rather than individuals; or they explained it as as being a situation where God "chose" us because he knew from eternity past that we would choose him someday. The latter is probably close to the view I held, but it always was troubling to me to think that it was God who was sovereign and God who called us and that we do not deserve it in the slightest, but yet the Spirit called everyone and only some were "smart" enough to choose it (or whatever term you would like to insert in the quotes). In addition, in typical Christian fashion I most likely ignored Romans 9 and similar passages to a large extent because it didn't fit into the framework that I had grown up in. Initially, I was not introduced to Reformed theology per se, but the works of such scholars and commentators such as Mark Noll, David F. Wells, George Marsden, and Bruce Shelley. While all of them were commenting on the culture, the university, the church and the way the world has molded it into its image, and the history of the body of Christ, I was quite impressed by their scholarship which, in interacting and commenting on the culture of today, is quite rare in other more "pretribulational" settings. The interesting thing to me was that to a large degree it was informed by their Reformed theological perspective. That is when it dawned on me that I had never given it a very serious look, but rather had dismissed it without careful examination. You are correct that I didn't hold firmly to Calvinism until it was explained to me and shown the passages in Scripture which support it (along with very sound refutations of arguments against it). But that is my whole point: once I took a step back from pre-supposing that the Holy Spirit merely "aided" or "enabled" man in accepting Christ, I found that there is no overt passage in Scripture to suggest such a thing at all (just the opposite, in fact). Therefore, I moved toward Calvinism (thanks in part to careful, fair explanation by R.C. Sproul, who is far more gracious toward the opposition than he is given credit for). Mainly what caused my shift in thinking is the God-centeredness of Calvinism, taking the highest view of His sovereignty and taking a much more biblically accurate view of our sinfulness and rebellion in light of His holiness. But enough about me. You say that you hold to some form of the doctrine of election. Please elaborate! The Holy Spirit works through people who are wrong on clear doctrine all the time. Wesley was wrong on election and still bore fruit same as Calvin. --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 ] Next > Last [97] >> |