WBC

[August]

This is what I have found, to understand what Bart was saying. This is my opinion only, and I'm not sure if it is any way, related to Bart's view.

For my response to August, I'll refer to the Calvinist website, that he showed me. So there won't be any disagreements with that end of my ideas.
http://www.reformed.org/calvinism/

Ok...

Unconditional Election
Unconditional Election is the doctrine which states that God chose those whom he was pleased to bring to a knowledge of himself, not based upon any merit shown by the object of his grace and not based upon his looking forward to discover who would "accept" the offer of the gospel. God has elected, based solely upon the counsel of his own will, some for glory and others for damnation (Romans 9:15,21). He has done this act before the foundations of the world (Ephesians 1:4-8).

Ok, so let's deal with this:

For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."

Since I see we are accused of this being out of context, let's refresh our memories. There is no doubt that in Romans 9 Paul is speaking about why gentiles are saved , and why Israel seems to be so stubborn. This leads some to conclude that the whole context of Romans 9-11 is about corporate Israel as opposed to individual election. If that is the case, then are those who propose corporate election here saying that:

Rom 9:13 As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated All Edomites are doomed, as God corporately hates Esau and all of his offspring? How does that work? Are Edomites not made up of individuals? This just kicks the can down the road to get away from the plain meaning of both 9:15 and 9:19.

Regardless, in Rom 9, earlier, Paul makes it clear that this is not about corporate election specifically, but about why some (the majority) of Israel rejects Christ. (9:6 and 9:7). He goes on to say that some people of Israel, even though not born yet, had mercy, and others not, clearly a case of individuals being selected by God, since they have not been born yet. This is followed by two examples, Jacob and Esau (v13) and Pharaoh (v17).

In addition, both in 9:15 and 9:18, "whomever" is singular, or refers to individual in the Greek. In fact, Romans 9 contains 25 references to the singular. In addition to Romans 9 then talking about nations, it also talks about individuals. Naming the fathers of those nations should be proof enough, but as I have shown above, there is more.

Moving on then, saying that this is not about God's sovereign election falls flat, because Rom 8-11 is chock-full of references to exactly that, unless one wishes to introduce a strained logic to say that what applies to nations does not apply to the individuals in those nations, which leaves the objector on the horns of a trilemma:
1. God elects whole nations to be doomed, which is contrary to Rev 7:9
2. God hated the children of Esau, but not Esau himself, which is contrary to 9:13, but also Mal 1:3, and Gen 25:23.
3. God elects based on our genetic heritage, which again, is contrary to Rev 7:9

The context and grammar of Romans 9 points to the two topics, the corporate stubbornness of Israel, and how God deals with it...through His sovereign election (9:11), and according to His will (9:15, 9:16, 9:18), some of fallen mankind unto salvation and glory, and others left to destruction (9:22 and for Israel, 9:27).

This Calvinist belief, especially the part I put in blue, is the beginning of how those in Calvinism have a basis for not showing the love of Christ, to all people they are in contact with. This Calvinist idea that God only loves the elect, and not all people is summed up perfectly in this old Calvinist hymn:

We are the Lord's elected few, let all the rest be damned; there's room enough in hell for you, we won't have heaven crammed!"

Interesting how one old hymn from the Particular Baptists are always dug up as the authority to prove this point. Is it your contention that this hymn is the sum of Calvinist writings and analysis on this topic? This is just poisoning the well, to be honest.

So let's look at this in more detail then...the counterpoint is then obviously that God loves all people. Is that why He condemns the majority of people to eternal damnation? Or He is simply unable to save all the people that He loves? Didn't we just read that God hated Esau, and the Edomites? Or does hate not mean hate here? How does that comport with the judgment against the Edomites that is referred to here, from:
Mal 1:2 "I have loved you," says the LORD. But you say, "How have you loved us?" "Is not Esau Jacob's brother?" declares the LORD. "Yet I have loved Jacob
Mal 1:3 but Esau I have hated. I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert."
Mal 1:4 If Edom says, "We are shattered but we will rebuild the ruins," the LORD of hosts says, "They may build, but I will tear down, and they will be called 'the wicked country,' and 'the people with whom the LORD is angry forever.'"
Mal 4:1 "For behold, the day is coming, burning like an oven, when all the arrogant and all evildoers will be stubble. The day that is coming shall set them ablaze, says the LORD of hosts, so that it will leave them neither root nor branch.

Regardless of that, your argument

is the beginning of how those in Calvinism have a basis for not showing the love of Christ, to all people they are in contact with

is a non-sequitor. You have not shown how this is true of Calvinists. The simple truth is that no Calvinist will pretend to know who is elect and who is not, and therefore cannot not show love to all people they come in contact with. Freakshows like the WBC mutilate Calvinism in two ways...one by doing what I just described...pretending to know who is elect and who is not, and two, by adding to the gospel a requirement that the correct theology and body of works need to be followed to be saved. You will find no Calvinist affirming those two things, and I can point to the writings from Calvin himself all the way to contemporary reformed scholars in support.

The doctrine of election is also not under dispute from any Biblical scholars, except open theists and some schools of molinism. The mechanism of election may well be disputed in some ways. But to accuse Calvinism of leading to a lack of love because of their doctrine of election is untrue and unproven. All sides of the theological spectrum have their freaks.

Now, if God doesn't love everyone, and that means God must hate the ones He doesn't love, then why should Calvinists not hate those that they believe God hates. They are just emulating their god.

At least WBC, is being consistent with the way their god acts.

Do you dispute that God hates some? The Greek word "miseo" from Rom 9 cannot be interpreted any other way. And the Hebrew root from Mal 1 also cannot, is speaks to personal and utter hatred.

I already answered above, no Calvinist pretends to know who is elect and who is not. The WBC pretends to know who among certain groups are elect and whom are hated.. They don't, simply because God elects according to His own will and volition. In fact, they are closer to the Arminian side since there man has the choice to make from his preregenerate state, and those who choose against God can be said to be in rebellion against Him, having heard the gospel and rejected it...are those not the ones that God sends to eternal damnation under those conditions?

This is why I think Calvinism, taken to its logical end, leads to a lack of love, as shown by the lives lived by the members of WBC, and by the statement of Danny, above.

I don't speak for Danny, and I'm sure he won't pretend to speak for all of us. But your conclusion is strained and uninformed as far as mainstream Calvinism is concerned, and certainly not supported by any of the notes from Wesley that you posted. I would prefer to see your own exegesis anyway, or we end up playing scholar chess.

[Canuckster1127]

All you have to do to be a Calvinist is camp on Romans 9 and a very questionable interpretation as Rick demonstrated very easily and ignore a great many Scriptures such as:

Joh 3:16, 17 For God so loved the world , that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

1Ti 2:3, 4 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance .

Joh 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me .

This ties into what I was saying earlier about the Character and Nature of God. Argue around it as much as anyone desires at the root of it, to accept 5 point Calvinism you have to be believe that God, as an act of His will and without providing any alternative for those predestined to perdition, created specific people for the ultimate purpose of sending them to hell for eternal punishment for a decision the couldn't make.

For the sake of maintaining a consistent internal logic (which is provided by greek stoicism and Roman law .... both disciplines that Calvin studied before he turned his hand to theology and pushed the Bible into his framework) Calvinists tell us that God is love but we don't understand love and must redefine it to allow for a God who does something like that. When people worship a God like that, not surprisingly, they take on the characteristic of the God whom they think they worship and that's why, just not WBC, but throughout history since the Reformation, Calvinism and reformed theology has been at the heart of what human nature does without much encouragement anyway, and that is to identify things as "us" and "them" and justify things like executions, wars and discriminating against those who "obviously" are not favored by God and since they're going to hell anyway, why should be bother treating them on par with those of us who are favored.

I usually get squeals of protest when I point that out, but it's simply unarguable. Calvinism is not unique in that regared certainly, but it's demonstrable that this type of mindset is internally connectable. Most calvinists don't live in full accordance with the logical implications of their faith in that regard. They separate their intellectual representation of God from how they practically live.

God has predestined (as the New Testament uses the word outside of greek philosophical determinism) all men for heaven in the sense that he's made provision through Christ that is sufficient for the salvation of all people. The idea that God's will cannot be overridden assumes that it is not possible for God to choose for His own purposes to grant people the opportunity to enter into relationship with Him (which is modeled in part by the relationship between the 3 persons of the Godhead often represented by the Greek term perichoresis). To remove human will you then have to come to 3 distinct scenarios.

1. God wills all people to go to heaven as demonstrated by the verses I introduced this post with. That what many universalists claim. The irony is that there is a great deal in common with some forms of Christian Universalism and Calvinism. Christian Universalism attributes many of the same mechanics to their theology but see the Character of God as such that if he's going to make a decision to predestine people anywhere, God's love would not allow Him to create those predestined for eternal condemnation so, they reason all people must be saved.

2, God will some people to go to Heaven and some not. This is Calvinism and many forms of Reformed theology. (You don't really find strong themes and elements of this in the early church until about the 11th century under Anselem). Mystery is attached, not to the nature or character of God but rather to the nature of humanity and man in that men are still responsible for their eternal damnation without having full volition to make an eternally significant decision in the first place.

3, God will all people to go to hell. This is rare but if you look hard you'll find some out there with this bizarre look. Many Atheists apply this type of reasoning as a progression to explain why they reject the Christian God as a moral monster.

Or,

You can accept that an expression of God's omnipotence, omniscence and His will includes His ability to choose not to exercise His will in this regard to and to grant mankind the license to make this decision. That assumption completely obliterates Calvinism and leaves mankind with responsibility for their own decisions with regards to God and Christ. It's not hard to see how God might choose to do this. All your have to do is look at Christ and see that to a greater extent than that, God the Son emptied Himself of many of the things that were inherent with His person as God to accomplish the incarnation. Beyond that it ties into mystery and certainly this doesn't imply that God the father does the exact same thing, but unless you attempt to separate the Godhead to the point where you see the God nature of the Father and the God nature of the Son as not held in common to the extent that God couldn't do this (which Calvinism ultimately does when you follow the logic) then you in effect reduce God from a person to an inexorable force of nature that operates completely within the realm of human logic.

[DannyM]

All a Calvinist has to do is camp on romans 9? Never heard anything so absurd in all my life. I'm sure Calvinism would've been put away by now, Bart, if your post had any weight to it. But I'll come back to this soon.

*edit* On second thoughts there's nothing to address. Bart, you've offered five proof texts, and decided your position is obviously right. Do I really need to pull you up on that? Do you think your texts on these issues are that cut and dried?

[DannyM]

Danny, I believe Wesley, was more Arminian. So, yes, he would deny the Calvinist view. If that's what you're asking.

Indeed. So why all of this:

Here is a link that shows what Romans 9 , is about.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/commenta ... ans-9.html

from the link:
In this chapter St. Paul, after strongly declaring his love and esteem for them, sets himself to answer the grand objection of his countrymen; namely, that the rejection of the Jews and reception of the gentiles was contrary to the word of God. That he had not here the least thought of personal election or reprobation is manifest,

Danny, see above link, to understand what Romans 9 is saying. The part in blue here:God has elected, based solely upon the counsel of his own will, some for glory and others for damnation (Romans 9:15,21). He has done this act before the foundations of the world, is the Calvinist belief, that is derived from reading Romans 9, in improper context.

Then, with a huge dollop of seemingly unconscious irony, you say this to me:

I know you can't separate Calvinism's interpretation of the bible, and the bible itself, Danny. That's why I was talking before, about not being stuck in a belief system, such as Calvinism, or any other ism. Because that just leads to interpreting the bible through the ism, not by the bible itself. I'm saying that the best way to read the bible, is to read, while letting the Holy Spirit speak to us. Not reading in light of how some "ism" interprets it. I hope you understand that this wasn't a personal attack against you, or anyone else.

Let’s remind ourselves:

Danny, I believe Wesley, was more Arminian. So, yes, he would deny the Calvinist view. If that's what you're asking.

So you are "interpreting the bible through the ism, not by the bible itself.". What happened to: "I'm saying that the best way to read the bible, is to read, while letting the Holy Spirit speak to us. Not reading in light of how some "ism" interprets it."?

What's going on here?

[DannyM]

This is what I have found, to understand what Bart was saying. This is my opinion only, and I'm not sure if it is any way, related to Bart's view.

For my response to August, I'll refer to the Calvinist website, that he showed me. So there won't be any disagreements with that end of my ideas.
http://www.reformed.org/calvinism/

Ok...

Unconditional Election
Unconditional Election is the doctrine which states that God chose those whom he was pleased to bring to a knowledge of himself, not based upon any merit shown by the object of his grace and not based upon his looking forward to discover who would "accept" the offer of the gospel. God has elected, based solely upon the counsel of his own will, some for glory and others for damnation (Romans 9:15,21). He has done this act before the foundations of the world (Ephesians 1:4-8).

Ok, so let's deal with this:

For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."

Since I see we are accused of this being out of context, let's refresh our memories. There is no doubt that in Romans 9 Paul is speaking about why gentiles are saved , and why Israel seems to be so stubborn. This leads some to conclude that the whole context of Romans 9-11 is about corporate Israel as opposed to individual election. If that is the case, then are those who propose corporate election here saying that:

Rom 9:13 As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated All Edomites are doomed, as God corporately hates Esau and all of his offspring? How does that work? Are Edomites not made up of individuals? This just kicks the can down the road to get away from the plain meaning of both 9:15 and 9:19.

Regardless, in Rom 9, earlier, Paul makes it clear that this is not about corporate election specifically, but about why some (the majority) of Israel rejects Christ. (9:6 and 9:7). He goes on to say that some people of Israel, even though not born yet, had mercy, and others not, clearly a case of individuals being selected by God, since they have not been born yet. This is followed by two examples, Jacob and Esau (v13) and Pharaoh (v17).

In addition, both in 9:15 and 9:18, "whomever" is singular, or refers to individual in the Greek. In fact, Romans 9 contains 25 references to the singular. In addition to Romans 9 then talking about nations, it also talks about individuals. Naming the fathers of those nations should be proof enough, but as I have shown above, there is more.

Moving on then, saying that this is not about God's sovereign election falls flat, because Rom 8-11 is chock-full of references to exactly that, unless one wishes to introduce a strained logic to say that what applies to nations does not apply to the individuals in those nations, which leaves the objector on the horns of a trilemma:
1. God elects whole nations to be doomed, which is contrary to Rev 7:9
2. God hated the children of Esau, but not Esau himself, which is contrary to 9:13, but also Mal 1:3, and Gen 25:23.
3. God elects based on our genetic heritage, which again, is contrary to Rev 7:9

The context and grammar of Romans 9 points to the two topics, the corporate stubbornness of Israel, and how God deals with it...through His sovereign election (9:11), and according to His will (9:15, 9:16, 9:18), some of fallen mankind unto salvation and glory, and others left to destruction (9:22 and for Israel, 9:27).

This Calvinist belief, especially the part I put in blue, is the beginning of how those in Calvinism have a basis for not showing the love of Christ, to all people they are in contact with. This Calvinist idea that God only loves the elect, and not all people is summed up perfectly in this old Calvinist hymn:

We are the Lord's elected few, let all the rest be damned; there's room enough in hell for you, we won't have heaven crammed!"

Interesting how one old hymn from the Particular Baptists are always dug up as the authority to prove this point. Is it your contention that this hymn is the sum of Calvinist writings and analysis on this topic? This is just poisoning the well, to be honest.

So let's look at this in more detail then...the counterpoint is then obviously that God loves all people. Is that why He condemns the majority of people to eternal damnation? Or He is simply unable to save all the people that He loves? Didn't we just read that God hated Esau, and the Edomites? Or does hate not mean hate here? How does that comport with the judgment against the Edomites that is referred to here, from:
Mal 1:2 "I have loved you," says the LORD. But you say, "How have you loved us?" "Is not Esau Jacob's brother?" declares the LORD. "Yet I have loved Jacob
Mal 1:3 but Esau I have hated. I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert."
Mal 1:4 If Edom says, "We are shattered but we will rebuild the ruins," the LORD of hosts says, "They may build, but I will tear down, and they will be called 'the wicked country,' and 'the people with whom the LORD is angry forever.'"
Mal 4:1 "For behold, the day is coming, burning like an oven, when all the arrogant and all evildoers will be stubble. The day that is coming shall set them ablaze, says the LORD of hosts, so that it will leave them neither root nor branch.

Regardless of that, your argument

is the beginning of how those in Calvinism have a basis for not showing the love of Christ, to all people they are in contact with

is a non-sequitor. You have not shown how this is true of Calvinists. The simple truth is that no Calvinist will pretend to know who is elect and who is not, and therefore cannot not show love to all people they come in contact with. Freakshows like the WBC mutilate Calvinism in two ways...one by doing what I just described...pretending to know who is elect and who is not, and two, by adding to the gospel a requirement that the correct theology and body of works need to be followed to be saved. You will find no Calvinist affirming those two things, and I can point to the writings from Calvin himself all the way to contemporary reformed scholars in support.

The doctrine of election is also not under dispute from any Biblical scholars, except open theists and some schools of molinism. The mechanism of election may well be disputed in some ways. But to accuse Calvinism of leading to a lack of love because of their doctrine of election is untrue and unproven. All sides of the theological spectrum have their freaks.

Now, if God doesn't love everyone, and that means God must hate the ones He doesn't love, then why should Calvinists not hate those that they believe God hates. They are just emulating their god.

At least WBC, is being consistent with the way their god acts.

Do you dispute that God hates some? The Greek word "miseo" from Rom 9 cannot be interpreted any other way. And the Hebrew root from Mal 1 also cannot, is speaks to personal and utter hatred.

I already answered above, no Calvinist pretends to know who is elect and who is not. The WBC pretends to know who among certain groups are elect and whom are hated.. They don't, simply because God elects according to His own will and volition. In fact, they are closer to the Arminian side since there man has the choice to make from his preregenerate state, and those who choose against God can be said to be in rebellion against Him, having heard the gospel and rejected it...are those not the ones that God sends to eternal damnation under those conditions?

This is why I think Calvinism, taken to its logical end, leads to a lack of love, as shown by the lives lived by the members of WBC, and by the statement of Danny, above.

I don't speak for Danny, and I'm sure he won't pretend to speak for all of us. But your conclusion is strained and uninformed as far as mainstream Calvinism is concerned, and certainly not supported by any of the notes from Wesley that you posted. I would prefer to see your own exegesis anyway, or we end up playing scholar chess.

Pretty damn comprehensive. It takes some exegetical gymnastics to deny individual election in Romans 9.

[RickD]

Then, with a huge dollop of seemingly unconscious irony, you say this to me:

RickD wrote:I know you can't separate Calvinism's interpretation of the bible, and the bible itself, Danny. That's why I was talking before, about not being stuck in a belief system, such as Calvinism, or any other ism. Because that just leads to interpreting the bible through the ism, not by the bible itself. I'm saying that the best way to read the bible, is to read, while letting the Holy Spirit speak to us. Not reading in light of how some "ism" interprets it. I hope you understand that this wasn't a personal attack against you, or anyone else.



Let’s remind ourselves:

RickD wrote:Danny, I believe Wesley, was more Arminian. So, yes, he would deny the Calvinist view. If that's what you're asking.



So you are "interpreting the bible through the ism, not by the bible itself.". What happened to: "I'm saying that the best way to read the bible, is to read, while letting the Holy Spirit speak to us. Not reading in light of how some "ism" interprets it."?

What's going on here?

Danny, my point was that we don't need to pigeon hole ourselves into a belief "ism". Once one claims to be an Arminian, Calvinist, Baptist, Lutheran, etc., then we tend to have to interpret scripture through the lens of that ism, we hold to. It kind of, puts us in a corner, so to speak, when it comes down to the authority, by which we interpret scripture. I never said that I don't, or we shouldn't use "isms", to help us understand scripture. Because I find fault in certain things in Calvinism, that doesn't mean I throw out all of Calvinism, or disregard all articles written by Calvinists. I'll show you an example of what I mean. Just because I'm trying to show how I think Calvinism's belief in predestination, when taken all the way to its logical conclusion, leads to behavior exhibited by WBC, that doesn't mean I don't use things in Calvinism, to better understand scripture. Here's the example. In another thread, "Atheists are hard to convert", I linked a well known Calvinist's website, because I believe the author was saying something that helped me understand what I was trying to convey to Byblos. Here's my post, in that other forum:

Byblos, I'm going to post a link, that explains baptism covenantally. And how baptism, is a covenant sign, just like circumcision is a covenant sign. This then goes into how circumcision was a work done by men, and didn't save. Just like baptism is a work done by men, that doesn't save.

Where in scripture does it say that baptism or repentance or the Lord's Supper are "works" that might "earn" someone salvation and therefore ought not be practiced for that purpose.


The link also explains this.

God please forgive me. I'm linking a Calvinist site , to attempt to explain away a faith + X=salvation theology. I hope the end justifies the means, in this case.
http://carm.org/is-baptism-necessary-salvation

That's all I was doing, by posting the link, by Wesley. It helped me understand the scripture in Romans better.
I'm not an Arminian, and don't interpret scripture through Arminian glasses.

[DannyM]

When people worship a God like that

A God like what?

not surprisingly, they take on the characteristic of the God whom they think they worship and that's why, just not WBC, but throughout history since the Reformation, Calvinism and reformed theology has been at the heart of what human nature does without much encouragement anyway, and that is to identify things as "us" and "them"

Bart, tell me how Calvinism helps one identify the “us” and “them”.

And please let me know what these horrible characteristics of God are, and that we like to emulate, since I’m thoroughly intrigued by this statement.

and justify things like executions, wars and discriminating against those who "obviously" are not favored by God and since they're going to hell anyway, why should be bother treating them on par with those of us who are favored.

Good grief, what a polemic! Christians of all persuasions have committed atrocities down the years. What’s your point? You haven’t shown this “God” we try to emulate, Bart, you’ve merely asserted it and moved on without proving your assertion. Can you go back a little bit, please, and prove your assertion?

I usually get squeals of protest when I point that out, but it's simply unarguable. Calvinism is not unique in that regared certainly, but it's demonstrable that this type of mindset is internally connectable. Most calvinists don't live in full accordance with the logical implications of their faith in that regard. They separate their intellectual representation of God from how they practically live.

Unarguable? What have you “argued”? I see a polemic with no substance whatsoever.

And please do prove these “logical implications”, for again I am seeing an unsubstantiated assertion.

[DannyM]

Rick, the bottom line is you quoted an Arminian interpretation to 'refute' individual election in Romans 9. You didn't use your bible alongside the Holy spirit. This after accusing me of using Calvin to interpret scripture. You even called the Arminian's interpretation "proper context"...Need I say more?

[RickD]

Rick, the bottom line is you quoted an Arminian interpretation to 'refute' individual election in Romans 9. You didn't use your bible alongside the Holy spirit. This after accusing me of using Calvin to interpret scripture. You even called the Arminian's interpretation "proper context"...Need I say more?

Danny, this isn't an Calvinism/Arminianism feud, like many Calvinists and Arminians try to make it. Again, Danny, you're not hearing my objections. You're just defending Calvinism. That is what I've been trying to warn against here. Once we pigeon hole ourselves into a belief system, we tend to defend that system as a whole, even if parts of it aren't biblical.
Again, I'll ask. Why do you feel the need to hold to Calvinism? Why not hold to Christ, alone? All these ism's do nothing but divide the Church.

[DannyM]

Danny, this isn't an Calvinism/Arminianism feud, like many Calvinists and Arminians try to make it.

So why quote an Arminian and call it proper context, Rick?

Again, Danny, you're not hearing my objections. You're just defending Calvinism.

I'm defending Calvinism against Aunt Sallys. What's wrong with that?

That is what I've been trying to warn against here. Once we pigeon hole ourselves into a belief system, we tend to defend that system as a whole, even if parts of it aren't biblical.

And yet you just pigeon-holed yourself by quoting Wesley and calling it “proper context”.

Again, I'll ask. Why do you feel the need to hold to Calvinism? Why not hold to Christ, alone? All these ism's do nothing but divide the Church.

I hold to the bible, Rick.

Where was “Christ alone” when you went to an Arminian to counter Calvinism, Rick?

[August]

Rick, the bottom line is you quoted an Arminian interpretation to 'refute' individual election in Romans 9. You didn't use your bible alongside the Holy spirit. This after accusing me of using Calvin to interpret scripture. You even called the Arminian's interpretation "proper context"...Need I say more?

Danny, this isn't an Calvinism/Arminianism feud, like many Calvinists and Arminians try to make it. Again, Danny, you're not hearing my objections. You're just defending Calvinism. That is what I've been trying to warn against here. Once we pigeon hole ourselves into a belief system, we tend to defend that system as a whole, even if parts of it aren't biblical.
Again, I'll ask. Why do you feel the need to hold to Calvinism? Why not hold to Christ, alone? All these ism's do nothing but divide the Church.

They are mutually exclusive, and no matter what one thinks on these issues, trying to be neutral, eventually one ends up at one end of the spectrum or the other.

I guess the bigger question is whether theological frameworks have any role to play. My contention is that we cannot escape it, and we need to decide which best represents God and the Scriptures. Will we always fully agree with each other? No, that is not possible, as we are each made as individuals who are unique, with unique perspectives and characteristics that influence our beliefs. We can never fully know how anyone else experiences their belief.

That is why the elegant simplicity of the gospel is so important, and why people from any theological persuasion can be saved.

Rick, the other thing is that there have been grave accusations against fellow Christians here, namely that because we hold to a theological framework we are in error and unbroken sin, that we are unloving towards God creation and our fellow humans by virtue of association with the WBC, whereas the similarities are mostly semantic. Not everyone who calls themselves Christian are true Christians, yet we stand condemned (without proof and by assertion), since we dare call ourselves Calvinist. Shall we then say that the logical conclusion of Christianity is the KKK, who were expressly outspoken that they were "Christian"? Surely not, and that is why we feel the need to defend ourselves against a similar associative attack.

*Note: I understand this is not meant as personal attacks against Danny and me, it is against the system as a whole. It is also not my intent to attack any one person here, and I regard Rick and Canuckster as brothers in faith. I apologize if anything I say comes across as a personal attack, please know it is not meant that way.

[RickD]

Danny, this isn't an Calvinism/Arminianism feud, like many Calvinists and Arminians try to make it.

So why quote an Arminian and call it proper context, Rick?

Again, Danny, you're not hearing my objections. You're just defending Calvinism.

I'm defending Calvinism against Aunt Sallys. What's wrong with that?

That is what I've been trying to warn against here. Once we pigeon hole ourselves into a belief system, we tend to defend that system as a whole, even if parts of it aren't biblical.

And yet you just pigeon-holed yourself by quoting Wesley and calling it “proper context”.

Again, I'll ask. Why do you feel the need to hold to Calvinism? Why not hold to Christ, alone? All these ism's do nothing but divide the Church.

I hold to the bible, Rick.

Where was “Christ alone” when you went to an Arminian to counter Calvinism, Rick?

Danny, you're still not hearing what I'm saying.

[August]

Where was “Christ alone” when you went to an Arminian to counter Calvinism, Rick?

From those notes by Wesley, in his comments on 9:21:

But God's methods of dealing with us, as our Governor and Judge, are dearly revealed and perfectly known; namely, that he will finally reward every man according to his works: "He that believeth shalt be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned."

[DannyM]

Danny, you're still not hearing what I'm saying.

Rick, I know exactly what you're saying, you're just not living by your own standards.

[DannyM]

From those notes by Wesley, in his comments on 9:21:

But God's methods of dealing with us, as our Governor and Judge, are dearly revealed and perfectly known; namely, that he will finally reward every man according to his works: "He that believeth shalt be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned."

And this on 9:13-16:

Is it unjust in God to give Jacob the blessing rather than Esau? or to accept believers, and them only. God forbid - In no wise. This is well consistent with justice; for he has a right to fix the terms on which he will show mercy, according to his declaration to Moses, petitioning for all the people, after they had committed idolatry with the golden calf. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy - According to the terms I myself have fixed. And I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion - Namely, on those only who submit to my terms, who accept of it in the way that I have appointed. 9:15 Exodus 33:19 .9:16It - The blessing.

So basically it’s an elected empty seat. God has elected an empty seat for those who might possibly believe. Which begs the question, what if no one believed? What happens to the empty seat?

Therefore is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth - It is not the effect either of the will or the works of man, but of the grace and power of God. The will of man is here opposed to the grace of God, and man's running, to the divine operation. And this general declaration respects not only Isaac and Jacob, and the Israelites in the time of Moses, but likewise all the spiritual children of Abraham, even to the end of the world.

This is simply ambiguous. You cannot elect a corporate group without elected individuals.