August, I'm one looking from outside the Arminianism/Calvinism feud I'm not at either end of this spectrum. There are things in each that I believe are biblical, and things in each, that I believe aren't. One doesn't have to be an Arminian or a Calvinist. Contrary to what many Arminians and Calvinists say, one doesn't have to hold to one or the other.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 think they have roles to play, August. As Bart said before, and I also say, if after studying the frameworks, one has a closer relationship with Christ, then isn't that enough? Why do we need to choose one religious framework, to decide what best represents God and scripture? My whole point is that why do we have to call ourselves Calvinists, Lutherans, Baptists, etc. when all that it leads to, is division in the Church?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.
August, when one holds completely to any theological framework, including the errors of that framework, then what else do you expect people to say?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,
I didn't see anyone here say this. I heard Calvinism logically leads to a lack of love, and WBC has taken that all the way to its logical conclusion. I think Calvinists who are true Christians show love, despite what Calvinism teaches. Similarly, I believe Catholics who are true Christians, like Byblos, believe in salvation by God's grace through faith alone, despite what Catholicism teaches.that we are unloving towards God creation and our fellow humans by virtue of association with the WBC
That's because, if you hold to Calvinism, you have to hold to what some see as, believing in a God who damns people to hell, just because His sovereignty allows Him to.Not everyone who calls themselves Christian are true Christians, yet we stand condemned (without proof and by assertion), since we dare call ourselves Calvinist.
You could certainly say that. I know more than a few people here in the south, that believe that. Slavery and all.Shall we then say that the logical conclusion of Christianity is the KKK, who were expressly outspoken that they were "Christian"?
August, my problem stems from this, in Calvinism:
And then, the L-I-P that logically follows the U, rests upon what Calvinism claims with election. I just cannot reconcile a God who eternally damns people because He chooses to, and then blames people for something when Calvinism claims they have absolutely no ability to choose to accept the gospel of Christ.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).