The Cook/Gregg Debate: Some thoughts...

[seer]

For me debate five was the best in the series. Both men did quite well. Which leaves me with a problem - who to believe. On Kenny's suggestion I recently read Paul Helm's "The Providence Of God." It was an excellent read from the Calvinist point of view, which actually lead me more to consider "middle knowledge." Not that was Mr. Helm's intention. But he made an excellent point - it really comes down to choosing which set of proof texts do you use to modify or read other contrary texts. For instance there are texts that suggest that God's will can not be resisted, and other texts that show His work being resisted. So the which set of texts does one choose to control or modify the other seemingly contrary texts? I do not believe that there is any fool proof way to decide - therefore I do not believe this Calvinist/Arminian debate can be settled this side of Glory.

[rlj51]

I'm listening to #5 right now - and it is really good.

Personally I think Middle-knowledge is the best solution I have come across so far. It maintains that God is sovereign over the whole timeline, he has exhaustive foreknowledge (and more! :wink) AND man has free will. It gives the best of both worlds. I'm not saying its perfect, or beyond criticism. However it does seem to have the most explanatory power.

I agree with you Seer that we may never fully understand the correct answer.

Two thoughts:

#1 When you listen to these back and forth conversations where they quote scripture, it almost seems like the Bible was set up in such a way that we were never really meant to have this philosophical discussion about this subject. Its certainly not laid out in the Bible in an easy to understand manner.

#2 Its interesting when Steve said to Gene that you have to choose to have faith, and that certain preconditions must be met, and Gene responds that in his case that wasn't true, and God just sort of knocked him to the ground and regenerated him. Maybe part of this argument stems from the fact that different people have different experiences coming to Christianity. Some people's fit more into the Calvinist paradigm, an other's the Arminian paradigm.

[seer]

I'm listening to #5 right now - and it is really good.

Personally I think Middle-knowledge is the best solution I have come across so far. It maintains that God is sovereign over the whole timeline, he has exhaustive foreknowledge (and more! :wink) AND man has free will. It gives the best of both worlds. I'm not saying its perfect, or beyond criticism. However it does seem to have the most explanatory power.

I agree with you Seer that we may never fully understand the correct answer.

Two thoughts:

#1 When you listen to these back and forth conversations where they quote scripture, it almost seems like the Bible was set up in such a way that we were never really meant to have this philosophical discussion about this subject. Its certainly not laid out in the Bible in an easy to understand manner.

#2 Its interesting when Steve said to Gene that you have to choose to have faith, and that certain preconditions must be met, and Gene responds that in his case that wasn't true, and God just sort of knocked him to the ground and regenerated him. Maybe part of this argument stems from the fact that different people have different experiences coming to Christianity. Some people's fit more into the Calvinist paradigm, an other's the Arminian paradigm.

I agree with your points. Especially about middle knowledge. From what I know about it -which is not a whole lot...

[gary cook]

I'm listening to #5 right now - and it is really good.

Personally I think Middle-knowledge is the best solution I have come across so far. It maintains that God is sovereign over the whole timeline, he has exhaustive foreknowledge (and more! :wink) AND man has free will. It gives the best of both worlds. I'm not saying its perfect, or beyond criticism. However it does seem to have the most explanatory power.

I agree with you Seer that we may never fully understand the correct answer.

Two thoughts:

#1 When you listen to these back and forth conversations where they quote scripture, it almost seems like the Bible was set up in such a way that we were never really meant to have this philosophical discussion about this subject. Its certainly not laid out in the Bible in an easy to understand manner.

#2 Its interesting when Steve said to Gene that you have to choose to have faith, and that certain preconditions must be met, and Gene responds that in his case that wasn't true, and God just sort of knocked him to the ground and regenerated him. Maybe part of this argument stems from the fact that different people have different experiences coming to Christianity. Some people's fit more into the Calvinist paradigm, an other's the Arminian paradigm.Well GOD new each of us before HE made the world ,so how smart is GOD ?also He knows everything ,But must let us choose .If not the other beings in HIS kingdom would say ,we did not get the chance to choose .But you see ,when we ask HIm to be LORD and SAVIOR of our being .and mean it ?We become NEW CREATURES .Not of this world .in the world but not of it .Because GOD is a SPIRIT ,and we are made perfect SPIRITS .as HE is .Because we are too be HIS KIDS .and be taught by HIS VERY SPIRIT .GOD gives every person a certain amount of FAITH .But you can build it up .But the bible teaches ?the JUST live by FAITH .this faith is for us too believe HIS WORD .But with it we need wisdom and understanding ,Which we must ask for .as with all things we now recieve .as a child would ask there dad .Because HE will not force you to do anything .Everything MUST BE DONE OUT OF LOVE .any questions cookgary3 @yahoo.com

[Kenny]

For me debate five was the best in the series. Both men did quite well. Which leaves me with a problem - who to believe. On Kenny's suggestion I recently read Paul Helm's "The Providence Of God." It was an excellent read from the Calvinist point of view

Glad you liked the book, Seer!

[seer]

Glad you liked the book, Seer!

Yes, it was quite good. I passed it off to my pastor who is Reformed. Actually Mr. Helm made a good case for Molinism - and I don't think his objections really undermined that theory - so that, middle knowledge, is the direction I'am off on now...

[Kenny]

Yes, it was quite good. I passed it off to my pastor who is Reformed. Actually Mr. Helm made a good case for Molinism - and I don't think his objections really undermined that theory - so that, middle knowledge, is the direction I'am off on now...

Yeah, I personally found his objections to Molinism to be weak myself. I think there are stronger objections to be made.

[seer]

Yeah, I personally found his objections to Molinism to be weak myself. I think there are stronger objections to be made.

Oh I don't know, considering the obvious problems with both Calvinism and classic Arminianism, I think Molinism hits a nice balance. And I don't think that one could ask for more, this side of Glory.

[Sheepdog]

i thought the non-calvie guy was a bit weak early on. definitely could have made some stronger points. i'm still working my way thorugh the series, so i'll see...

[geebob]

So the which set of texts does one choose to control or modify the other seemingly contrary texts? I do not believe that there is any fool proof way to decide - therefore I do not believe this Calvinist/Arminian debate can be settled this side of Glory.

those two eh? the same could be said also of universalism as well as opentheism versus those three or opentheism vs classical theism (why would I say it like that? open theism is involved with far more issues than what calvinism and arminianism are involved in). given certain control texts, one view or another may come out on top.

But the fact is, the only thing we have to consider here is not just scripture. We have reason, tradition, and experience. And furthermore, we have all the advantages of modern studies that God has made available to us.

I just think it's defeatist and premature for anyone to suggest that we won't know this side of heaven, and it is my sincere belief that God intends to lead the church closer to the truth before the eschaton comes. And as I'm definitely not neutral on this, It is my sincere hope that God will lead the church away from the grievious error of belief in reprobation in all of its forms, even the more mild ones.