Calvinist/Arminian Impasse shattered by Rational Esotericism

[Bernie]

Calvinism [C] and Arminianism [A] have been at war for some four centuries.

Here's what I believe to be the nature of the problem.

1) Truth and falsity stand in antagonistic relationship with one another, testified to in 2Cor 6:14: "Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?" It can be stated then that where C and A disagree, this tension and resistance indicates that one view or the other (or both) fail in some sense to satisfy a truth claim. It's the nature of this disagreement, not the particulars of it, that I want to focus on for the moment.

2) C and A agree on a number of important Christian doctrines, and in these, no significant tension or resistance to the view of either exists. Here, agreement signifies that in two primary respects, Scripturally and logically, the two are in agreement. Truth is satisfied.

For example: generally speaking, peripheral particulars aside, both agree that Christ's death and resurrection are essential doctrines of the faith. Tension and resistance are absent; truth is established in this absence, which siginfies mutual agreement.

But in eternal salvation, the idea of God sovereignly electing and predestinating is in opposition to the notion of man choosing or rejecting his/her own eternal salvation. Truth is not establied by virtue of the natural tension and resistance which arises from this disagreement.

What I want to establish here is the nature of the opposition between the two belief systems. This nature is the natural tension and resistance formed in the presence of the contraries true and false, or light/darkness--and so forth for all related contraries, life/death, good/evil, etc.

This is good for starters till I see if there are any serious respondents. If I'm wrong thus far, please elaborate as to why/how.

[Provoker]

Hello Bernie:
Looks like it is just you and me...LOL
I think that the "You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you" principle might be key to this discussion.
It is my opinion that to become God's chosen, one does not choose God, instead he chooses to become part of the the one and only assembly which God has chosen forever...covenant national Israel.
While covenant national Israel existed, anyone could choose to become part of covenant national Israel, and automaticly become part of God's chosen people.
While covenant national Israel does not exist, anyone can still choose to become part of covenant national Israel "in spirit", by accepting the gospel of the kingdom, and he automaticly becomes part of "spiritual Israel", and shares "in spirit" in Israel's coming "everlasting salvation".
So you see how this ties in with the Calvin and Arminius debate.
Covenant national Israel will eventually be resurrected to repentance, and receive everlasting salvation through the new covenant, and all those who ever accepted the gospel of the kingdom, received that everlasting salvation..."in spirit".
Once Israel is finally saved forever, it will always be saved. This is Calvin's "eternal security"..."OSAS". Calvin's mistake was in applying the "eternal security" principle to individuals, who can only receive everlasting salvation "in spirit".
Arminius on the other hand, rightly saw that an individual can lose the spirit, and therefore lose his salvation, but Arminius made the mistake of assuming that individual salvation is everlasting, when it is actually only "everlasting in spirit".
Do you follow the principle?

[Bernie]

Hello Provoker,

I don't see much common ground, but since no one else is responding, seems like a good time to explore your view a bit.

"I think that the "You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you" principle might be key to this discussion.
It is my opinion that to become God's chosen, one does not choose God, instead he chooses to become part of the the one and only assembly which God has chosen forever...covenant national Israel.
While covenant national Israel existed, anyone could choose to become part of covenant national Israel, and automaticly become part of God's chosen people.
While covenant national Israel does not exist, anyone can still choose to become part of covenant national Israel "in spirit", by accepting the gospel of the kingdom, and he automaticly becomes part of "spiritual Israel", and shares "in spirit" in Israel's coming "everlasting salvation".

Am I correct that this is a more or less amillenial overview of God's plan in salvation...that salvation has always been and is now a spiritual condition rather than participation in a religious organization in time and space?

"Covenant national Israel will eventually be resurrected to repentance, and receive everlasting salvation through the new covenant, and all those who ever accepted the gospel of the kingdom, received that everlasting salvation..."in spirit"."

Are you saying that those particular individuals will be literally resurrected to repentance? If so, does this apply only to national Israel, or to all human beings? Does your view embrace reincarnation?

"Once Israel is finally saved forever, it will always be saved. This is Calvin's "eternal security"..."OSAS". Calvin's mistake was in applying the "eternal security" principle to individuals, who can only receive everlasting salvation "in spirit".
Arminius on the other hand, rightly saw that an individual can lose the spirit, and therefore lose his salvation, but Arminius made the mistake of assuming that individual salvation is everlasting, when it is actually only "everlasting in spirit".
Do you follow the principle?"

I think I'm following you, for the most part, and find no glaring inconsistency with my own view in what you've posted here. I suspect our differences lie a bit behind the scenes, in matters of the reality of evil, necessitating the righteous sacrifice of Christ to atone for sin, which is the taking on by God to Himself of our evil as His loving pathology. Once we delve into this area, I suspect we'd run into tension and resistance.
What do you think?

[Sheepdog]

But in eternal salvation, the idea of God sovereignly electing and predestinating is in opposition to the notion of man choosing or rejecting his/her own eternal salvation. Truth is not establied by virtue of the natural tension and resistance which arises from this disagreement.

i would object to this explication of the situation... in fact, i think Calvinists would object as well. i'll only speak for the Arminian side: Classic Arminianism satisfactorily reconciles God's sovereignty in election/predestination with man's freedom in faith or unfaith. the solution lies in the nature of God's freedom. that is, God is totally free to save those he wants to... so if He willed it, He could indeed save the Pharisee over the Publican, or the tribesman in Zimbobway. Heck, he could be random about it or even be as Calvinists describe Him: chosing people not of any qualities of themselves, but only in accordance to His plan. However, He chose to elect to salvation the believer. As we see in Romans 8, the foreknown are predestined, the predestined called, the called justified...

that's not to say He was ad hoc about it, i'm simply saying that God made a sovereign decision, and a sovereign decision to grant freedom to his creatures is still a sovereign decision.

like i said, Calvinists would also object, but for other reasons.

[themuzicman]

The difference between the two lies in the hermeneutical priority of certain scriptures over others, and whether those control scriptures are properly exegeted in their context.

I've started several threads here about poor exegesis regarding a variety of Calvinist proof texts, which exposes their hermeneutical errors.

Michael

[Provoker]

Hello Provoker,

I don't see much common ground, but since no one else is responding, seems like a good time to explore your view a bit.



Am I correct that this is a more or less amillenial overview of God's plan in salvation...that salvation has always been and is now a spiritual condition rather than participation in a religious organization in time and space?



Are you saying that those particular individuals will be literally resurrected to repentance? If so, does this apply only to national Israel, or to all human beings? Does your view embrace reincarnation?



I think I'm following you, for the most part, and find no glaring inconsistency with my own view in what you've posted here. I suspect our differences lie a bit behind the scenes, in matters of the reality of evil, necessitating the righteous sacrifice of Christ to atone for sin, which is the taking on by God to Himself of our evil as His loving pathology. Once we delve into this area, I suspect we'd run into tension and resistance.
What do you think?
Hello Bernie:
It seems that things have suddenly picked up so I will butt out...LOL

[Bernie]

Hello Sheepdog,

"Classic Arminianism satisfactorily reconciles God's sovereignty in election/predestination with man's freedom in faith or unfaith. the solution lies in the nature of God's freedom. that is, God is totally free to save those he wants to... so if He willed it, He could indeed save the Pharisee over the Publican, or the tribesman in Zimbobway."

Thanks for responding. I beg to differ, though. The nature of the problem arises apart from God's sovereignty, which is the aspect of His nature you appeal to. I may not have explained the problem clearly enough.

As stated in my initial post, the nature of the problem looking at it from a third party view of the C/A issue is that tension and resistance arise in reason due to contraries in the two views. The two grind against one another in asserting that God:
a) sovereignly determines who gets saved eternally, and,
b) allows man to choose whether or not he wishes to be saved.

All I want to do at this point is establish the nature of this opposition. The nature of this disagreement is not that one finds support from Scripture and other doesn't. People come down on one side of the issue or the other with Scripture support. I assert that each party is able to make a reasonable case from the Bible for his or her particular position.

Do you see what I mean? Your insisting that the Arminian view is correct ignores the point I'm making, which at the moment is to look only at the nature of the problem--that is, assuming a priori that both sides are able to make a reasonable case from Scripture for his/her position, the nature of the disagreement is that in comparing the two, a violation arises in logic between them.

Your (and the Calvinist's) objection at this point is simply a continuation of the 400 year old argument, a difference in interpretation. I'm not approaching this from the standpoint of arguing 'right' or 'wrong', only trying to find reasonable, rational agreement on what the nature of the problem is. All you're really saying at this point is, "I believe the Arminian view", without regard to any validity of those proof texts which the Calvinist provides as the basis for his argument, and in doing so, you're missing my point.

muzicman, I think you also miss the point--the question is not whether you are able to expose Calvinist exegesis to your satisfaction. Many thousands of lay theologians like ourselves dismiss other's interpretation with impudence. We find all manner of disagreement, whole forests have been felled to provide paper for arguments for one side or the other. The nature of this proble, from an objective point of view, is that there exists between the two views an irreconcilable violation of logic and reason.

This is all I'm trying to establish for the moment.

[Sheepdog]

i don't think you quite understood my point. i'm not convinced you have come to the root of the problem, yet, because you haven't asserted the Calvinist view in a manner in which an Arminian would disagree. take for instance the two propositions in your last post:


a) sovereignly determines who gets saved eternally, and,
b) allows man to choose whether or not he wishes to be saved.


if one were to interpret these statements as straightforward as they are presented, then Arminians have no disagreement with either of them; even (a). That was the point i was trying to get across, which you seemed to have taken to mean "i believe Arminianism is true" ... that is true but besides the point.

[Bernie]

Hello sheepdog,

Please elaborate. Does God determine who is saved eternally or does man?

[John from Ebla]

My take on this issue.

John 6:70-71, where Jesus said, "...Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? He spoke of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve." So before it all happen Jesus knew what will happen and Jesus chose him as one of the twelve. Interesting? Could Judas have done what was not written of him? Was he chosen for the purpose of fulfilling what was written of him? Or did Judas do according to his own heart?

God has foreknowledge and we have free will, our own heart desire- we do what we want and choose but God know what our choice is, nothing surprising him- e.g. before Esau was born, God knew he would despise his birthright. Did Esau do according to his own heart, Yes but God knew it before hand. This is the nature of God- it is predestination because he has complete foreknowledge of what we choose Psalm 139 explains it perfectly

Kind regards
John From Ebla

[Bernie]

Hello John From Elba,

Hey, Elba....isn't that a suburb of Detroit?

Thanks for your thoughts. It doesn't seem to me that this alone is able to settle the issue, though, unless I'm not understanding you correctly.

As you see it, did Judas lose his eternal salvation, and if so, did he forfeit it by being predestined by God's sovereign choice, or did he lose salvation by the power of his own choice? Are you suggesting that both operate simultaneously? How can this be, logically? If the problem is truly resolved this simply, why is there no consensus that this view is correct?

[John from Ebla]

Hello John From Elba,

Hey, Elba....isn't that a suburb of Detroit?

Thanks for your thoughts. It doesn't seem to me that this alone is able to settle the issue, though, unless I'm not understanding you correctly.

As you see it, did Judas lose his eternal salvation, and if so, did he forfeit it by being predestined by God's sovereign choice, or did he lose salvation by the power of his own choice? Are you suggesting that both operate simultaneously? How can this be, logically? If the problem is truly resolved this simply, why is there no consensus that this view is correct?

Do you see God as knowing all that will be? All things are written about us according to the choices we will make. God did not make these choices for us- it's our choice and God been God has foreknowledge of what will be.

Psalm 139:5 “Your eyes saw my unformed substance, and in your book all the days of my life were written, before they ever took shape, when as yet there was none of them.

Did Moses ask to have his name blotted out of the book for life for the sake of the Jews? What did God say?

Kind regards
John From Ebla

[magus]

Part of the issue lies in the 'nature' of free will. The Calvinist might say that man's innate nature is depraved, so the free will is man freely willing to choose over a large array of bad choices. The Arminian might say that man can choose between the good choices (accepting salvation) and the bad choices (rejecting it).

Several compromises or harmonisations of both viewpoints could include the argument that God enables perception of the good choice, allowing man's free will to take it. But I believe that much of the issue lies in the definition (or scope) of free will.

Magus

[Bernie]

Hello Magus,

"The Calvinist might say that man's innate nature is depraved, so the free will is man freely willing to choose over a large array of bad choices. The Arminian might say that man can choose between the good choices (accepting salvation) and the bad choices (rejecting it)."

Agreed. Much does seem to ride on a definition of free will. But what, in your opinion, is the nature of the conflict between the two views?

As I stated in my first post, I see the problem as the inability to satisfy a truth claim. I believe an honest person has to admit that both sides are able to make reasonable claims for their respective positions from Scripture. A lot of the Bible seems to place salvation in God's hands, yet many others seem to indicate that one chooses one's own salvation. When I started this thread, I suspected, knowing the zealous disagreement many bring to the debate, that some would refuse to concede the above point. But I've corresponded with a fair number who are able to lay aside their dogmatism long enough to admit that the other side is able to make a case from Scripture. I'm hoping for honesty here, too. To state dogmatically that the 'other guys' are interpreting incorrectly begs the question completely, because a consensus cannot be reached, except in the minds of those who refuse to see the other side objectively....and there can be no honest debate under these circumstances.

To reiterate, it seems to me that the essence of the problem is logical, a clash between the idea of God sovereignly electing and predestinating is in opposition to the notion of man choosing or rejecting. This to me is the essence or nature of the problem. I suspect sheepdog might be unwilling to concede the point because he knows I'm taking this to a place he doesn't wish to go, and perhaps thinks I've 'rigged' the conclusion. I have not. I fully expect my conclusions to be subject to rigorous scrutiny.

Is anyone willing to concede this point? If not, I'm open to explanations. Some have weighed in with opinions, but thus far no one has been able to adequately refute that the nature of the C/A dispute is inherently a logical impasse: one cannot choose one's salvation and simultaneously have it chosen for him/her.

Hello John from Elba,

"Do you see God as knowing all that will be? All things are written about us according to the choices we will make. God did not make these choices for us- it's our choice and God been God has foreknowledge of what will be."

Yes, I believe in God's omniscience too, but I don't see the relevance of this to the question. I assume from the above that you favor man's choice as the deciding factor in salvation. But what do you see as the nature of the disagreement between Calvinists and Arminians, if you don't agree with my assesment?

[John from Ebla]

Hello John from Elba,
Yes, I believe in God's omniscience too, but I don't see the relevance of this to the question. I assume from the above that you favor man's choice as the deciding factor in salvation. But what do you see as the nature of the disagreement between Calvinists and Arminians, if you don't agree with my assesment?

The "disagreement between Calvinists and Arminians" is how they understand God.

Do l agree with your assessment? Well, you said you believe in God's omniscience too so l am not sure what to make of it.

From the time God created, he also hand foreknowledge of what will happen- it’s not like God said, Hmm! How do l save mankind now? So the issue between Calvinists and Arminians" is how they understand God. God knows those that will refuse salvation and there name will be blotted out of the book fo life.

Kind regards
John From Ebla

[Bernie]

Hello John from Elba,

"The "disagreement between Calvinists and Arminians" is how they understand God."

I don't understand what you mean here. Could you elaborate? I don't think anyone understands God, personally.

"Do l agree with your assessment? Well, you said you believe in God's omniscience too so l am not sure what to make of it."

It appears that you see the reality of God's omniscience as the key to the C/A conflict. I honestly don't see how this is so. Could you explain?

"From the time God created, he also hand foreknowledge of what will happen- it’s not like God said, Hmm! How do l save mankind now? So the issue between Calvinists and Arminians" is how they understand God. God knows those that will refuse salvation and there name will be blotted out of the book fo life."

Are you suggesting that those who understand that they have to choose their salvation are the same as those who really understand God, while those who think God chooses for them are those who don't understand Him?

Looking for clarification. Thanks for responding.

[magus]

It appears that you see the reality of God's omniscience as the key to the C/A conflict. I honestly don't see how this is so. Could you explain?
While I am not John, I'd just like to point out something about the debate/conflict/issue.

As I've said before, the very nature of this lies in the scope of free will either Calvinist or Arminian grants (or rather, how much [they believe] God says He grants) to mankind. Hyper-Calvinist goes "All God, no man" and hyper-Arminian goes the opposite extreme. If you see this as a binary issue (there are only two parties to salvation choice arguments), then the flip side of man's free will is God's omnipotence and omniscience.

Both Calvinist and Arminian, afaik, has no problem with God's sovereignty; iow, God can do whatever His nature wills. Can God? Yes. [How] Does God? That's the question.

From an objective viewpoint, then, the Calvinist appeals more to God's omnipotence. He can choose, overriding our choices. The Arminian appeals more to God's omniscience. Knowing how we'd react, He chose us.

[Bernie]

Hello Magus,

"From an objective viewpoint, then, the Calvinist appeals more to God's omnipotence. He can choose, overriding our choices. The Arminian appeals more to God's omniscience. Knowing how we'd react, He chose us."

I agree with you. Yes, I know the question is 'how does God work in salvation?'. But I'm not looking to restate the question...I'm looking for the nature of the tension and resistance or conflict between the Calvinist and Arminian positions, which lies beyond the question. Set aside the answers each gives and look more deeply, at the conflict itself. C and A agree on many essential points. In these, there is no tension and resistance, which means, from a Christian point of view, the two have found harmony in the unity of truth. Whether the atheist or Hindu agrees that this harmony is indeed evidence of truth is outside the realm of this discussion; Christians can (and usually do) agree that unity is solid evidence of arrival at truth in matters of interpreting Scripture.

There is no conflict in agreement. Look first at the areas of agreement, then at the essence or summary of disagreement between the two positions. What is the nature of this disagreement? Why are the two not able to find agreement? What is the stumbling block? Again, I appeal to common sense. On a base level, truth finds agreement with truth. When tension and resistance arises in our religious views, it either means to me that all the pieces of the puzzle are not yet discovered, that falsity exists somewhere in the equation, or some combination of the two.

Laying aside the many nuances of belief found in either position, I believe that the C/A problem is adequately summarized by stating that two opposed concepts themselves are in conflict. I don't think the perfection of omniscience or omnipotence is voilated in the salvation synthesis: being either perfectly powerful or all-knowing places no logical obligation on God to either compell or allow freedom in salvation.

The problem seems to be one of logic and reason. The notion of God deciding for man in matters of salvation is set harshly against the idea of God allowing man the freedom to choose.

To suggest that both have somewhat equal footing, as John of Elba appears to put forth (forgive me if I misunderstand you, John) does not solve the issue, except in the minds of those content with this explanation. I think more than likely a lot of Arminians would agree with him--but would agree only because it appears to leave freedom of choice intact and the Arminian position "wins". I suspect most or all Calvinists would disagree with John. As a sovereign grace Christian, I disagree with this assesment, too. But I also disagree at least as strenuously with the Calvinist view of election and predestination.

As long as the disagreement itself continues, explanations like John's, which I used extensively when I was an Arminian some 12 years ago, can only serve to find agreement with some reasonable percentage of other Arminians....but when the smoke clears, this leaves the nature of the problem intact because the conflict is still unresolved.
What are your thoughts?

[John from Ebla]

Hi Bernie and Magus

While I am not John, I'd just like to point out something about the debate/conflict/issue.

As I've said before, the very nature of this lies in the scope of free will either Calvinist or Arminian grants (or rather, how much [they believe] God says He grants) to mankind. Hyper-Calvinist goes "All God, no man" and hyper-Arminian goes the opposite extreme. If you see this as a binary issue (there are only two parties to salvation choice arguments), then the flip side of man's free will is God's omnipotence and omniscience.

Both Calvinist and Arminian, afaik, has no problem with God's sovereignty; iow, God can do whatever His nature wills. Can God? Yes. [How] Does God? That's the question.

From an objective viewpoint, then, the Calvinist appeals more to God's omnipotence. He can choose, overriding our choices. The Arminian appeals more to God's omniscience. Knowing how we'd react, He chose us.

l tend to agree a little with you, but would like to add a point about God’s "foreknowledge" with respect to what you wrote above.

Psalm 139:5 “Your eyes saw my unformed substance, and in your book all the days of my life were written, before they ever took shape, when as yet there was none of them" It's clear that all our day a written in God's book of life- nothing is not known

magus made a good point in the following From an objective viewpoint, then, the Calvinist appeals more to God's omnipotence. He can choose, overriding our choices. The Arminian appeals more to God's omniscience. Knowing how we'd react, He chose us.

1) Calvinist appeals more to God's omnipotence. He can choose, overriding our choices This case would deny the fact the God has foreknowledge of all things from the very time of creation and denies it is our choice to Fear God, but reads well with the fact that it is not I that lives but Christ in me
In the end it is still with what is wirtten about us in God book of life.

2)The Arminian appeals more to God's omniscience. Knowing how we'd react, He chose us Yes, but once again, it is God's foreknowledge about what we would do, that is why our days are written (Psalm 139:5) because he had foreknowledge of what we will do.

Exodus 32:32-33 Yet now, if thou will forgive their sin - ; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written. And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book- all have been granted salvation because all are in the book of life- but it is sin that has people blotted out.

Psalms 69:28 Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous- because they were evil David asked that their names be blotted out of the book fo the living/life

Philippians 4:3 Paul mentions fellowservants "whose names are in the book of life." Their names are not blotted out.

Revelation 3:5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.- once again it wirtten that those that overcame the power of evil will not be blotted out of the book fo life ( see the previous verses)

So, all our days are wirtten and we all have our names in the book of life. The issue is, what blots our name out? The choices we make? Whether one fears God or Not?

Interesting discussion.

Kind regards
John from Ebla

[Bernie]

Hello John from Elba,

"The issue is, what blots our name out? The choices we make? Whether one fears God or Not?"

Good question. Now look past the question to the root of the problem--what's the nature of the issue this question raises?

You assume the 'blotting out' of one's name is necessarily an eternal decree, by the way, as most do. Why might this not have its function in time and space? Might it not refer to relationship with God in this life, or might it not possess both temporal and eternal aspects?

I think this bears repeating: I don't think the perfection of omniscience or omnipotence is voilated in the salvation synthesis: being either perfectly powerful or all-knowing places no logical obligation on God to either compell or allow freedom in salvation.

Is this last sentence true or false in your opinion? Why?

[John from Ebla]

Hello John from Elba,


I think this bears repeating: I don't think the perfection of omniscience or omnipotence is voilated in the salvation synthesis: being either perfectly powerful or all-knowing places no logical obligation on God to either compell or allow freedom in salvation.

Is this last sentence true or false in your opinion? Why?

Your statement from above.
A)I don't think the perfection of omniscience or omnipotence is voilated in the salvation synthesis: True- because what is written of us is based on God foreknowledge from the minute he created all things. He knows who will turn their back on salvation and who will not. He knows who will fear him and who will not.

B)being either perfectly powerful or all-knowing places no logical obligation on God to either compell or allow freedom in salvation: true and false- because being God he has foreknowledge of what we will do. He sees things as they will be and as they are , we don't, and it is our choice to Fear God or Not.

Kind regard
John From Ebla

[Bernie]

Hello John,

"B)being either perfectly powerful or all-knowing places no logical obligation on God to either compell or allow freedom in salvation: true and false- because being God he has foreknowledge of what we will do. He sees things as they will be and as they are , we don't, and it is our choice to Fear God or Not."
I'm aware of the arguments which state that man can never have true freedom of choice as long as God knows ahead of time the choices he/she will make. I don't see this as logical or necessary. First, as finite beings, it's impossible to know with any degree of certainty what being perfect is like or must entail. It's therefore impossible to prove that omniscience begets coercion.

I think the real problem here is spiritual: in the darkness of our own hearts, we hate the idea that God knows what we'll do before we do it. We secretly detest His perfect knowledge. We want to think we're hiding in the dark (Jn 3:19). I believe this principle guides not only most ungodly philosophies, but some Christian ones to, most prominently open theism.

Omniscience does not logically deny choice. How would you proceed to prove that it must do so and render my observation false?

[John from Ebla]

Hello John,


Omniscience does not logically deny choice. How would you proceed to prove that it must do so and render my observation false?

l never said we don't have the freedom of choice- l just said that God knows our freedom of choice, he has foreknowledge of what we will do- from the foundation of the world. He would not be a God if he does not. Psalm 139 explains it perfectly

Kind regards
John From Ebla

[smaller]

Hi Bernie

I've read your stuff on RE. I can certainly agree on the E portion as these conversations tend to be relevant only to the "initiated" whatever that means...;)

The Calvin/Arminian debate revolves around the Cause/cause of the arrival into the "initiation" whatever that may mean...;)

The Calvinist thinks it's all God, and I would tend to agree with them but perhaps in an even more forceful degree. If the Calvinist is right, they really have no complaint whatsoever to the Arminian. The Arminian would be where they are because of God. As such they really have no right to question that Sovereign Act. I don't understand why they don't have a grasp of this little exercise in logic.

The Arminian OTOH believes they play some role in the transaction of "initiation" whatever that means. And I can also somewhat agree with their position as well. After all I have to be me, the "initiated," in order for God to have His Way with me right? One cannot deny they exist, and if they exist, then they have a role in this transaction. The Calvinist seems to overlook this simple point. The degree of that role is questioned and dissected at length among the various camps of Arminianism but they are legitimate in claiming their "role." The Calvinist seems to deny they exist in the transaction. If they exist and I feel comfortable saying they do exist then they played an automatic role by virtue of their existence.

So the entire friction here revolves around the basis of their arrival into the realm of the "initiated."

The picture starts to crumble from there. A greater amount of friction exists between the parties over the roles of the UNinitiated.

The Calvinist says the uninitiated was deemed to be that way by God. If God decrees that they are not saved, then they are not saved (duh) and that God then predetermines that these people will not and do not believe and are therefore locked out so to speak.

The Arminian believes that other people have at least a chance at salvation and that chance is "universally applicable."

This secondary stage debate is a bit odd and I really don't understand why they bicker about the unsaved. They will both agree that there are unsaved people. They will both agree that these unsaved people are going to eternally suffer. Both of their bottom lines regarding the unsaved are virtually identical. The Arminian really has no legitimate complaint to the Calvinist in this matter as they also believe that the unsaved are in fact the unsaved and the how's on why they are not saved seems to me to be quite irrelevant. No matter the cause or the case of being unsaved or lost they are that, lost, period. Why they are not should not make any difference.

So there is my 2 cents worth on the subject, staged in respective views of their positions as the initiated and [/u]their views of the unsaved or uninitiated[/u].

They are in any case not as far apart as they complain and some of their volleys between each other make no logical sense to me as isolated above.

enjoy!

smaller

[Bernie]

Hello John,

"l never said we don't have the freedom of choice- l just said that God knows our freedom of choice, he has foreknowledge of what we will do- from the foundation of the world. He would not be a God if he does not. Psalm 139 explains it perfectly"
You're correct, you didn't say that categorically, I just assumed that because you seemed to see a relevance to God's omniscience that more or less agrees with those who say omniscience denies free choice. Also made my assumption based on your response a couple posts ago, when to my comment, "being either perfectly powerful or all-knowing places no logical obligation on God to either compell or allow freedom in salvation", you responded, "true and false- because being God he has foreknowledge of what we will do. He sees things as they will be and as they are , we don't, and it is our choice to Fear God or Not."

Where do you see conflict between Calvinism and Arminianism?

Psa 139 is a favorite of mine...the Lord impressed it strongly on me when I tried to run from my journey into rational esotericism, after bringing me painfully back from 'hiding'...

Hello Smaller,

"I've read your stuff on RE. I can certainly agree on the E portion as these conversations tend to be relevant only to the "initiated" whatever that means...;)"
I don't understand what you mean by this...?? Who are the initiated, what are they initiated into, and how does this tie in with esotericism in your view?

I'm trying to find an honest consenus as to the nature of the problem between C and A. You mention some of the differences, but what do you see as the core opposition between the two views?

[John from Ebla]

[QUOTE=Bernie]Hello John,

You're correct, you didn't say that categorically, I just assumed that because you seemed to see a relevance to God's omniscience that more or less agrees with those who say omniscience denies free choice. Also made my assumption based on your response a couple posts ago, when to my comment, "being either perfectly powerful or all-knowing places no logical obligation on God to either compell or allow freedom in salvation", you responded, "true and false- because being God he has foreknowledge of what we will do. He sees things as they will be and as they are , we don't, and it is our choice to Fear God or Not."

Where do you see conflict between Calvinism and Arminianism? [QUOTE]


Where do l see a conflct between the two? I think Calvinism deny we choose or as "samller" said, deny that we exists because God has already made that choice. They claim we don't initeate anything. How do they know what is written about them and others?

We choose but God has foreknowledge of what is and will be. Our actions are within God ‘s foreknowledge, written word about us. Example: The book of Exodus says that Pharaoh hardened his heart, but it also says that God hardened it (Exodus 8:15; cf. 7:3)

Pharaoh hardened his heart according to what was written about him- Gods foreknowledge new what Pharaoh actions would be. It was Pharaoh that hardened his heart, but because it was already written about him in the book of life it is as God hardened it

Kind regards
John From Ebla

[Bernie]

Hello John,

Granted that those things are true...man chooses and God foreknows our choices...when the smoke clears, we are again here only pointing out various components involved in the belief systems of one or the other view. In the final analysis, does man choose his eternal salvation or does God? One cannot have it both ways, logically. Your continually making the above point fails to address the nature of the problem between the two views, it only rehashes what has been said without ever coming to a proper conclusion. What is the nature of the C/A disagreement?

[John from Ebla]

Hello John,

Granted that those things are true...man chooses and God foreknows our choices...when the smoke clears, we are again here only pointing out various components involved in the belief systems of one or the other view. In the final analysis, does man choose his eternal salvation or does God? One cannot have it both ways, logically. Your continually making the above point fails to address the nature of the problem between the two views, it only rehashes what has been said without ever coming to a proper conclusion. What is the nature of the C/A disagreement?

In the final analysis, does man choose his eternal salvation or does God? Man Chooses and God foreknows it- and he chooses that way it's be written by God's foreknowledge

Deuteronomy 30:15-16 See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. For I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the LORD your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess.

It was there choice and they got as they choose. but it was foreknow in Gods plan.

If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love. I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete" (John 15:7-11)

"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life" (John 5:24).

(see John 10:1-18), he says, "Choose life, so that you will have a heart that loves God, ears that are willing to listen to his voice, and hands that are willing to cling to him.

We Choose and God knows it- Calvinism deny we choose that is the difference.

kind regards
John From Ebla

[Bernie]

Hello John,

"We Choose and God knows it- Calvinism deny we choose that is the difference."
Yes! This is the difference. What is the nature of this difference? What I'm trying to get an honest consensus on is: is there not a violation of logic in the opposing notions in theories of salvaiton by 1) freedom of choice, and, 2) being forced to be saved or damned regardless of desire or choice.

Is this not a fair, reasonable, honest and accurate assesment of the nature of the antagonism between Calvinisism and Arminianism?

[John from Ebla]

Hello John,


Yes! This is the difference. What is the nature of this difference? What I'm trying to get an honest consensus on is: is there not a violation of logic in the opposing notions in theories of salvaiton by 1) freedom of choice, and, 2) being forced to be saved or damned regardless of desire or choice.

Is this not a fair, reasonable, honest and accurate assesment of the nature of the antagonism between Calvinisism and Arminianism?

Ok, here are scriptures regarding your two points- tell me your view


Point 1)
is there not a violation of logic in the opposing notions in theories of salvaiton by 1) freedom of choice?

To believe in the scripture is a freedom of choice

"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life" (John 5:24). It clear that one chooses to believe, but, the second points is relelvant to the first point. (Galatian 6:7-8) (Mathew chapter 5,6 and 7)


2) being forced to be saved or damned regardless of desire or choice?

One can desire to be saved but can be fooled- (Galatian 6:7-8) (Mathew chapter 5,6 and 7)
The first point is relevant to the second point because you have to chocie to believe or not. (John 5:24) So l agree with "Smaller" Calvinisism and Arminianism are not as far apart as they complain (because the points go hand in hand) and some of their volleys between each other make no logical sense to me either.

Perhaps you can enlighten us with something, if you have a view that is scriptural you welcome to post it.

Kind regards
John From Ebla


KInd regards
John From Ebla

[Bernie]

Hello John,

"Perhaps you can enlighten us with something, if you have a view that is scriptural you welcome to post it."
Since no one seems to understand the problem, there's little sense in posting the solution. You've been a gracious correspondent, John of Elba. Thanks for the walk, at any rate.....

[smaller]

Ok, here are scriptures regarding your two points- tell me your view

To believe in the scripture is a freedom of choice

"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life" (John 5:24). It clear that one chooses to believe, but, the second points is relelvant to the first point. (Galatian 6:7-8) (Mathew chapter 5,6 and 7)

One can desire to be saved but can be fooled- (Galatian 6:7-8) (Mathew chapter 5,6 and 7)
The first point is relevant to the second point because you have to chocie to believe or not. (John 5:24) So l agree with "Smaller" Calvinisism and Arminianism are not as far apart as they complain (because the points go hand in hand) and some of their volleys between each other make no logical sense to me either.

Perhaps you can enlighten us with something, if you have a view that is scriptural you welcome to post it.

Kind regards
John From Ebla

KInd regards
John From Ebla

The points that Calvins and Arminians argue about are rather moot given their final determinations are identical. That does not mean however I can agree with Arminians on the freewill issue, primarily because mankind cannot quantifiably eliminate either God or the devil from working with or tampering with their will, therefore the term free is very disingenuous.

And I cannot agree with the Calvinists for the same reason. They have determined that God has locked men into disbelief and they are right in this matter, but that does not mean that disbelief doesn't serve God's Ultimate Purposes, nor does it mean that disbelief will be held against mankind. Scriptures tell us that the "god" of this world is the cause of blindness in those who do not believe, so it is not a question of freedom whatsoever, nor does mankind defeat satan individually. Love has the sole stake in that matter of the defeat of satan.

[John from Ebla]

The points that Calvins and Arminians argue about are rather moot given their final determinations are identical. That does not mean however I can agree with Arminians on the freewill issue, primarily because mankind cannot quantifiably eliminate either God or the devil from working with or tampering with their will, therefore the term free is very disingenuous..

Agree, but it is ones own choice to follow the nature of the flesh or the spirit.


And I cannot agree with the Calvinists for the same reason. They have determined that God has locked men into disbelief and they are right in this matter, but that does not mean that disbelief doesn't serve God's Ultimate Purposes, nor does it mean that disbelief will be held against mankind. Scriptures tell us that the "god" of this world is the cause of blindness in those who do not believe, so it is not a question of freedom whatsoever, nor does mankind defeat satan individually. Love has the sole stake in that matter of the defeat of satan.

Yes, but why didn’t you finish the verse of “blinded from seeing the gospel of the glory of Christ, the messiah, Who is the image and likeness of God”

John 1:12 “but as many as receive and welcome him, he gave the authority to become son’s of God, that is, to those that believe in his name..

kind regards
John From Ebla

[smaller]

Agree, but it is ones own choice to follow the nature of the flesh or the spirit.

I am fine with limited choices made within the confines of our present environment, but cannot in honesty call them "free." I cannot conclusively state that God may be working in my will or that even satan may be working in my will. So I cannot say any choice is made without some type of other influences, and this does not even speak to external forces. You get the principle?


Yes, but why didn’t you finish the verse of “blinded from seeing the gospel of the glory of Christ, the messiah, Who is the image and likeness of God”

I was pointing to the fact that there is influences upon the wills and hearts of mankind that BLINDS THEM to God. As such it is a sham to blame mankind for being blind when such a factual anti-spiritual principle is clearly in play in those who are thusly blinded. It is even less our place to condemn such ones.


John 1:12 “but as many as receive and welcome him, he gave the authority to become son’s of God, that is, to those that believe in his name..

kind regards
John From Ebla

Slice it however you like John. The fact is that the devil and God both influence the will mankind beyond any scriptural doubt.

Freewillers primarily use freewill to condemn their unbelieving fellow man. I say the promotions of these freewills are not free whatsoever in that action. Their supposed freewill has overlooked the obvious. Perhaps the obvious was hidden from them by that same fact of influences from the "god" of this world? dig?

! !

[Aletheia]

Now look past the question to the root of the problem--what's the nature of the issue this question raises?

That perhaps there is a third option? :idea: That it's a false dichotomy?

I'm just grasping here, but this thread has me curious.

[Bernie]

Hi KParis,

Please elaborate. How do you see the problem?

[Champagne]

Well, Jesus' sacrifice was "effective" to save all who it was given for. God accepted the sacrifice, obviously. The question is, for whom did Jesus sacrifice himself?

In Judaism in the OT, the priests gave the sacrifices. Obviously, the sacrifices were given for whoever brought or paid for the dove, lamb, grain, or whatever was sacrificed. Joe Blow's sacrifice was not sufficient for Jack Black who lives down the street.

This is why Calvinists believe in limited atonement. Since they believe all are not saved, then it must be that Jesus did not sacrifice himself for everyone.

Arminians believe Jesus died for everyone. Then the question is, if he did, shouldn't all be saved? How is it possible to "opt out" of the sacrifice that was given for you?

In Judaism, after a sacrifice was done for you, was it possible to say, hey wait a second, I don't want that sacrifice to be effective after all?

So if Jesus died for all, then the sacrifice was sufficient for all, and unless there's some way for you to opt out, then you must be saved. Right?? :wink:

[Aletheia]

Hi KParis,

Please elaborate. How do you see the problem?

That it's a false dichotomy. That it isn't a problem, per se, because each view is correct. Free will has to do with the temporal. Sovereignty has to do with the eternal. :smile:

[John from Ebla]

I am fine with limited choices made within the confines of our present environment, but cannot in honesty call them "free." I cannot conclusively state that God may be working in my will or that even satan may be working in my will. So I cannot say any choice is made without some type of other influences, and this does not even speak to external forces. You get the principle?!

Agree, and there are two influences- the spirit and the flesh, example Romans 8:5 "thoses controlled by the Flesh......... and those according to the spirit......."

Galation 6:7 " don't be decieved and Deluded .................. for what ever a man sows that and that only is what he reap"
Verse 8 " he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap decay and destruction" But he who sows to the spirit will from the spirit reap life eternal"

One has eternal life, the other has decay and destruction- and we choose the one we follow.




I was pointing to the fact that there is influences upon the wills and hearts of mankind that BLINDS THEM to God. As such it is a sham to blame mankind for being blind when such a factual anti-spiritual principle is clearly in play in those who are thusly blinded. It is even less our place to condemn such ones.?

l understand. But Paul was talking about the Blindness from seeing the gospel of Christ who is the image of God.

Every person on earth is either under the Lordship of Christ or the lordship of Satan, there is no middle ground. If you transfer your allegiance from Satan to God you will find that Satan will flee from you. It's your free choice ( Remember: The devil can be an angel of light 2 Cor11:14 the devil is happy to give you all that is in this world Luke 4:6Why do you think Bill Clinton served the flesh? )

James 4:7 Resist the devil and he will flee from you – ‘resist’ = ‘to take your stand against’ – He is a powerful foe but – 1 John 4:4 You are of God, little children, and have overcome them, because He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world.

We can resist the devil and we can resist the holy spirit.
Acts 7:5 You stubborn stiff- necked people........you are always acitively resisting the Holy Spirit as yoru forefathers were, so you do (See also Exod 33:3, 5. Jer 9:26. Num 27:14 and Isa63:10 )




Slice it however you like John. The fact is that the devil and God both influence the will mankind beyond any scriptural doubt.

Yes, but resist the devil and he will flee- the problem is people refuse the gospel that Christ is the image of God. The influence of the spirit is given fleely to all who resist the devil- it's their choice, and because God is what he is, "God" he has foreknowledge- all our choices and days are already wirtten Psa 139

Kind regards
John From Ebla

[smaller]

Agree, and there are two influences- the spirit and the flesh, example Romans 8:5 "thoses controlled by the Flesh......... and those according to the spirit......."

The flesh is a compilation of organic matter. Within that flesh are two positions. A vessel of honor and a vessel of destruction. The vessel of destruction is sin indwelling/evil present. These things are of the devil and yes, you have this condition.


Galation 6:7 " don't be decieved and Deluded .................. for what ever a man sows that and that only is what he reap"
Verse 8 " he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap decay and destruction" But he who sows to the spirit will from the spirit reap life eternal"

One has eternal life, the other has decay and destruction- and we choose the one we follow.

We all see only in part and in darkness. The reason we see this way is because of the prior observation. The degrees of light or darkness is the only question. No one chose to be bound to a vessel of destruction and no one can choose to be unbound from same.


l understand. But Paul was talking about the Blindness from seeing the gospel of Christ who is the image of God.

Being blinded by the "god" of this world to the Good News means being a slave of the sin indwelling us all. That condition is the "god" of this world present in our flesh. The condition of sin indwelling still remains even after we receive the light of the Gospel. That is a part of what the Gospel tells us.


Every person on earth is either under the Lordship of Christ or the lordship of Satan, there is no middle ground.

That is a patently false statement. None can say they have no sin. Paul openly stated he remained a slave to the law of sin even after salvation. (Romans 7:25) John said that we cannot say we "have" no sin. That is a "present tense" statement even for believers. We do not become sinless after being "born again." Sin still remains and he who sins is of the devil so even believers still sin and when they do they are of the devil. (1 John 3:8)


If you transfer your allegiance from Satan to God you will find that Satan will flee from you. It's your free choice ( Remember: The devil can be an angel of light 2 Cor11:14 the devil is happy to give you all that is in this world Luke 4:6Why do you think Bill Clinton served the flesh? )

The fact that you have to resist is an open testimony to the fact that satan remains with you. You may temporarily deflect his thoughts or his efforts, but of course even the thought of adultery is the same as the act of same eh?


James 4:7 Resist the devil and he will flee from you – ‘resist’ = ‘to take your stand against’ – He is a powerful foe but – 1 John 4:4 You are of God, little children, and have overcome them, because He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world.

But you see you blame the captives of the devil for the devils work in them. What good is such condemnation seeing as how you still do the same things? You have no destroyed satan by your freewill actions and if you think you do, then satan has won you already, particularly when you condemn your fellow man for the same sins you also currently have.


We can resist the devil and we can resist the holy spirit.

Your will cannot prove itself free of the influences of either. Both God and the devil can work in the wills of men, known or unknown by men.


Acts 7:5 You stubborn stiff- necked people........you are always acitively resisting the Holy Spirit as yoru forefathers were, so you do (See also Exod 33:3, 5. Jer 9:26. Num 27:14 and Isa63:10 )

Why are they resisting? Even the name satan means "resistor." Satan spoke through Peter. Satan entered Judas. Jesus nearly continually in His Ministry showed the presence of other entities in the flesh of mankind. To discount or overlook this fact and these encounters and then only blame men is a blinded view in itself.


Yes, but resist the devil and he will flee- the problem is people refuse the gospel that Christ is the image of God.

What is it that you don't understand about the power of satan to blind mankind to the Gospel? Why is it you discount that reality and only blame men? It makes no sense to do such a thing. And you do not "defeat" satan by your "will." Every time you have an adulterous thought. Every time you condemn another man for sin in the name of their freewill you are openly showing your own blindness to the facts. Romans 2:1 strictly prohibits what you are doing.


The influence of the spirit is given fleely to all who resist the devil- it's their choice, and because God is what he is, "God" he has foreknowledge- all our choices and days are already wirtten Psa 139

Hey, if you think you are the one that activated the God of all creation by your will what can I say? You are better than superman. The fact will remain that no man can conclusively say that either God or the devil can work in their wills whether they know it or not.

enjoy!

smaller

[Bernie]

Hello Champagne,

I'm curious, do you pronounce your name as Curly of the stooges3 did?....sham-PAG-nee....??

"So if Jesus died for all, then the sacrifice was sufficient for all, and unless there's some way for you to opt out, then you must be saved. Right??"
Right. Your logic is flawless. KParis provides the reason why one can't opt out of salvation:
"That it's a false dichotomy. That it isn't a problem, per se, because each view is correct. Free will has to do with the temporal. Sovereignty has to do with the eternal."
We can opt out and turn our back on Him in time, but not in eternity. Sort of a 'we can run but we can't hide forever' situation.

Hi smaller,

I'd like to get into the reason I agree with John of Elba here, it's demonstrated IMO in the concepts of fragmentation and multiplicity in human spirit you reject, but this is both off-topic and too big to delve into here.

Very simply, volition is created in intellect [by regeneration, which is = to illumination] in the midst of the 'mixed multitude' of falsity and truth in spirit. The illusion you contend for doesn't exist--more accurately, it exists in principle and in part, but in order for responsibility to be nonexistent, falsity must be primarily existent. This isn't so, both logically and in human experience; we all understand our ability to choose good from bad on some real level. Falsity creates tension and resistance in the mind where it encounters truth the mind hasn't yet been cleansed to "hear", which is why we are in 'denial' about certain truths. This speaks to the necessity of God in salvation; we can't spiritually cleanse ourselves. The will is necessarily enslaved to some degree. Emphasis on to some degree.

But we can, in the formulation of prescriptive propositions in intellect, "choose" or adhere (meaning merely give assent) to new truth or to the pressure of external truth waiting at spirit's doorstep [Jesus knocking at the door in Rev] to be let in, painful as it is, which is a participation with Christ in the sanctification of forging faith in the death of falsity. Superficial Christianity supposes that to "believe" is a simple mouthed confession. It ins't; it's actually a call to come die, which we aren't able to do (and need God's sovereignty). But we can still choose, however falteringly. When we grant assent in intellect, He gently performs surgery on our falsity [ezek 21:2-5], strengthening faith. It's a process. Hope this makes sense.

[smaller]

Hi smaller,

I'd like to get into the reason I agree with John of Elba here, it's demonstrated IMO in the concepts of fragmentation and multiplicity in human spirit you reject, but this is both off-topic and too big to delve into here.

I am not aware of any fragmentation of the spirits of Gods offspring in the scriptures. I am aware of sin indwelling the body which is of the devil.

Very simply, volition is created in intellect [by regeneration, which is = to illumination] in the midst of the 'mixed multitude' of falsity and truth in spirit.

Regeneration does not bring sinlessness. It brings understanding of separtion between that which indwells us and us as Gods offspring.


The illusion you contend for doesn't exist--more accurately, it exists in principle and in part, but in order for responsibility to be nonexistent, falsity must be primarily existent.

If you are saying Bernie, that the devil and his messengers do not exist or that they do not dwell in the flesh of mankind what can I say? Your position remains only to blame mankind and I find no justifications for that position in the scriptures. If the devil and his messengers factored into your position you would not do what you are doing but would place your shortcomings of mankindon the logical parties that presently constitute habitation in the flesh.


This isn't so, both logically and in human experience; we all understand our ability to choose good from bad on some real level.

If you could prove that neither God or the devil work in the wills of mankind you both may have a point but since this cannot be established I am forced to see the reality of our present condition which includes the abilities of the devil and his messengers to deceive the wills of men and the obvious abilities of God to interact with the wills of men as well. So no, you are not exempt from that at least as a strong possibility.


Falsity creates tension and resistance in the mind where it encounters truth the mind hasn't yet been cleansed to "hear", which is why we are in 'denial' about certain truths. This speaks to the necessity of God in salvation; we can't spiritually cleanse ourselves. The will is necessarily enslaved to some degree. Emphasis on to some degree.

I see you as continuing to dodge the presence of the devil and his messengers in the flesh, including the minds of mankind. Why is that Bernie? Why don't you come to the table on this matter. We have spoken of this often enough. Where are you specifically on this matter. You would not be the first URist I have met who outright deny that the devil and his messengers exist, or that they exist in the flesh of mankind, and they therefore blame only mankind, just like you are doing. Please address this.

You are using a whole lotta unrequired dancing on this matter for some reason. Address it.


But we can, in the formulation of prescriptive propositions in intellect, "choose" or adhere (meaning merely give assent) to new truth or to the pressure of external truth waiting at spirit's doorstep [Jesus knocking at the door in Rev] to be let in, painful as it is, which is a participation with Christ in the sanctification of forging faith in the death of falsity.

Obviously you are also attributing the success of Jesus in these matters via degrees of success by the man, seeing that all believers still have sin and have sinned after regeneration. Therefore the man saves himself via the degrees they open their door to Jesus. I would find that an untenable position as well.


Superficial Christianity supposes that to "believe" is a simple mouthed confession. It ins't; it's actually a call to come die, which we aren't able to do (and need God's sovereignty). But we can still choose, however falteringly. When we grant assent in intellect, He gently performs surgery on our falsity [ezek 21:2-5], strengthening faith. It's a process. Hope this makes sense.

Actually my observation will remain as before Bernie. You have not addressed the obvious and I am now somewhat suspicious as to why that might be. There is no reason for you to dodge this question.

And my observation of how men cannot eliminate Gods Abilities to interact knowingly or unknowingly within the wills of mankind cannot be overlooked, nor can it be overlooked that satan is also active in those wills as well. So I remain at a loss as to why your position and that of the Calvinist and Arminian all overlook the obvious in these matters.

Does your position have an answer in these matters or doesn't it? If so, provide. If not, it's woefully shortsighted and bent to undermine man only.

enjoy!

smaller

[Bernie]

Hello smaller,

"Does your position have an answer in these matters or doesn't it? If so, provide. If not, it's woefully shortsighted and bent to undermine man only."
As you are either unwilling or unable (or both) to extract your theology at its foundation from the same epistemological error I've been pointing out for some three years now--which is the foundation, IMO, for the many errors in your position--I see no good reason to answer your charges. They carry no real weight that I can see.

Enjoy!

[smaller]

Hello smaller,


As you are either unwilling or unable (or both) to extract your theology at its foundation from the same epistemological error I've been pointing out for some three years now--which is the foundation, IMO, for the many errors in your position--I see no good reason to answer your charges. They carry no real weight that I can see.

Enjoy!

What error is that Bernie?

I've asked you why your position does not address the role of the devil and his messengers in the role of sin in mankind. Where are the goods and why the dodge?

It's a simple question. Why you continue to NOT provide any simple discourse in this matter makes no sense and your reaction to the question makes even less sense.

When this type of reaction shows itself it usually means that the dodger holds a position that is not "universally accepted" in the realms of Christianity and I must then suspect that is the cause of your reluctance to address the issue.

Better to ignore my questions and this ISSUE, and then subtily call me stupid? Is this how RE addresses THE ROLE OF THE DEVIL AND HIS MESSENGERS WITH MANKIND and SIN???

go figure.

[Bernie]

Hello smaller,

I believe your theology is based on an extremist postion of piling the lion's share of moral responsibility on external evil, which you've doubtless spent a lot of time and energy building and will stubbornly maintain, probably to your dying day, regardless of its relationship to reason and truth. If you'll check, you'll find that the topic of this thread is not 'extremist satan and demons discussion'. I belong to no one's 'good old boy' club, not Arminian's, Calvinist's or universalist's, Catholic's, Methodist, etc.

If you want to discuss satan and demons and how they are responsible for man's sin, you might want to consider starting a new thread. I don't think you're stupid, by the way. I think you enjoy being an arse, that you feel you have a certain reputation to maintain, and work hard to sustain it. So be it. Everyone's gotta be something.

[brainframe]

I find myself in a quandry of sorts. I grew up "Armenian" sort of, and now find myself in a wonderful church that is lite Calvinist. I believe they call it reformed. I am torn. I think Election refers to a group. First the Jews then the Gentiles and that Election is not personal but provided. Anyway Bernie's thread has taken a bit of a detour from his inital post.

I have been reading on this a lot in the last three weeks and of course have solved very little except to be more confused. However I believe the nature of this "conflict" starts with Luther and was passed to Calvin.

It is easy with 20/20 hind site to look back and wonder how could someone believe this. So that is where I have started.

A brief History:
The Calthlic Church took the notion of "Group Election" ie. The Church or The Body of Christ and used it in a way that gave them authority and power over all person's eternal destiny. They saw themselves as "The Church" therefore if you weren't Catholic you weren't saved.

This of course is not what Jesus ment when he refered to "The Church" he ment us. All believers under Jesus, not the establishment of one denomination.

Luther saw, I believe both the error and the oppresive nature of such doctorine. He asked for corrections to be made and the Catholic Church said no and threw him out. He began to preach of Election being in the hands of God not in human hands. ie, an established organization.

People where more than willing to accept that God did the chosing and not the Catholic Church. Kinda like sticking to the man. The Catholic Church lost a lot of power and control over the people because of this.

Luther was a hero and then comes Calvin, a very smart man. I think he then tried to back up Luther's claims. In other words he set out to PROVE Luther right and I think his bias cost him.

We are willing to give up freedoms sometimes to feel safe or vendicated. American histroy shows that over and over. I think Luther was right to confront the Catholic Church. They had become a bully. If a preist could kick you out of his parish and that ment Hell for you, you were likely to do what ever he wanted. It is called blackmail.

The sad thing is I think the Catholics were mostly correct in "Group" Election theology, they unfortunatly thought they controlled the group not Jesus.

Luther to was right to call them on it, unfortunatlly he sacrificed "Group Election" trying to trump the Catholics ill gotten authority. By claiming God picks each person, there is nothing the "Catholic Church" can do about it freed a lot of very repressed people and they seemed more than happy to bend to this position, for it freed them from the Catholics.

Hope that helps a bit.

Brainframe

FYI: This whole debate hinges not on Election, but on "Total Depravity"
Whoa!!! NEW CAN OF WORMS

[smaller]

Hello smaller,

I believe your theology is based on an extremist postion of piling the lion's share of moral responsibility on external evil,

Nice of you to try to re-define my position and then try to kill it.

How about we start with some simplicities Bernie?

1.) Are the devil and his messengers real?

2.) Did Jesus show that these entities dwelt in or resided in the flesh of mankind and influence their minds?

3.) Is he who sins of the devil and does this show the implication of the devil in every sin?

When your theory steps up to the pump on these questions it may have to change.


which you've doubtless spent a lot of time and energy building and will stubbornly maintain, probably to your dying day, regardless of its relationship to reason and truth.

Bernie, you can spout and pout all day but the simplicities of my questions will not be going away soon nor will your dodging them and trying these rookie debate tactics on me work. Been there done that with much meaner people than you. Why not come to the table of factual discussions?

What's with the tirade? You have 3 simple questions on the table. I am willing to hear your position on these matters and to deal with them. So spit it out.


If you'll check, you'll find that the topic of this thread is not 'extremist satan and demons discussion'. I belong to no one's 'good old boy' club, not Arminian's, Calvinist's or universalist's, Catholic's, Methodist, etc.

I've asked you to address the OBVIOUS FLAW in your theory. As such this should be an important little exercise in the truth of your position. If you want to take your ball and go home I will then say your guesswork is untenable.


If you want to discuss satan and demons and how they are responsible for man's sin, you might want to consider starting a new thread. I don't think you're stupid, by the way. I think you enjoy being an arse, that you feel you have a certain reputation to maintain, and work hard to sustain it. So be it. Everyone's gotta be something.

Bernie, I really could care less if you don't want to deal with the facts, but I will point out the open flaws.

The fact will remain that you are a dodger on this subject and your position does not satisfactorily deal with the subject matter when your theory is void of the obvious. If you think your heady scholarship and curt dismissals and trite accusations are serious scholarship, they are not.

n joy!

smaller

[Philetus]

Shoot! and I was learning so much. Bernie, I hope we can get to the bedrock of the issue as I think you were trying to get us to. It's so hard to not argue one side or the other and objectively try and identify the real differences when there seems to be so much at stake. I hope we can.

Later?
Philetus

[Bernie]

Hello

" I find myself in a quandry of sorts. I grew up "Armenian" sort of, and now find myself in a wonderful church that is lite Calvinist. I believe they call it reformed. I am torn. I think Election refers to a group. First the Jews then the Gentiles and that Election is not personal but provided."
I don't disagree with this, only with the idea that either the particualr supplants the universal, or the reverse. In other words, I base all my theology on the notion that literal and esoteric exist together. Esoteric truth springs from literal truth, in somewhat the same way that attribute arises from object.

"This of course is not what Jesus ment when he refered to "The Church" he ment us. All believers under Jesus, not the establishment of one denomination."
Agreed. Most denominations are pretty much getting away from this elitist idea today, though elitism in Christianity IMO seems to have taken a turn in that in some circles, a subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) 'us vs. them' mentality has established itself re believer vs. non-believer.

"This whole debate hinges not on Election, but on "Total Depravity"
Good point. Here's where the thing gets interesting to me. Depravity as "total" in the standard Calvinist sense is a very illogical doctrine in the midst of some excellent logical ones. The notion of multiplicity in spirit and its corresponding consequences places TD in a new light, but is only peripherally relevant to this thread, and don't have time to get into it now, anyway.

I believe the Calvinist position on this is sound, though. Arminian free will has its place in time, but we're all ultimately being brought to the light we hate so passionately (Jn 3:19). True and false are at war/enmity; unless falsity is first destroyed in a ratio sufficient to overcome darkness' power, volition could never awaken. Fascinating topic, to me anyway, this figurative 'atomic/molecular activity' in the soul.

[freelight]

Hi Bernie and all,


The tensions between the views of C and A might only be resolved by metaphysical dynamics and dimensions of understanding that are beyond the pale of traditional theology or even scriptural interpretation....which lends the devout researcher/student of truth into other fields of relative knowledge and inspired texts.

Evidently if we can agree reasonably and logically that there is granted a certain liberty of free will to Man....and that an underlying and sovereign Will of God exists before and within this divine grant of liberty...and extends infinitely....then our quandary is the powers of these wills relative to their operation and duration in the temporal and eternal realms of existence.(the extent of consequence, the issue of causality, etc.). This naturally leads to speculations/beliefs on the fate/destiny of souls (saved/unsaved)....and the condition or state of these ones - from here ideas of 'eternal conscious torment' or 'annhihilationism' appear for the unfortunate souls either predetermined by God or their own will for damnation - the saved get to enjoy heaven forever while the wicked go to hell to suffer without remedy. Such conclusions are imperfect and petty when one looks at all the factors, dynamics that govern the evolution and placement of souls in the course of spirtual progress. I happen to believe however that the law inherent in LIFE is progressive and tends towards growth directed by the Infinite Intelligence innate within God and more particularly his own creations/sons.

I do not agree that God predetermines or totally over-rides/controls mens wills... only because there is a certain space of liberty given to him at any given moment by divine Providence. - the idea that God specifically, individually chooses souls for destruction before their birth for his own purpose or glory as is often entertained is illogical to Love and inconsistent with divine Will. So at this point C is incompatible with my own soul sentiments in this area. It is much more preferable to hold to a form of A which allows for souls the ability to choose eternal death as a final option after all opportunities for salvation have been forfeited than to conceive that God already willed these ones to an eternal death before they were even conceived. So A favors a more gracious allowance or chance if you will at salvation. -its of a higher grade in this respect in graciousness.

So we are left with the quandary of the coordination of creature free will and divine Will and how thru grace and the ultimacy of Love souls are saved and brought into the Light. Most sound persons uphold the reality of mans free will operating within the parameters of divine Providence which is because of these parameters, limited to such confines. We also uphold the Sovereignty of divine Will as Supreme...which means that divine Will will ultimately triumph absolutley. How can we maintain both views and still allow for Gods Will to be ultimated in time and eternity? It would appear that individual will could not overpower or annul the reality of divine Will or the power/presence of God that exists in their own being! - in this sense I hold to the ultimacy of Loves victory which can only be the full pleasure and enjoyment of the satisfaction of divine Will thru-out the Totality of Existence and this includes the hearts of all Gods creations/sons. This to me is currently a very solid conviction.

I have been exploring a more metaphysical or meta-ontological view or dynamic in my sense of universal salvation and hold that all true creations/sons of God are preserved in his divine Reality and all that is not of God (false, unsubstancial, non-real, erroneous) is already doomed to extinction because it has no foundation in Reality and it is these aspects that are 'destroyed' or 'annihilated' if you will if we would use these terms - however if we approach these errors thru other dimensional understandings.....we must assume that it is these falsities that are destroyed or obliterated into nothingness in the Fire or Glory of Gods Infinite BEING....and only the true creations/sons of God shall shine forth radiantly as the divinely Real and eternal for these essential realities and souls born of God cannot be destroyed. (they alone have real existence while what is 'other' does not).

Now the process which you speak of has been of interest to me (fragmented spirit, false vs. true info. - processed with Light overcoming darkness in the human spirit/soul via sanctification, etc.) because it does resonate on certain levels of my own soteriology or basic process of spirual perfecting. I keep bringing this up but when are we going to plummet the depths? (in private or another thread perhaps).

smaller and I also agree on some essentials and even metaphysical elements involved holding to a more universalist purview regarding the ultimatum of Love and that all things are serving God because He is the One and Only Original Power and by His very nature, being, constitution must remain victorious in His Willing...for his willing is the very power/impetus that holds and sustains the very fabric of creation and all true existence.


His bringing up about satan and evil spirits as part of that which man deals with as influencing his will may be a factor.....and could be addressed relative to your sanctification process but that might lead off an a tangent for another thread. At any rate.....even if elements of our will and soul are tainted or influenced by satanic agencies......still in the process of sanctification these would be overcome by the souls surrender and cooperation with divine Will and Holy Spirit power. - I think eschatology is a factor here as the emancipation process is effected/realized/lived out in time and realized in eternity and the duration or ultimacy of such a process - again we have the factors of time/space and then the absolute realm of Truth where time and space conditions are no longer part of the realms reality and/or are transcended.....when the fullness of salvation/perfection/joy is realized/experienced in the Restoration of all things when Gods OMNI-hood is Absolute and Universal. Another interesting visual is the perfection of the Christ-body.........imagine the body of Christ in its full glory and beauty radiating with the Light of the ONE, the ALL. In this state where no more sin will be.....there will be only Light, Love, Truth, Spirit - only the incorruptible, eternal, immortal, infinite. The Universal Absolute will be in toto.







paul

[Bernie]

Hello Paul,

"The tensions between the views of C and A might only be resolved by metaphysical dynamics and dimensions of understanding that are beyond the pale of traditional theology or even scriptural interpretation....which lends the devout researcher/student of truth into other fields of relative knowledge and inspired texts."

A) Beyond the pale of traditional thinking, yes.
B) Beyond the pale of traditional theology, I'm not convinced except where 'traditional theology' is hindered by A, where traditional thinking that departs truth for error.
I have to disagree with you about C and A being beyond scriptural interpretation, though. Everything I contend for, I see in Scripture. The problem is, most orthodoxy is firmly rooted in the literal, which has IMO roughly strong a relationship to atheistic thinking as theistic, philosophically. I have my doubts as to the degree of inspiration of texts other than the Bible. I admit I haven't read much outside the Bible; just don't have the time to do all the reading and studying I'd like.

Overall, Paul, I see by this and other of your posts that you, in all your forms, are the only one who seems to understand RE and is willing to experiment with its tenets in your theology. Very astute. It answers more questions than I ever thought it would, and new possibilities continue to extend to areas beyond those my failing mind can reach, like ripples in a pond.

[quuote]“I have been exploring a more metaphysical or meta-ontological view or dynamic in my sense of universal salvation and hold that all true creations/sons of God are preserved in his divine Reality and all that is not of God (false, unsubstancial, non-real, erroneous) is already doomed to extinction because it has no foundation in Reality”[/quote]
Again, I think we’re in fundamental agreement here, Paul, but the New Age connotations in your use of the term ‘reality’ in this context tends to make me uneasy. As a fundamentalist, I think Christian universalists should split with New Age Universalism in all its various forms…but this is another topic, of course.

"“we must assume that it is these falsities that are destroyed or obliterated into nothingness in the Fire or Glory of Gods Infinite BEING....and only the true creations/sons of God shall shine forth radiantly as the divinely Real and eternal for these essential realities and souls born of God cannot be destroyed. (they alone have real existence while what is 'other' does not).”
Agreed, in essence, but I wonder about the extent to which the sons of God ‘shine forth radiantly as the divinely Real’; I like to toy with pantheistic concepts as much as the next guy, but at the end of the day, not only can I find no reason to part with the orthodox ontological sheer separation of essence between man and God, but find Scriptural justification for doing so (Isa 42:8 & 11, 55:9, etc.). The point most seem to miss is that what is being destroyed is not our autonomy [it's an illusion] or personality, what's being forever removed is essentially a blindness to recognize what we really need and should desire. Just as no honest person would argue that justice, mercy and freedom are among goods which we ought to seek because they’re by nature completely appropriate in all respects to possess, correspondingly the eradication of falsity is first and foremost a removal of that which hinders the mind from seeing that the same is true of all one’s movement toward God. In other words, when enough falsity is removed, the mind begins to see that movement or transformation of being toward God is the only natural choice one can make, because He is the prime Good from which all the goods one should naturally seek, flows. Removal of falsity is removal of the illusions which hinder this understanding. I'm sure you'd agree with this, though I suspect you might be willing to take it further afield than I.

Having said this, I want to say that I believe the above is consistent with fundamental Bible belief, and welcome challenges to this allegation.

As to the ‘souls born of God having real existence while what is other does not’ is close to my view if you see ‘souls’ as particulars, and close to identical to it if you see the destruction and blessing applied fragmentally to every soul in essence, which preserves the individuality of the particular soul, itself. I also agree that human spirit possesses eternality. To me, spirit’s eternal existence possesses the qualities or attributes of true and false. These are mutable properties, spirit’s “meanings” or whatness, while the thatness or informational structure of spirit has been created in and granted eternality by God. He is sufficient to take eternality away if He wishes, but I don’t see in Scripture that He intends to do so. Rather, He fragmentally and gradually destroys the property of falsity, and the ‘empty holes’ left by their removal is filled by good’s “offspring”, the ground that bears fruit thirty, sixty and a hundredfold (Mark 4:20). It’s spiritual death and rebirth; the death/rebirth we fix our eyes on in spatiotemporal reality is simply the model or type for what goes on in spirit.

"smaller and I also agree on some essentials and even metaphysical elements involved holding to a more universalist purview.....His bringing up about satan and evil spirits as part of that which man deals with as influencing his will may be a factor.....and could be addressed relative to your sanctification process but that might lead off an a tangent for another thread. At any rate.....even if elements of our will and soul are tainted or influenced by satanic agencies......still in the process of sanctification these would be overcome by the souls surrender and cooperation with divine Will and Holy Spirit power."
I find a reasonable degree of agreement with him, too, but haven't the patience in my old age to suffer fools. My own view mirrors your sentiments, that these are real, but except in rare cases--what we call 'demon possession'--they don't rate more than an acknowledgement of their existence and study of this relationship and its effects. You're right, the sanctification process lessens their intrusion IMO because spiritual falsity, the arena we apprehend and participate with them in, is diminished over time. When the day arrives that smaller understands the distinction between thing and attribute and applies it properly to the views he currently holds, he'll be able to drop the extremist position and have a clearer view of the truth, IMO.

I understand the range your're operating in, I think, but my own path is more limited, and its limitations necessitate the rejection of the New Age stuff. I fully expect to take this position to the grave, unless shown some good reason to step beyond where I'm at now. Haven't seen it, yet.

" keep bringing this up but when are we going to plummet the depths? (in private or another thread perhaps)."
??? Sorry, don't remember your bringing this up before. Getting forgetful. Which depths, specifically? Email me if you still have my address and want to go that route.

[smaller]

I find a reasonable degree of agreement with him, too, but haven't the patience in my old age to suffer fools.

Why don't you stop pouting and flinging this slander about Bernie and deal with the fact that the devil and his messengers exist and that your pet theory is devoid of dealing with this fact.

Suffering fools is a two way street on this particular subject.


My own view mirrors your sentiments, that these are real, but except in rare cases--what we call 'demon possession'--they don't rate more than an acknowledgement of their existence and study of this relationship and its effects.

What you try to term a rare case is written of on nearly every page of the Gospels so you again deny the open and obvious with your curt and blinded responses.

All have sin and "he who sins is of the devil" is a basic tenet of the faith. Deal with it.

You seem to have some movie script from The Exorcist running through your head on this subject matter.


You're right, the sanctification process lessens their intrusion IMO because spiritual falsity, the arena we apprehend and participate with them in, is diminished over time. When the day arrives that smaller understands the distinction between thing and attribute and applies it properly to the views he currently holds, he'll be able to drop the extremist position and have a clearer view of the truth, IMO.

I am glad you stated IMO. IMHO your position is patently void of the obvious and even moreso when your pet is resisted. I call it Grandstanding on your part Bernie and I don't expect you'll deal with this subject honestly anytime soon, and that is a testimony to the fact that the resistance Jesus speaks of in this matter is denied and that resistance is in men like you.

I do not hold it to your charge or the blindness that accompanies the subject.

Spin your theological bottle however you like and remain disingenous.

n joy!

smaller

[Bernie]

Hello smaller,

I see you're still cruising around looking to stir up dissent.

Until you answer the challenge I posted to you some weeks ago--which you deftly sidestepped--concerning the epistemological difficulty your (and the majority of our et friends) view presents, all your charges and namecalling are meaningless. When you're unable to properly answer legitimate questions, you might try humbly admitting that your model lacks coherency in certain areas.
njoy

[smaller]

Hello smaller,

I see you're still cruising around looking to stir up dissent.

More Berniespin.


Until you answer the challenge I posted to you some weeks ago--which you deftly sidestepped--concerning the epistemological difficulty your (and the majority of our et friends) view presents, all your charges and namecalling are meaningless.

What you are asking me to do Bernie is to make the Children of God IMPERFECT. I have not found a scriptural way to do that yet and I don't expect to anytime soon.

I also find it highly suspicious that your intent as a so called christian universalist is so bent in that direction, to accuse only mankind.

I can also point out that the only other component to the fact of IMPERFECTION that clearly exists is the open factual scriptural existence of the devil and his messengers and that this is for some reason an openly missing component to your thesis, and I then ask you, why is that Bernie?

And then you charge me and flat out refuse to even deal with the facts. You will mitigate the facts and downplay the facts and brush them off nearly entirely and only blame mankind. Are you any different than the common variety of ETer Bernie? Why Bernie?

Don't you consider that the facts may be an important consideration to your pet theory?

I have repeatedly stated the scriptures regarding the fact that "all people have sin" and that "he who sins is of the devil" so it would appear to me that ALL PEOPLE are at least influenced by THE DEVIL.

Why does your guesswork MISS THIS FACT and only BLAME MANKIND?

How about you deal with the fact that your position is largely void of the OBVIOUS. Shouldn't that tell you something???


When you're unable to properly answer legitimate questions, you might try humbly admitting that your model lacks coherency in certain areas.
njoy

I don't need your model to replace facts Bernie. I have the scriptures to show me the obvious and your guesswork in the matters are quite irrelevant when that vital component is missing in action. It just makes your position back to "blame the man and the man only."

I hate the accusers of mankind. Unfortunately they dwell in mankind. Some people just don't get it.

enjoy!

smaller

[Bernie]

hello smaller,

"I don't need your model to replace facts Bernie. I have the scriptures to show me the obvious"

which is exactly why you appear to me to be an irrelevant player in the CU picture. Like so many of our et brethren, you're willing to prostitute truth for the sake of maintaining your theology.

This is why any further discussion betweeen us is irrelevant.

enjoy

[Bernie]

One other thought...my being unwilling to suffer fools was not directed at your theology, smaller, but your approach/personality. I disagree with certain points of your theology, but it isn't foolish.

[smaller]

One other thought...my being unwilling to suffer fools was not directed at your theology, smaller, but your approach/personality. I disagree with certain points of your theology, but it isn't foolish.

There is no need to softsoap our conversations when dealing with Truth.