Actscelerate.com Forum Index Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
@actscelerate Twitter  @actscelerate Facebook  @actscelerate Google+ 

Question for those who do not believe in Eternal Security
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
   Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Acts-Celerate Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Message Author
Post Da Sheik
I appreciate the replies and I agree with Brandon that we must maintain a gracious attitude regardless. This is an "in-house" debate. If we can separate the "'isms" from the discussion it might be helpful. I'm neither Calvinist or Arminian or Wesleyan.

Back to the scripture at hand: Everyone gets feisty about foreknowledge and predestination so let's leave that out and deal just with justification and glorification. I think these are two terms we would all define similarly. Justification is a legal declaration. The scripture says that the ones that God justified, He also glorified; no exceptions.
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1669
10/8/19 11:08 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: David... Dave Dorsey
Aaron Scott wrote:
They have a vested interest in NOT permitting there to be ANY exception to their theological viewpoint. The notion that there could be BOTH predestination and free will is repugnant to them.

Once again, completely wrong and uninformed. Both Arminianism and Calvinism affirm the co-existence of predestination and genuinely (if not libertarian) free will.


Last edited by Dave Dorsey on 10/8/19 11:54 am; edited 1 time in total
Now 67% friendlier!
Posts: 12873
10/8/19 11:39 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Dave Dorsey
Da Sheik wrote:
Back to the scripture at hand: Everyone gets feisty about foreknowledge and predestination so let's leave that out and deal just with justification and glorification. I think these are two terms we would all define similarly. Justification is a legal declaration. The scripture says that the ones that God justified, He also glorified; no exceptions.

Sorry for getting off track. We should indeed be getting back to Romans 8:29-30.
Now 67% friendlier!
Posts: 12873
10/8/19 11:45 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post David, not so... Aaron Scott
Dave Dorsey wrote:
Aaron Scott wrote:
They have a vested interest in NOT permitting there to be ANY exception to their theological viewpoint. The notion that there could be BOTH predestination and free will is repugnant to them.

Once again, completely wrong and uninformed. Both Arminianism and Calvinism affirm the co-existence of predestination and genuinely (if not libertarian) free will.


Calvinism ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT believe anyone is going to wind up in heaven because they FREELY chose (in the full sense of free-will) to get saved.

They may believe that a person, say, predestined to go to hell, has the free will do do whatever they want to do. For that matter, they may believe that a person who is predestined to be saved can do whatever they want to do. But the CORE ELEMENT of Calvinism--whether one is predestined to HEAVEN OR HELL--does not allow for free will.

That is, nothing I can do freely will EVER get me saved if God has predestined me to go to hell. And nothing I can freely do will ever get me "unsaved" if God has predestined me to go to heaven.

Determinism (and pre-determinism) likes to play a game about free will. It goes like this: Because God predetermined a person to get saved, that person will WANT to get saved...and will, thus, act "freely" to get saved.

But that's just semantics of a sort. It's like me saying that my robot WANTS to walk up and down the hallway...even thought that is precisely how I programmed that robot to be.

So, please, let's have none of that.

Virtually all theological debates paint the very worst picture they can of the consequences of an opposing theological viewpoint. Then they argue (usually quite easily) against this extreme position.

Like I said, Arminianism argues that if Calvinism is true, then a person can be a blatant homosexual and still be saved, since they cannot fall away.

Calvinists paint Arminians as having a horrible view of the power of God's grace--that it is easily lost, is at the mercy of human decision, and the such.

Whoever you happen to hear first is the one you'll agree with...until you hear the other side.

In any case, no, I'm not wrong: The notion that BOTH free-will and predestination could be true IN TERMS OF BEING SAVED will not work for either side (or at least not with the Calvinist's side; Arminians can allow for SOME predestination, but certainly it must allow for many of the remaining people to have complete free-will in terms of getting saved--and by that, I mean TRUE free will, not "robotic" free will).

Love ya.
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5297
10/8/19 12:31 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Re: David, not so... Dave Dorsey
Aaron Scott wrote:
The notion that BOTH free-will and predestination could be true IN TERMS OF BEING SAVED will not work for either side (or at least not with the Calvinist's side; Arminians can allow for SOME predestination, but certainly it must allow for many of the remaining people to have complete free-will in terms of getting saved--and by that, I mean TRUE free will, not "robotic" free will).

Again, totally and completely incorrect about what both sides affirm. There are lines drawn when it comes to libertarian free will. However, the alternative is still genuine free will. It is not robotic or forced. There are also lines drawn concerning God's foreknowledge vs. His foreordination. But Arminians do not deny the doctrines of election or predestination.

Within their traditional orthodoxy, both sides affirm some blend of predestination and genuinely (if not libertarian) free will. These things are really not as simple as you always make them out to be, and as I have said before, I think picking up a good systematic would help you discover that.
Now 67% friendlier!
Posts: 12873
10/8/19 12:49 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Dave brotherjames
the problem you have with Aaron is that what Aaron is describing is what most people today understand and can rationally accept as to what free will is. You on the other hand have a scholar's understanding of what Calvinism (tulip) and Arminianism actually teach. You are correct in what you say and Aaron is mischaracterizing what they both actually do teach. However, even most Calvinists and Arminianists don't really know what their denominations actually believe and what Aaron is expressing is what most people think they believe or mean. You are both right and to dismiss Aaron because he isn"t actually expressing the exact theology of both camps is to not deal with his argument which is valid. I'll be honest. I have studied at length 5 point Calvinisim and reject it totally but Arminianism is confusing with its view of previnent grace etc. I am a believer n free will. God made Adam with a will and to embrace Tulip is to make a monster of God. As an AG member and leader our theology is a very loose form of Arminianism as is most Pentecostals. We are reformed in some areas but not when it comes to freewill. I would more readily identify with Aaron's description and most Baptists I know would identify with his description of their OSAS beliefs. Can do most anything and still go to heaven.

You may say he is not correct in his full theological fulnderstanding of the 2 camps being mentioned but his description is accurate for most of the people in those 2 camps.
Acts-celerater
Posts: 917
10/8/19 1:17 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Dave Dave Dorsey
brotherjames wrote:
However, even most Calvinists and Arminianists don't really know what their denominations actually believe and what Aaron is expressing is what most people think they believe or mean.

That's a fair response, and unfortunately I do think that's generally correct. With that said, I do think it's fair to sidestep the argument -- not because it's a strawman necessarily, but because it doesn't make sense to engage in a conversation based on premises that we're acknowledging are popularly accepted, but incorrect.

And for sure, IFB OSAS (where I suspect Andy comes from) teaches a very loosey-goosey view of assurance, where one trip to the Old Fashioned Altar is all you need to secure your eternal destiny. That's very different than the perseverance of the saints, as I'm sure you know, but I appreciate how that background could color one's understanding of OSAS in general.

I think both demonstrate another good reason to have threads like this one -- even if none of us wind up changing our minds at the end of it. Engaging with the theology at a precise level helps us become more informed, more sure in what we believe, and better able to shepherd others.

Anyway, I truly appreciate such a thoughtful response. Thanks for sharing your perspective.
Now 67% friendlier!
Posts: 12873
10/8/19 1:36 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Dave Dorsey
I personally tend more toward the Calvinist side of election, but I'm not sure I can affirm the traditionally Reformed view of God's decree. For me, the nitty gritty of election, God's foreknowledge and foreordination, how God's total sovereignty actually works through our free choices, etc. quickly becomes very philosophical and theoretical, which I am not sure are super helpful. I appreciate the Reformed desire to understand, but when it comes to conjecture about the mind of God, I personally believe it's a lot safer to play the transcendence card and call it a day.

How can God be sovereign over all things, yet our actions still be truly and genuinely free? I don't know. Maybe some day I will, but right now I don't, and not only do I not know, but I do not have the capacity to learn or find out.

What I do know is that from my perspective my choices are genuinely free, I am responsible to a holy God for the decisions I make, and that God has given me the privilege of sharing Christ as a Savior for all who (from my perspective and theirs) would freely choose Him.

How does that work from God's perspective? It's fun to talk about, but if we think we can systematize the unfathomable wisdom of God's election (Rom 11:33-36), I believe we are very mistaken.
Now 67% friendlier!
Posts: 12873
10/8/19 1:42 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Brandon Bohannon
Dave Dorsey wrote:
I personally tend more toward the Calvinist side of election, but I'm not sure I can affirm the traditionally Reformed view of God's decree. For me, the nitty gritty of election, God's foreknowledge and foreordination, how God's total sovereignty actually works through our free choices, etc. quickly becomes very philosophical and theoretical, which I am not sure are super helpful. I appreciate the Reformed desire to understand, but when it comes to conjecture about the mind of God, I personally believe it's a lot safer to play the transcendence card and call it a day.

How can God be sovereign over all things, yet our actions still be truly and genuinely free? I don't know. Maybe some day I will, but right now I don't, and not only do I not know, but I do not have the capacity to learn or find out.

What I do know is that from my perspective my choices are genuinely free, I am responsible to a holy God for the decisions I make, and that God has given me the privilege of sharing Christ as a Savior for all who (from my perspective and theirs) would freely choose Him.

How does that work from God's perspective? It's fun to talk about, but if we think we can systematize the unfathomable wisdom of God's election (Rom 11:33-36), I believe we are very mistaken.
I would affirm and agree with every bit of this post.
_________________
Proverbs 3:5-6; John 13:34-35; Acts 1:8
Acts-celerater
Posts: 545
10/8/19 3:38 pm


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Dave Dorsey
Brandon Bohannon wrote:
I would affirm and agree with every bit of this post.

Thank you sir, that's kind of you to say.

Now, we've kinda gotten redirected to the front end of the equation (sorry for my part in that), but getting back to eternal security, or what I'll call the perseverance of the saints (not to make it Calvinist vs. Arminian again, but just to differentiate what I'm talking about from easy-believeism OSAS).

Isn't this doctrine compatible with Arminian soteriology? Not to suggest the perseverance of the saints is correct, but isn't it compatible? That someone chooses to follow Christ (after having received prevenient grace due to God's foreknowledge that they would choose Christ), is raised to new life (genuinely converted, given a new heart, with the Holy Spirit taking residence), becomes a partaker of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4), and that God then sustains and keeps them until the last day? Can this be accomplished in harmony with free will, or could it be guaranteed only by God's will overriding, necessitating a rejection by Arminian doctrine?

The Remonstrants would claim that it does necessitate such a rejection, in Article V of their work. But what if it is accomplished as a result of changed desire, rather than overridden will? What if God changes the heart of a genuine believer, such that they would no longer desire to leave Him, though they could? Is that an overriding of will, and does it thus necessitate rejection?

And if it does: How do you know you won't sin in Heaven, and be cast out to Hell?

At some point during your glorification, God has to so change your desires that you will never again desire sin, right? Is He overriding your will by doing so?
Now 67% friendlier!
Posts: 12873
10/8/19 7:10 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: David, not so... Aaron Scott
Dave Dorsey wrote:
Aaron Scott wrote:
The notion that BOTH free-will and predestination could be true IN TERMS OF BEING SAVED will not work for either side (or at least not with the Calvinist's side; Arminians can allow for SOME predestination, but certainly it must allow for many of the remaining people to have complete free-will in terms of getting saved--and by that, I mean TRUE free will, not "robotic" free will).

Again, totally and completely incorrect about what both sides affirm. There are lines drawn when it comes to libertarian free will. However, the alternative is still genuine free will. It is not robotic or forced. There are also lines drawn concerning God's foreknowledge vs. His foreordination. But Arminians do not deny the doctrines of election or predestination.

Within their traditional orthodoxy, both sides affirm some blend of predestination and genuinely (if not libertarian) free will. These things are really not as simple as you always make them out to be, and as I have said before, I think picking up a good systematic would help you discover that.




Dave, a person that is predestined to go to hell...can that person CHOOSE to get saved, and be saved?

Simple question which settles everything.


And, indeed, a person will perfect knowledge of everything can KNOW what I will do 100 years from now...even thought I will make that choice freely (but the choice will be guided by all the many variables that are in play--my ethics, my health, the weather, etc.).

But if a person TRULY has no other choice but to do something deeply immoral, then, morally, we cannot punish this person, right? I mean, we can lock them away to perhaps keep them from repeating the action, but since they couldn't help it....
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5297
10/9/19 11:18 am


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post With respect, Bro. James... Aaron Scott
brotherjames wrote:
the problem you have with Aaron is that what Aaron is describing is what most people today understand and can rationally accept as to what free will is. You on the other hand have a scholar's understanding of what Calvinism (tulip) and Arminianism actually teach. You are correct in what you say and Aaron is mischaracterizing what they both actually do teach. However, even most Calvinists and Arminianists don't really know what their denominations actually believe and what Aaron is expressing is what most people think they believe or mean. You are both right and to dismiss Aaron because he isn"t actually expressing the exact theology of both camps is to not deal with his argument which is valid. I'll be honest. I have studied at length 5 point Calvinisim and reject it totally but Arminianism is confusing with its view of previnent grace etc. I am a believer n free will. God made Adam with a will and to embrace Tulip is to make a monster of God. As an AG member and leader our theology is a very loose form of Arminianism as is most Pentecostals. We are reformed in some areas but not when it comes to freewill. I would more readily identify with Aaron's description and most Baptists I know would identify with his description of their OSAS beliefs. Can do most anything and still go to heaven.

You may say he is not correct in his full theological fulnderstanding of the 2 camps being mentioned but his description is accurate for most of the people in those 2 camps.



I do know a thing or two about these matters. And as a "scholar," I simply have wrestled with it long enough to know that it comes down to some very key elements that seal the deal for me.

For instance, I know that most Calvinists do not believe a blatant sinner is really saved--no matter if they did go to the altar, etc. The Arminian may try to say that the Calvinist thinks that once a person, he can do anything he wants to do and still be saved. But the Calvinists would (except for some extreme cases) say, "If he's saved, he's not going to be doing all sorts of evil things."

The easy rejection of full-fledged Calvinism is easy for me for a simple reason: I would not serve a God that sent people to hell that He could easily have saved.

PERIOD.

If you allow for certain premises, Calvinism is a very logical system. But it leads to a dark view of God, in my opinion.

So, despite any scholarly take on the matter, it all really boils down to some simple things for me:

1. If free will is in play, then God stands blameless and good if people reject salvation and go to hell. (It's another question as to whether a good God would permit some "minor sinner" to burn in torment for 80 trillion years.)

2. But if free will is NOT in play, and God not only chooses who will be saved, BUT WHO WILL GO TO HELL--and He could have saved them all!--then He is no better than me allowing your child to drown when I COULD have saved him.

Free will absolves God from this injustice. But predeterminism holds Him accountable, since HE DECIDED.

And if He was able to save only, say, 10%, and the others have to go to hell, then, fine...but that means He's not as powerful as we thought before.

Yes, I realize that there is some deep and challenging theology in all of this. But because I have a simple answer--and one that addresses the key essential (namely, that God has determined who will go to hell)--does not mean that it is not the right answer, or that it does not take into account all that needs to be taken into account.

I have studied Calvinism. And no matter how deep it goes, or how logical it seems, a God who predetermines to send people to hell--WHEN HE COULD SAVE THEM ALL (something that is unlikely to happen in a free will universe)--is not worthy to be the Christian God, and is a twisting of the goodness of God.
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5297
10/9/19 11:32 am


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Acts-Celerate Post new topic   Reply to topic
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Acts-celerate Terms of Use | Acts-celerate Policy
World News Network | Acts-celerate Chat
Contact the Administrator.


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group :: Spelling by SpellingCow.