Posted on 06/21/2012 8:24:00 AM PDT by fishtank
As Baptists Prepare to Meet, Calvinism Debate Shifts to Heresy Accusation Hundreds, including seminary presidents, have signed a statement on salvation criticized by both Reformed and Arminian theologians. Weston Gentry [ posted 6/18/2012 ] A statement by a non-Calvinist faction of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) has launched infighting within the nation's largest Protestant denomination, and tensions are expected to escalate Tuesday as church leaders descend on New Orleans.
(Excerpt) Read more at christianitytoday.com ...
I realize I'm coming into this discussion late, but I've read the posts to this point and haven't seen this brought up yet....
Paul makes the point twice in Romans (4:14 & 5:13) that apart from the law, there is no transgression. They were still subject to physical death, "even over those who did not sin by breaking a commandment (5:14)".
Paul says in Romans 7:9 that he was "once alive apart from the law.." the implication seeming to be that his knowledge of the law brought conviction which led to repentance.
The story of Josiah in 2 Kings 22 provides a similar example. The book of the law was found. Josiah became aware that they were violating the law and immediately initiated repentance.
The story doesn't mention any intervention of the Holy Spirit causing them to repent. In 22:19 God responds, "Because your heart was responsive and you humbled yourself before the Lord when you heard..." It appears that God's grace and mercy was a response to their choosing. There is no indication in the scripture that God chose them to be responsive.
In Romans 5:18, Paul says, "Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men." If God chooses the elect, is Paul offering a false promise, or is he ignorant of God's intentions?
All people are in the water drowning. They are born drowning. This is the natural habitation of all humanity since the first man and woman jumped into the water.
Not an accurate depiction of the Catholic understanding of original sin, which is a lack, absence, or deprivation; not a place, condition, or state. Starting off wrong won't get you to your destination.
But they must do their part by swimming along with God’s pull (grace plus works; synergism).
Not an accurate depiction of the Catholic understanding of works at all, which is that they are (a) motivated and prompted by and through grace (they aren't "swimming along with God's pull," but are part of "God's pull"); and (b) strengthen the life of grace within the justified man (almost a word-for-word quote from Trent).
I'm certain you would not want to engage in "strawman" or "sandbag" debate tactics by misrepresenting someone else's beliefs in order to easily refute the misrepresentation. Would you?
“Who in their right mind would follow a god like that?”
Someone who believed in an omnipotent God?
The whole problem with the Arminian doctrine is that it supposes this “Everyone must accept Christ as their Savior to get into Heaven”. If you bring up babies who die, they then have to refute their own argument.
There's no such thing as chance.
Cordially,
“Omnipotent” does not mean “monstrous.”
But calvinism doesn't believe in an omnipotent God. It can't accept that God is sovereign in a universe of billions of separate, totally free wills.
The whole problem with the Arminian doctrine is that it supposes this “Everyone must accept Christ as their Savior to get into Heaven”.
All who know what evil and/or the difference between right and wrong must accept Christ as his/her Savior to get into Heaven.
Babies, obviously, do not fall into that category.
So what is your point? If God were to withhold grace would He be unjust? What is wrong with God giving sinners what they justly deserve?
Cordially,
“All who know what evil and/or the difference between right and wrong must accept Christ as his/her Savior to get into Heaven.”
The prisons are full of people who obviously don’t know right from wrong.
Your doctrine is growing holes in it.
My point is that Calvinism’s God is unjust.
He created a world where countless people are damned and they can’t do anything about it.
A just God would not do that.
This statement is demonstrably incorrect. People who have been proven to not know right from wrong are not sent to prison.
“Omnipotent” does not mean “monstrous.”
Do you remember what God told Saul to do? Wipe out everyone, women, children and animals. Same with Sodom and Gomorrah. Babies got it too. And then there was Noah.
Whichever of us is right, we are judged already. It’s ok. I do not need to convert anyone. That’s another great thing about Calvinism. It is all up to God.
It's very apt in describing the aspect of the Fall I wanted to illustrate; that God the Father told man the rule he had to obey in order to not incur retribution. The example did not intend to illustrate all aspects of God's character, just the aspect of the complete justice of the follow-through to what he told Adam & Even. They blew it...not Him. Just as the son in my illustration blew it. It doesn't mean the father was unloving or a "monster". On the contrary, he had given almost complete freedom with only one rule. The one rule was intended to show that He was God, not them.
He is responsible because He is absolutely sovereign.
God's sovereignty does not negate the fact that man is responsible for things...like his own sin for example.
I reiterate a point I made earlier...when you stand before God on judgment day you will not be justified in saying "my sin is your fault".
If you think killing someone for disrespecting you is the right thing to do, you don’t know right from wrong. In your scenario, man saves himself because God is powerless to do it without man’s help.
Yup. Calvinism does tend to throw away some scripture they feel is uncomfortable to its doctrine.
That is incorrect. Please learn your opponent's position before arguing against it.
"Powerless" is the incorrect word to use. God chose this way of salvation--He offers it (and His plan) to everyone, and those who choose to accept will be saved. Arguing against this is merely arguing against Scripture.
Omniscience means that God knows all..which He does. It's doesn't have anything to do with His actions.
We all choose Hell in ourselves. God has chosen to rescue some of us from that choice.
There is no such thing as "free will". There is God's will and there is man's will. "Free will" implies that one, on their own volition, is fully capable of doing the will of God, which is Pelagius heresy. Christians mistakenly carry this heresy over into their Christian life believing they can make decisions that would be beneficial to God or if they don't do something God might be unhappy or disappointed but that's OK. He still loves us anyway. Every soteriology be it Pelagius, Semi-Pelagius, Catholic/Orthodox, or Arminian teaches this in some degree. But this is not what the scriptures teaches.
The real question is how many of us are willing to burn our life's work over something that we know is wrong like the faithful Augustine did?
“those who choose to accept will be saved. “
What about those who don’t accept it?
Do you read what you write?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.