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 ...
Our choices are for sin.
Can the reprobate choose otherwise?
If not, and one cannot choose otherwise, how is this a 'choice'?
Faith is belief...full stop.
There are things one believes or has faith in that one did not necessarily "choose" to believe i.e. you exist, you have a natural father, you have 10 fingers, the sun is shining. Belief is not always an act of human "will". There are many examples of our believing things without the "exercise" of faith.
Did Paul "choose" to believe that God had struck him down and revealed himself as Jesus or did that happen outside of an act of his own will?
Got any scripture at all to back that up?
I see God taking the initiative in the Scripture (Eph 1:3..."He chose us"). No indication of Him basing that on anything man does.
Where is the “free will” in Calvinism? Their misinterpretation of Scripture makes you a robot. So does
Protestantism’s misinterpretation of Scripture, believing “faith alone”, faith makes you do a good work.
Seee...the many heresies
irresistable” grace
faith alone (John 3:16 saves you)
bible alone
man is completely depraved
OSAS
prosperity gospel
private judgment,
etc
“What God reveals surely trumps any human analogy I can concoct.”
Who has the authority to determine the meaning of what God has revealed?
Perhaps this is why Paul talks about being imprisoned by sin in Romans.
There is no way out...in ourselves we always choose the unholy path.
"We were dead" Eph 2:1 and it is God who "made us alive" Eph 2:5.
I've already given you a good analogy. Working to convince another toward faith in something does not involve robotics.
Robots aren't cognizant. Cognizance is involved in the faith process.
Brave assertions all, and exactly what I expected from you, based on your previous posts. But Scripture is where Calvinists/Christians live. If you would woo us, you must ply us with Scriptures. If you want to shift the debate to the question of authority, that looks to us like an escape used to obscure a lack of Biblical evidence. If you want to deep-six this conversation by retreating to the circular argument of Roman authority, suit yourself.
But God saved me from a dreadful existence, a kind of living death, more truly robotic than you can probably imagine, and he has given me life and freedom, and it came to me at his initiative, and through his word. Why would I give that up for the fallible words of men? Color me a bitter clinger. If you have Biblical arguments, advance them. If not, I’m sure we both have better things to do.
Everything is under the sovereign will of God. The rule of everything has been given to Christ. God is incapable of sin but that doesn't mean He doesn't use our sinfulness to exact His plans. Scripture is very clear about God raising up godless rulers or sending demons to exact His will. And if God sent a tornado tomorrow so that we would return to Him, that isn't sin on God's part. One would hope that it would get our attention.
"There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written." - John 21:25
Obviously not everything done and said by Jesus or His Apostles survives in Scripture, but for Catholics it is just as obvious much of it not in Scripture survives in Tradition. It is a matter of faith.
"Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” - John 20:29
"Quid est enim fides nisi credere quod non vides?" (What is faith if not believing what you do not see?) - St. Augustine
“Faith is the most important factor in religious questions. If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. If I wish to preserve myself in faith I must constantly be intent upon holding fast the objective uncertainty, so as to remain out upon the deep, over seventy thousand fathoms of water, still preserving my faith.” - Soren Kierkegaard
Peace be with you
If Orthodox Christians believe this is "blasphemy" then they simply do not believe the scriptures-all the scriptures. For the scriptures talk of Christ.
Dan 4:35 all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, "What have you done?"
It is a matter of faith.
Howver, one must certainly not have faith in something which so egrariously contradicts the sense of the entire body of Scripture...that all of mankind cannot approach the holiness of God because of sin.
One must not elevate the traditions of religious men above Scripture. That smacks of presumption, not faith.
And this is exactly the line that separates Catholics from Protestants. Created man and his traditions are not above God's word. When there is conflict, God's word in Scripture should always prevail.
Jesus told no one to write anything and there is nothing Scriptural about a New Testament. The fact is that the Holy Tradition is the source the Scripture you refer to as the New Testament.
The Church subsisted on the oral Tradition for 350 years before a New Testament was canonized and commissioned. And when a Bible was produced it was resisted by many because of the propensity for forgeries and errors. It relied upon the veracity of the Church for its acceptance.
What separates Protestants from Catholics is the Protestant notion that Scripture and Holy Tradition are antithetical; that for one to be accepted the other must be rejected.
The Church teaches that "both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence." When they are reviewed together with correct interpretations there can be no conflicts between them. Those that see conflicts between them are interpreting one of both incorrectly.
Peace be with you.
Jesus told no one to write anything and there is nothing Scriptural about a New Testament. The fact is that the Holy Tradition is the source the Scripture you refer to as the New Testament.
The Church subsisted on the oral Tradition for 350 years before a New Testament was canonized and commissioned. And when a Bible was produced it was resisted by many because of the propensity for forgeries and errors. It relied upon the veracity of the Church for its acceptance.
What separates Protestants from Catholics is the Protestant notion that Scripture and Holy Tradition are antithetical; that for one to be accepted the other must be rejected.
The Church teaches that "both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence." When they are reviewed together with correct interpretations there can be no conflicts between them. Those that see conflicts between them are interpreting one of both incorrectly.
Peace be with you.
Jesus told no one to write anything and there is nothing Scriptural about a New Testament. The fact is that the Holy Tradition is the source the Scripture you refer to as the New Testament.
The Church subsisted on the oral Tradition for 350 years before a New Testament was canonized and commissioned. And when a Bible was produced it was resisted by many because of the propensity for forgeries and errors. It relied upon the veracity of the Church for its acceptance.
What separates Protestants from Catholics is the Protestant notion that Scripture and Holy Tradition are antithetical; that for one to be accepted the other must be rejected.
The Church teaches that "both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence." When they are reviewed together with correct interpretations there can be no conflicts between them. Those that see conflicts between them are interpreting one of both incorrectly.
Peace be with you.
If we're not perfect, then we are depraved in the eyes of God.
D-F-Because we are not perfect. ...We choose: love or hate; God or evil. Then we much choose again...
If we as Christians KNOW what is right and can freely choose, then WHY do we choose to do evil? A free choice is EXACTLY that, rationalizing a decision and following through. If Christians simply could say, "Hmmm...should I do this thing of God or should I do this thing Satan wants?", given a free choice what do you think a Christian would say? What would you say? I know what I would say.
But we are not given a "choice" per se. Someone buys a fancy sports car and ***POP*** into our minds we think "Oooooohhhhhh how we would like to have something like that." Someone is promoted over us and ***POP*** into our minds we think "Oooooohhhhh how dare they because we could do the job better then they can." We just broken the 10 Commandment-not to covet.
Yes, not being perfect DOES mean we are depraved creatures. God wants us perfect and we are not. His Spirit cannot strive with us because we are not perfect. We are CONSTANTLY breaking God's commandments throughout the day, every day.
But then why would anyone love a God that 'raises up' a Hitler to kill millions to teach us a lesson?
I don't claim to know the plans of the Lord God Almighty, however after WWII there was a period of time that many flocked back to the churches as well as the Iron Curtain dropping and persecution began. It was also the time when Israel was reformed as a nation. Do you think its a coincident that people begin questioning God or their need for God in the time of great trials? Look at what happens on this board everytime there's a tornado or hurricane. Up pop 10 posts as to "Why would God allow this to happen?"
Calvinism has an capricious and injust god; it's portrayal of man more closely resembles a base animal.
That's an opinion more than an analysis. There is nothing capricious or unjust about God. What is the failings of "free will" is it fails to recognize the wickedness of man. Instead we heard the, "God loves us. OOPS, you sinned. Well, that's OK because God REALLY LOVE YOU. We're just not perfect" What dribble. God the Father is far more interested in making us in the image of His Son, one who was willing to show compassion to the downtrodden but also willing to take whips to those who defiled the Father's name. He is perfectly willing to give us a good swift kick in the pants to get us to do what He wants us to do-and rightfully should He.
Those who truly believe that they have a choice to sin or not, then they shouldn't sin and they should offer up no excuses. Or they should recognize how their doctrine doesn't really match what actually goes on in their lives.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. The New Testament is not scriptural? In fact, the Holy Spirit anointed God's servants to write Scripture. This is why it is called "God's Word".
There was Scripture even before the New Testament church. The Old Testament is also God's Word as was quoted as such by both Jesus and the Apostles.
What separates Protestants from Catholics is the Protestant notion that Scripture and Holy Tradition are antithetical; that for one to be accepted the other must be rejected.
Completely untrue. Protestants do not think of tradition as automatically antithetical to Spriture. Where tradition is upheld by Scripture it must be adhered to. But Scripture is not to be DISCARDED only because someone prefers tradition.
there can be no conflicts between them
There is definitely a conflict between what Scripture (Old and New Testaments) say about all of mankind falling short of God's glory and your view of a sinless woman; you choose to reject what Scripture plainly teaches and elevate your tradition instead.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to be agreeing with the statement:
“Christ caused the wickedness of Hitler and Stalin...”
You say this is scriptural, but however, you get there, you have taken a wrong turn somewhere.
I do think this could be the start of a good routine:
You just might be a Calvinist, if...
You think Christ caused the wickedness of Hitler and Stalin...
etc.
:)
Thanks for your reply, but I don’t see an answer to the question.
Basically, if one can not choose (otherwise), how is this a choice? How is there anything such as a choice with any meaning to the word?
Another non sequitur. Imperfect, finite is not the same as depraved - or totally depraved.
If we as Christians KNOW what is right and can freely choose, then WHY do we choose to do evil?
I answered you before. It seems Calvinism cannot accept that answer. And, again, posit a false dichotomy: perfect or totally depraved; perfect in wisdom and choice or no free will.
Calvinism looks good on paper, sounds tight to a lawyer, but fails in both who man is and who God is. It is not surprising it fails massively in the relationship between God and man.
I believe your Confession specifically states that there is absolutely no discernible reason why God damns some to hell before they are born. Eternal punishment of the innocent for no reason is a very good definition of injustice.
Ah, but we're not innocent, right? What crimes and sins did you commit before the beginning of time?
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.