Posted on 06/28/2002 4:30:00 AM PDT by xzins
I'm sure you are aware that there has been a debate going on for centuries, often referred to as the Calvinistic/Armenian debate, with Scriptures to back up both sides of the argument.
Anyway, in light of your belief, following is a message I have received from Dr. James Dobson/Focus on the Family. Please advise if this viewpoint is the same viewpoint you hold to.
You asked about Dr. Dobson's beliefs regarding eternal security. He holds to the classic Armenian view -- that is, he believes God never violates the free will of the individual. Dr. Dobson feels that God does not force people to accept Him, nor will He lock them into an earlier commitment if they subsequently choose deliberately and willfully to disobey His known will.
But while Dr. Dobson does not affirm the doctrine of eternal security, he is at the same time confident that our loving God will not banish us from fellowship with Him for our mistakes, human frailties, faults, and failings. God's forgiveness for sin is one of the foundation stones of the gospel message. Still, this does not change Dr. Dobson's conviction that the choice is ultimately ours. He believes it is possible for an individual to remove himself from the grace of God, and exit by the door through which he originally entered -- the will.
This means that, in Dr. Dobson's view, it is possible for a born-again Christian to shake his fist in God's face and say in essence, "I will have my own way!" When that occurs, "There remaineth no more sacrifice for sin." This scripture, which is quoted below in its larger context, is one of at least fifty references that may be cited in support of the theological perspective to which Dr. Dobson ascribes:
*For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, the Lord shall judge His people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.* Heb. 10:26-31 KJV
Dr. Dobson realizes many good Christians have drawn different conclusions regarding this issue. He feels it is an honest difference in understanding on the part of equally committed people who are seeking the truth through imperfect eyes. "We see through a glass darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." (I Cor. 13:12)
We would emphasize the following points. The Bible teaches very clearly that it is possible to fall from faith (1 Corinthians 10:12). It also assures us that God will protect us from falling (1 Corinthians 10:13). The first passage warns us when we are complacent. The second comforts us when we are troubled. Among the other passages that deal with this are Matthew 13:18-23, Hebrews 10:26, and John 10:27-29.
We would, therefore, agree with the basic points which Dr. Dobson makes about the possibility of falling from faith but not with some of the other aspects of his answer. The Armenian view held by Dobson affirms that our free will cooperates in our conversion to Christ. We believe that our natural will resists God, and our will only cooperates with the Holy Spirit after conversion. We do not by nature have a free will to make a decision for Christ. We do not by nature have the freedom to choose for Christ. We do have the freedom to chose against him. From our perspective then, Dobson's answer is half right.
So many Baptists are Arminian that it is Six of one half dozen of another..he is from a line of Nazarene Pastors , I believe his grandma was a pastor too... Wesleyan, Holiness Arninian...
So his book suggests "forgiving God" for the strife He inflicts. Charming.
It's like in "Rosemary's Baby" when Mia Farrow turns around and everyone at the party is a satanist. The push to meld all religions into the giant toad of ecumenism is overwhelming and well-financed. Wonder if Dobson is a 33rder, too.
Seems to me the only ones holding the line against one-world humanism are the Calvinists.
Here are some.
Schaff,
He intimated this synergistic view in the 18th article of the altered Augsburg Confession, and in the German edition of the Apology of the Confession....and in the colloquy of Worms, 1557, he declined to condemn the doctrine of the slavery of the human will, because Luther had adhered to it to the end. He was willing to tolarate it as a theologial opinion, although he himself had rejected it....Calvin, who had written a preface to the French translation of the Loci Theologciei, expressed, in private letters, his surprise that so great a theologian could reject the Scripture doctrine of eternal predestination (Vol.7,p.373)Henry Sheldon writes
At the time of the first drought his views were in substantial accord with those of Luther. Later his thinking diverged in three main particulars. Rejecting strict Augustinianism with its predestination and monergism, he gave place to free will and taught a moderate synergism.... While the 'Loci Communes' of Melanchthon was the only work of systematic theology which could come into competition with his 'Institutes' and was, moreover, opposed to his position on the subject of predestination, he not only took pains to translate it into French, but also warmly commended it to his countrymen (Vol.3,p.113,148)And Will Durant says,
Melanchthon, who had expressed predestinarian views in his Loci communes , was favorably impressed by Erasmus' arguement and omitted the doctrine in later editions...(The Story of Civilzation, vol.6,p.434)Now, that is three historians who state that Melanchthon went synergistic. That along with the direct quote that states he added the will, along with the Holy Spirit and the word as part of the salvation process.
Now, besides your incredulous reaction, do you have any facts that state that Melanchthon did not reject predestination as taught by Luther and Calvin?
For all this talk of Melanchthon being a synergist, I have yet to see ANY quotes by him that expouse anything which a calvinist wouldn't whole heartedly agree
So, Calvin would accept that the will is as much part of the salvation process as the Holy Spirit and the Scripture?
Calvin had God changing the will with irresistable grace, not having that the will making a decision.
Don't be reading your own press releases now. I am reminded of the little Dutch boy who stuck his finger in the dike, except that the disheveled little band of remaining Calvinists have their heads stuck. If the embittered Calvinist determinists were the world's defense against 'one-world humanism', we'd better start practicing L'Internationale.
You miss the point of Calvinism if you assume we're bitter. I think it's the most life-affirming theology imaginable.
Calvinism says God made us to glorify Him and enjoy Him forever; that we're put on earth to follow Christ, to love one another and to prosper.
What could be more wonderful?
Nope.
Jean
I have yet to see you post a direct quote from Melanchthon. And, as I have stated before, the fact I have not posted any evidence should not be interpreted that I do not have any evidence.
I'm just waiting for you to prove your case! I suppose I could find a bunch of nasty things said by -some- historians about Wesley and Arminius. Would that convince you?
(Hint to ftd: I am well aware of the 'synergism' controversy. The fact is that some historians claim M. was a synergist and some historians vehimently deny this. That drives some people -namely myself- to recognize their accounts are in conflict and to look deeper -which I have-.)
"Here are some...."
"Schaff"
As I have noted before, Schaff gets the 'controversy' from the wrong place. Since he is wrong on the origination of the controversy, I don't expect that he has a proper conclusion. In fact, I know he does not.
"Henry Sheldon writes..."
Again, no quotes from Melanchthon. As I have pointed out previously, -some- historians see synergism. In my research, those who dealve deeper into Melanchthon deny this -vehimently! (hint: general 'encyclopedia' type of references are inherently incomplete. They do not go as deep as people who have made a life of studying this great Reformer!)
"And Will Durant says..."
Will Durant! Objective Historian! ( /sarcasm>) LOL!
"Now, that is three historians who state that Melanchthon went synergistic. That along with the direct quote that states he added the will, along with the Holy Spirit and the word as part of the salvation process."
In your quote, Durant never claims Melanchthon is a 'synergist' or 'synergistic'. And again, Durant (suprise suprise) doesn't get the 'controversy' from the correct work of Melanchthon either.
And, as I have stated previously, Calvinism places -great- emphasis on the responsibility of Man to accept the gospel message! I know you don't like that. I know you deny that is even possible, but, ftd, ITS WHAT WE BELIEVE. Deal with it!
When it comes down to it, Melanchthon's first comments on predestination in the 1521 'Common Places' was decidedly -non- calvinistic -no room for the freedom of the will which calvinism HAS ALWAYS PROFESSED! By Melanchthon's embracing the free-will, he moved decidedly closer to Calvin's position on predestination -especially on the responsibility of the sinner!
In fact, Calvin had disclosed in private correspondence to Melanchthon that he was convinced they could work out an agreement on predestination, "ut de gratuita piorum electione sincerior quam antehac docendi formam inter nos mutuo conveniunt" (Corpus Reformatorum. Philippi Melanchthonis opera quae supersunt omnia -Edited by Karl Bretschneider and Heinrich Bindseil, 1834-60, 15:488-89, dated July 17, 1545)
"Now, besides your incredulous reaction, do you have any facts that state that Melanchthon did not reject predestination as taught by Luther and Calvin?"
Yes.
"So, Calvin would accept that the will is as much part of the salvation process as the Holy Spirit and the Scripture? "
ftd, ftd, ftd! Melanchthon himself never stated the will played as big a role as the Holy Spirit and the Word! He was extremely insistent that it was by no means as big a part! Now, if you would have studied up on the issue -perhaps by reading Melanchthon himself- you would have known this!
"Calvin had God changing the will with irresistable grace, not having that the will making a decision."
Melanchthon held to nearly an identical position. Melanchthon -never- said "that the will [made] a decision"!
Now, if you want to claim a connection with the reformation via the Phillipists -those who perverted the teachings of Melanchthon- by all means do so. However, these folks were roundly condemned by their contemporary orthodox Lutheran counterparts.
But as to Melanchthon. His difference with Calvin laid not in substance but in emphasis.
Jean
Then someone had better explain how exactly one can be consistent and say in another post, "I will give you credit though, you did find something from Melancthon I don't agree with" (or words to that effect) and yet say in this last one that you had yet to be shown "one" (your emphasis) quotation upon which you disagreed from Melancthon. Also, did you check out the letter from Melancthon to Calvin dated from 1554, wherein Melancthon stated that he "could not accept a secret decree in God that inexorably meant some were saved and others damned, although he could not harmonize divine foreknowledge and human will" (quoted from the Preface to the 1555 Loci translation I found)?
Keep living in your world of delusion. I think that you must be the only I have ever met that did not see Melanchthon as a synergist.
In a new revision of his Loci which appeared in 1548, two years after Luther's death adn in all subsequent editions, he traces conversion to three concurrent causes, the Spirit of God, the Word of God and the will of man and states the will may accept or reject God's grace ,copulationem causarum, Verbi dei, Spriritus Sancti, et voluntatis This is the chief passage that which was afterwards assailed as synergistic (Schaff,Vol 1 Creeds of Christiandom, p.263), now what part of that passage do not understand? Do you see the will being equal with the Spirit and the word in the Salvation event?
That is a direct quote from Melanchthon's work.
But as to Melanchthon. His difference with Calvin laid not in substance but in emphasis.
Not as he stated in that 1548 edition of his Loci but what Calvinist ever cared about facts.
The entire passage in Latin is in Schaff's work, and I do not have the time to write it out.
You have given nothing back that would even remotely suggest the historians are wrong. Not one fact, just a bunch of hot air!
Refresh my memory. What exactly was it I disagreed with? Then I will comment.
hint: In reference to my "one quotation" comment, I'm looking for a quote from Melanchthon in which he states a position on synergism/monergism or predestination of which I disagree with -i.e. that I could claim he left the reformational teaching. Of course, Luther held to predestination as well. However, I do have disagreements with his postion (he gave no room for a free will as you find in Calvin). This would not stop me from making the same 'general' comment in context (of claiming so and so was a synergist/arminian). Likewise, despite their minimal differences, in the context of a synergism/monergism discussion, one can safely say that Luther and Calvin were of one mind on the doctrine of Predestination. In other words, I could say of Luther that you could not find one comment of his pertaining to this discussion (synergism/monergism) of which I would disagree with.
Certainly, I don't embrace Melancthon's theology 100%. There are differences. I do remember making the comment, but if my memory serves me, it wasn't a comment as to his doctrine. Rather, it was a comment on the fact that he changed emphasis (or something similar). I could be wrong. But in any case, the 'disagreement' I had was not an issue of Melancthon being a synergist. He wans't!
"Also, did you check out the letter from Melancthon to Calvin dated from 1554, wherein Melancthon stated that he "could not accept a secret decree in God that inexorably meant some were saved and others damned, although he could not harmonize divine foreknowledge and human will" (quoted from the Preface to the 1555 Loci translation I found)?
Yup. I've seen it before. (Some people like myself, are single predestinarians -which is closer to the position of Melancthon as evidenced by your quote -in context, of course.)
AND, I've been saying for a long time here, that even though God ordains all things, man freely chooses to do all he does. Like Melancthon, I cannot harmonize these two things logically or rationally. Nonetheless, the fact that they are biblically true trumps their 'irrationality' every single time! This is similar to the doctrine of the Trinity. I cannot explain it. It doesn't make sense to me. If you were to treat my doctrine of the trinity to the rationalistic approach you treat the doctrine of predestination, you would deny me the possibility that I believe in ONE GOD and have me being a Polytheist. The same holds true for Creation out of nothing. I cannot explain it. (How can something be created out of absolutely nothing at all?????) Nonetheless, the fact that scripture declares this to be so trumps the 'irrationality' of it every time.
Keep trying to prove from Melancthon that he was a synergist! (I won't hold my breath) ;)
Jean Jean
", now what part of that passage do not understand? Do you see the will being equal with the Spirit and the word in the Salvation event?"
ftd, ftd, ftd! Again! the Loci is ~NOT~ where the controversy comes from. If you were able to read the entire quote of Melanchthon in context, one would note (perhaps -you- wouldn't) that Melanchthon was not talking about the initial act of conversion. He was discussing the life of the believer!!! (Does it make you think something that Luther never condemned Melanchthon's 'Common Places'????? -this quote is nearly identical to Loci published before Luther died)
(Hint: Can you tell me how Melanchthon defined conversion??????????)
In otherwords, Schaff is WRONG!!!
"You have given nothing back that would even remotely suggest the historians are wrong. Not one fact, just a bunch of hot air!"
Why would I need to? I'm still waiting for you to prove your case!! LOL!
Jean
Among the past and present advocates of this doctrine are to be found some of the world's greatest and wisest men. It was taught not only by Calvin, but by Luther, Zwingli, Melanchthon (although Melanchthon later retreated toward the Semi-Pelagian position)(emphasis mine), by Bullinger, Bucer, and all of the outstanding leaders in the Reformation.
Here is a quote from Boettner! No doubt he is wrong also!
(Prove it from Melanchthon himself, ftd!)
Jean
I did! You have the direct quote from his work stating that the Spirit,the word and the will all three work together.
You have been exposed for the fraud that you are!
amen! Can't stand them calvin quotes.
The things that fascinates me about the robot god is that his minions like Jean prove their own theory wrong simply by demonstrating stubbornness and the ability to think.
It is taken from the Loci Communes (1535) Here is the Latin, Deus antevertit nos, vocat, movet, adjuvat; sed nos viderimus ne repugnemus (Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, Vol.1, p.262 footnote #3)
Arminius himself could not have put it any better!
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.