Posted on 02/25/2002 11:01:41 PM PST by fortheDeclaration
OHHHH NO Can Wesleyans do that???:>))
If you will agree with me that we will continue to work on our terminology until we are at least on the same minimal definition of Predestination. Ya' see, I am giving you your version of "free choice" for the sake of letting you see that God really is the One who predestines based upon His foreknowledge of His choices.
I'm really not trying to trap you. We can discuss the size of man tomorrow (xzins' persistence on the "T" aside). Today, I want to discuss the size of God.
Sounds like you are talking about the "Cooperative Program" of the SBC. We voluntarily participate in missions, seminaries, a publishing arm, etc. yet maintain local autonomy.
By "2nd work" am I correct in assuming a "second work of grace" whereby the gift of the Holy Spirit is bestowed on believers at some time after salvation? If so, then we probably have more to talk about, specifically But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. (Romans 8:9)
The Calvinists in these threads take great solace in the myth that no one really understands Calvinism (except them, ofcourse)
Lets boil Calvinism down to its essentials. God made one Eternal Decree in which He, through His own directive will, decided everything both good and bad that would ever be said or done in time. Now, everything Calvinism writes about is to defend this one concept. Everything said or written is to explain what cannot be explained or defended either from moral grounds (God is not the author of sin), nor from rational grounds (contradictions, man is a slave yet responsible).
Thus, when the smoke clears and all the verbage is cleared away, along with all the scripture twisting proof texts, you are left with one single Calvinistic defense-the Secret Councils of God. That is Calvinism in a nutshell-and I do mean Nutshell
You are most absolutely correct, which is why that argument was so thoroughly disgusting!
"What denomination was it that you just left?"
CRC and it's actually been several years now.
The most appalling thing is how their decision came about.
In 1990, the CRC 'synod' opened up all offices to women. According to the Church Order, this decision requires a subsequent 'synod' to affirm this decision. Normally, that would happen at the next synod, but due to the sensitive issue (It had been debated for some 25 years at that point), they decided to wait two years. In 1992, the CRC Synod rejected the change which occurred in 1990. Now, according to the CRC church order, New and Compelling Evidence must be presented in order for the issue even to be brought up again! Needless to say, they broke their own rules by brining it up again (no new evidence or new grounds) and by passing it. That is when I left.
Jean
Wow, great counter-challenge.
And, it is only fair that they should step up to the plate.
(For this, I am going to make popcorn, sit back, and watch).
Jerry, now don't get nervous. I was gonna get to that. Let's get tulip spelled out first. Do you accept orthopresby's definition?
U - condensation
U Unconditional Election Unconditional Election is the doctrine which states that God chose those whom he was pleased to bring to a knowledge of himself, not based upon any merit shown by the object of his grace and not based upon his looking forward to discover who would "accept" the offer of the gospel. God has elected, based solely upon the counsel of his own will, some for glory and others for damnation (Romans 9:15,21). He has done this act before the foundations of the world (Ephesians 1:4-8). This doctrine does not rule out, however, man's responsibility to believe in the redeeming work of God the Son (John 3:16-18). Scripture presents a tension between God's sovereignty in salvation, and man's responsibility to believe which it does not try to resolve. Both are true -- to deny man's responsibility is to affirm an unbiblical hyper-calvinism; to deny God's sovereignty is to affirm an unbiblical Arminianism. The elect are saved unto good works (Ephesians 2:10). Thus, though good works will never bridge the gulf between man and God that was formed in the Fall, good works are a result of God's saving grace. This is what Peter means when he admonishes the Christian reader to make his "calling" and "election" sure (2 Peter 1:10). Bearing the fruit of good works is an indication that God has sown seeds of grace in fertile soil.
Unconditional Election: BEFORE CREATION GOD HAS ELECTED FOR HIS OWN REASONS SOME FOR BELIEVING UNTO GLORY AND SOME FOR DAMNATION.
Will you all accept this as an acceptable condensation of "U"?
See, and we interdenominationalist in my church have the FCCM--Family of Connected Churches & Ministries, which is designed to be like the ancient churches.
Speaking of which:
Since you had no choice in your first birth, what makes you think you had a choice in your second birth? i.e. it wasn't I who thought up the analogy of "born again".
Jean
Yep, I am nutty enough to believe it. We wonder, however, why you aren't.
I'm not quite sure we can do that, but I'm not going anywhere.
I am however, taking a brief respite. I'm predestined to go off to choir practice and youth group. Depending on how well my 12 year old's English presentation is going I may or may not be back on tonite. He appears predestined to fail, but his mom the English teacher and his dad the wannabe writer, are scrambling to find some grace for him anywhere we can - because we've none left to give him...
Nope. It's all about the "T".
Speaking on behalf of the Calvinists, we will respectfully refuse to consider further points of the Remonstration (the 5-point debate) until our definition of the T is either disproven as Biblical, or accepted as Biblical.
This is a fair request, as if we are wrong on the T, it is unnecessary to procede further (our position would be demonstrably wrong).
Therefore, we request your objection, if any, to the doctrine of Total Depravity; or, your acknowledgement that the doctrine of Total Depravity is Biblically correct, as stated.
After we address that matter, we will proceed. But we respectfully insist upon a summary decision concerning Total Depravity before continuing with the case. And we are entitled to that eminently reasonable insistence.
Best,
OP
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.