What's wrong with Calvinism

[Benjamin Burch]

George,

I'm going to phrase things better this time, I hope!

Okay, so first, an interesting two points.

(1) The wiki article on Semi-Pelagianism identifies Semi-Pelagianism in a way I have never heard which could explain why it is heresy, it would just mean that so often people don't know what they're talking about when they talk about Semi-Pelagianism (Sort of like Benjamin's critique above):

Semipelagianism in its original form was developed as a compromise between Pelagianism and the teaching of Church Fathers such as Saint Augustine, who taught that man cannot come to God without the grace of God. In Semipelagian thought, therefore, a distinction is made between the beginning of faith and the increase of faith. Semipelagian thought teaches that the latter half - growing in faith - is the work of God, while the beginning of faith is an act of free will, with grace supervening only later.[1] It too was labeled heresy by the Western Church in the Second Council of Orange in 529.

I would certainly have a problem with that.

(2) The OrthodoxWiki does not have a page for Semi-Pelagianism. Despite someone's attempt to create one, it was deleted. I think at the very least this is interesting in light of my assertion that, according to people like Benjamin's definition of "Semi-Pelagianism", the East does not find it heretical.

Now, I'd love to give you some quotes to show a bit better what I mean by the East's view, particularly that of the early Greek fathers --- the same view to which I subscribe. These come from J.N.D. Kelly's great work, Early Christian Doctrines.

Athanasius therefore teaches that the wretchedness of mankind is directly traceable to our first parents' lapse. It was through the fault committed by their free volition that the disintegrating forces in any case latent in our nature were released.... The disnitegration, we should notices, was not total. If man has lost the immortality of his body, he retains that of the soul and his will remains free. The obliteration of the image, too, seems to have been progressive, is always open to men.... using their free will, to throw off the entanglements of sensuality and recover their vision of the Word.

Alongside their assumption of free will, they clearly hold that the Fall affected our moral nature.... Gregory of Nyssa states that 'human nature is weak in regard to doing good, having once been for all hamstrung through weakness.'... Our salvation comes, stated Gregory Nazianzen, both from ourselves and from God. If God's help is necessary for doing good and if the good will itself comes from Him, it is equally true that the initiative rests with man's free will. Chrysostom similarly teaches that without God's aid we should be unable to accomplish good works; nevertheless, even if graces takes the lead, it co-operates with free will. We first of all begin to desire the good and to incline ourselves towards it, and then God steps in to strengthen that desire and render it effective.

Kelly offers Theoderet as an example of the final conclusion on the matter in the East, in the 5th century:

[W]hile all men need grace and it is impossible to take a step on the road to virtue without it, the human will must collaborate with it. 'There is need', he writes, 'of both our efforts and the divine succour. The grace of the Spirit is not vouchsafed to those who make no effort, and without that grace our efforts cannot collect the prize of virtue.'

However, it must also be said:

Kelly concludes, I think correctly:

Grace thus conceived (Theosis) is a state of communion with God, and if a man must use his free will to attain it, there can be no question but that the blessedness in which it consists is wholly the gift of God.

My point is this: The Early Fathers simply weren't Augustinian and didn't believe in Total Depravity. As such, the Eastern Church doesn't really either. They certainly believe in a weakness, a futility of the will, needing light and grace but not its "death", the rotting corpse of Post-Reformation thought in need of resurrection like Lazarus. If that is Semi-Pelagianism (as Benjamin would have me to believe), then I am left with no choice but to conclude that Semi-Pelagianism was the view of the West before Augustine and has always been the view of the East --- and therefore the fact that it was deemed heretical is nonsense.

[Dennis M. Scott]

George,

Point taken, and in good spirit. In the class I recently taught to people of relatively little church background, I probably didn't do the TULIP sufficient justice. When I finished, one student asked, "So there are people who actually worship a God like that?"

It's difficult for an Arminian to conscientiously build a case for Calvinism. Oh, well.

[David Graham]

Thanks Ben (i.e. Ben Burch) that you've done most of the heavy lifting on this question particularly with regard to the "T" of total depravity.

As an Arminian I can "live" with like Hans previously stated, but I don't really like it because "Total" is a pretty strongly definitive word. At the same time I believe with Wesley and others that the image of God is not completely extinguished in the nature of "fallen" humanity. Thus people are able to genuinely love even before they are saved with in many cases a disinterested love (i.e. a love that is thoroughly unselfish).

At the same time, if we say that we as human beings are totally depraved, then "Prevenient Grace" starts to look more and more like "Irresistable Grace", since there is nothing "good" within the person that would enable them to choose the "right".

And Ben I love your arguments from the Eastern church...... and after reading them, (IMHO) I think in many ways they're a little more "balanced" and "life applicable" (for lack of better terms) than Augustinian based theology.

BTW Thanks George for your links to the 5 "Pointer" Calvinist denominations in the US, I hadn't realised there were so many.

[Dale Cozby]

Humorous, quite humorous actually. But alas untrue from a W/A perspective, for the Grand Difference between as Classic or Remonstrance Arminian and a W/A is the "T". Now you can qualify it, say it isn't "exactly" the same, I'll disagree, but will admit to hearing some good arguments for that position.

But, if you 'totally" reject the the "T" then you have no need for Previenient Grace and need to reject that as well. The Classic or Remonstrance Arminian does not need Previenent Grace only the W/A does.

Can I believe in a version of original sin that isn't totally depraved and be a Pelagian(semi or otherwise) too? Please can I huh?
As for the rest just remove the first words of each and I am Ok with it.
I believe in depravity, election, atonement, grace and Saints. It is those qualifiers I get all hung up on.
Why can't we be depraved but not totally? or elected, but not unconditionally? and so on and so forth....call it my heterodox orthodoxy

As for "Classic" W/A I prefer the diet post-modern version of W/A. Less Depravity, more infilling.

[Doug Ward]

I agree completely with what you have said above. But where does the universal condemnation suddenly no longer become applicable?

I am not sure I understand. SInce when is equal condemnation of Jew/Gentile the same as complete inability to do anything good or constructive?

[John Kennedy]

I still chuckle about one of the responses I got to a post awhile back in which I had commented about my staunch Dutch Reformed friends and their view of Baptists as Calvinists. I noted that the only Calvinist teaching they were really solid on was that of the perseverance of the saints (ES=eternal security, not entire sanctification). Someone else noted that they tended to really embrace total depravity. You go to your church - I'll go to mine.

[Benjamin Hobbs]

I am not sure I understand. SInce when is equal condemnation of Jew/Gentile the same as complete inability to do anything good or constructive?

Are you suggesting that the phrases chosen as "there is none righteous" are simply poetic in nature?

[Doug Ward]

Are you suggesting that the phrases chosen as "there is none righteous" are simply poetic in nature?

No, I am suggesting that "there is none righteous" = Jew and Gentile alike are under sin - the law grants no special status. "There is none righteous" does not mean Total Depravity as you argue the term. Very simple claim.

[Benjamin Burch]

Humorous, quite humorous actually. But alas untrue from a W/A perspective, for the Grand Difference between as Classic or Remonstrance Arminian and a W/A is the "T". Now you can qualify it, say it isn't "exactly" the same, I'll disagree, but will admit to hearing some good arguments for that position.

But, if you 'totally" reject the the "T" then you have no need for Previenient Grace and need to reject that as well. The Classic or Remonstrance Arminian does not need Previenent Grace only the W/A does.

Can you flesh this out for me? From my reading and understanding both classical and w/a Arminianism embrace both the "T" as well as PG. The only difference between the two, to my knowledge, is Wesley's Christian Perfection and his belief that apostates will always receive grace to return and PG is always present, whereas in classical Arminianism grace might not be offered again once rejected.

[George Wallace]

George,

I'm going to phrase things better this time, I hope!

Okay, so first, an interesting two points.

(1) The wiki article on Semi-Pelagianism identifies Semi-Pelagianism in a way I have never heard which could explain why it is heresy, it would just mean that so often people don't know what they're talking about when they talk about Semi-Pelagianism (Sort of like Benjamin's critique above):



I would certainly have a problem with that.

(2) The OrthodoxWiki does not have a page for Semi-Pelagianism. Despite someone's attempt to create one, it was deleted. I think at the very least this is interesting in light of my assertion that, according to people like Benjamin's definition of "Semi-Pelagianism", the East does not find it heretical.

Now, I'd love to give you some quotes to show a bit better what I mean by the East's view, particularly that of the early Greek fathers --- the same view to which I subscribe. These come from J.N.D. Kelly's great work, Early Christian Doctrines.






Kelly offers Theoderet as an example of the final conclusion on the matter in the East, in the 5th century:



However, it must also be said:

Kelly concludes, I think correctly:



My point is this: The Early Fathers simply weren't Augustinian and didn't believe in Total Depravity. As such, the Eastern Church doesn't really either. They certainly believe in a weakness, a futility of the will, needing light and grace but not its "death", the rotting corpse of Post-Reformation thought in need of resurrection like Lazarus. If that is Semi-Pelagianism (as Benjamin would have me to believe), then I am left with no choice but to conclude that Semi-Pelagianism was the view of the West before Augustine and has always been the view of the East --- and therefore the fact that it was deemed heretical is nonsense.

So when all is said and done it sorta boils down to a definition of terms. We can set aside for the moment which definition may or may not be correct. But, am I correct in stating that the way "some" define SP this then is revealed as heretical or at least nonsensical; and there is another definition used by "some others" that renders SP as close too or inline with much of the belief of the Eastern Church on this matter?

And that the two earlier post claiming your affinity for SP are to be understood as the SP of the latter definition and the Heretical or nonsensical SP verbiage of your latest post refers to the former definition?

[George Wallace]

Can you flesh this out for me? From my reading and understanding both classical and w/a Arminianism embrace both the "T" as well as PG. The only difference between the two, to my knowledge, is Wesley's Christian Perfection and his belief that apostates will always receive grace to return and PG is always present, whereas in classical Arminianism grace might not be offered again once rejected.

Had myself wondering about this earlier because with all the back and forth, earlier I went and reviewed the Remonstrance Articles and found basically what you said as I reviewed Schaff at least (Same as what is on Dennis' site only Dennis ' has the added benefit, his delineates which Remonstrance Article goes with which TULIP of the Dort Canons.)

So, I got to wondering, where did I come up with the idea above. And four sources come to mind 1) J. I. Packer's Intro to John Owen's Death of Death. (point #1 below)

Hence, they maintained, Scripture must be interpreted as teaching the following positions:

1. Man is never so completely corrupted by sin that he cannot savingly believe the gospel when it is put before him, nor
2. is he ever so completely controlled by God that he cannot reject it.
3. God's election of those who shall be saved is prompted by his foreseeing that they will of their own accord believe.
4. Christ's death did not ensure the salvation of anyone, for it did not secure the gift of faith to anyone (there is no such gift): what it did was rather to create a possibility of salvation for everyone if they believe.
5. It rests with believers to keep themselves in a state of grace by keeping up their faith; those who fail here fall away and are lost. Thus, Arminianism made man's salvation depend ultimately on man himself, saving faith being viewed throughout as man's own work and, because his own, not God's in him.

Source # 2. Was an NPH SS lesson set I used in 07 or 08. It reviewed the whole history of the denom, from Reformation of Phinias. If I am not mistaken something akin to what I have stated above was part of the lesson, NPH used it to flesh out the difference between As and W/As.

Source #3 (Now, here I am less certain) but I think this is also discussed in the Video - Amazing Grace the History and Theology of Calvinism.

Source # 4 Loraine Boettner's The Reformed Faith make a sideways reference here to W/A being less aberrant than A, and it had to do with something along these lines.

So right now I do not have 100% confidence in my previous statement. I'll need to re-research some things. It might be a case of intercranial synthesis (Somethings in my brain housing group may just have gotten mixed up) - or myo-cardial in fart-tion. (gas may have distrupted the thought process) At any rate the position has some solid secondary source material ((both A & C), but when I compare it to earlier and original source material I am at a loss.

So, maybe the correct answer is:

[Hans Deventer]

While we might be able to in theory create polarities, there are likely very few pure Calvinists (or even pure Arminians, for that matter). Most of us are either Arminian or flavored Arminian.

Walls might better have titled his discourse, "If there was such a thing as a five point Calvinist, this would be the problem with them."

Theory sometimes bellows well where no man lives.

Well, there are many 5-point Calvinists, Dennis. There used to be and there still are, unfortunately. We have churches here that fully maintain what they call the Three Forms of Unity: The Heidelberger Cathechism, the Dutch Confession and the Canons of Dordt. And it's pure and undilluted 5 Point Calvinism. Now there are also churches that maintain these only in name, but quite a few still teach this.

And true, there's a huge group anywhere in between Armianism and Calvinism. But he's not speaking against a mere abstraction. I wish it were.

[George Wallace]

Dr. Jerry Walls gives a pretty good explanation of the heart of the differences between Calvinism and Arminianism. And I agree, it ultimately deals with the character of God. (Happy to see I'm not the only one who thinks this way!)

Which is why I have less problems (though I do have many problems) with the role of the pope or Mary in the Roman Catholic Church than with this issue. Watching both videos will take some time but I think he does a good job of explaining.

The first is introductionary, the second zooms in on the problem.

Here's part #3

Well, I must say that Dr. Walls does a much better job of illuminating much of the heart of the difference, from his perspective, here on YouTube, than he does in his book. This video series is done quite well; it is simple and straight forward. The book could have used a much tighter focus such as this, as I found it rambly when compared to the tight focus of Why I am Not an Arminian. Over all here he did an excellent job!

Just curious has anyone, (besides me) read both Why I am Not an Arminian and Why I am Not a Calvinist?

Videos number 1 & 2 were great videos. Number three really showed his inability to think outside of his Arminianism and really ended up sounding more like Blah, Blah Blah, Blah or Charlie Browns Teacher. Like I have said in the past, to fully understand would be to embrace. He does not embrace and therefore does not fully understand.

One thing that I find extremely odd is that other than Calvin he only quotes or engages with Baptists??? I don’t necessarily find it disingenuous, just odd – he quotes Pink and Carson, both Credo Baptists, yet he is also quoting from the WCF? So it is just weird. It took well over 100 years for the Credo Baptist to be recognized by the Presbyterian or Continental Reformed. (Even if the 1689 LBC is the 1646 WCF with the Paedo Stuff removed.) Why quote from a Presbyterian Confession and then only engage modern Credo Baptist Reformed authors???

He may be doing this because he is unfamiliar with the infighting within the various denominations which involve this topic or are closely related to it, such as the Clark-Van Til Controversy in the OPC or the PRC Split from the CRC in 1924. Or, he could be quoting Baptists explicitly because he is familiar with these and other controversies and want to portray as monolithic that which is not. I do not know, - but I do know that there has always been a Rationalist Camp in the Reformed and Presbyterian worlds that has no trouble saying in non-equivocating terms NO, Absolutely NOT, God does not love everybody! (All TRs [Truly Reformed] past and present should say NO Absolutely NOT, God does not love everyone with “saving” or “electing” love!)

For us most of this (but not all, by far!) is seen in the issues regarding the supposed or denominated Two Wills of God. Piper has the most horrid explanation about this in a paper with the same title, yuk! This all revolves around the Free Offer of the Gospel, also called the Bona Fide or Well-Meant offer. So as this goes or as it can be explained, the words, at least English words, just don’t seem to do the concept justice. Two wills sucks as does setting up a dichotomy between “desire” and “will” (Basically because we use these as synonyms) But at any rate, most Reformed denoms believe or have an official position that not only does God elect his chosen before the foundation of the world (By either infras or supra or ?? definition) and that He in some way also “wills” or “desires” that ALL are to be saved; basically in the way He desires ALL to obey the Law, or that ALL should repent ect. Pipers paper makes God into a schizophrenic IMO. (Just Google Fee Offer or Free Gospel Offer and you’ll find tons if interested.)

The only demom that I know that absolutely rejects this is the Protestant Reformed Churches the (PRC). They are pretty up front about it. They reject Common Grace also, so in their view the rain and the sunshine are for believers only and the reprobate just happens to get some on himself too. They would have no problem singing “Jesus love the little [elect] children all the [elect] children of the world…”

I would like to read the Article Dr Walls references, but it’s neither free nor published online. I’ll have to see if our library carries it.

The big issue for him seemed to be love or the love of God, always is. Arminians just cannot fathom a love from God that is not also a saving love. Really it is almost to the point of God’s Love = Salvation. Yet, Dr. Walls and others have no problem recognizing the difference between the way a married man “loves” his wife and the way he “loves” a Bacon Double Cheeseburger. Pink would have no problem telling Dr. Walls that God doesn’t love everyone. Neither would Gordon Clark.

One can see this manifest in the story of the rich young ruler. Only in the Gospel Kata Mark does it say that “Jesus loved him.” So Pink in his Sovereignty of God (From which Dr. Walls quotes) when dealing with this footnotes it and basically says. Well since Christ loved him he must have obeyed and been saved even though we don’t have that info. His rational, because he is a rationalist is that Christ only loves the elect, he loves this man, therefore this man is elect

Now, this verse gives others pause, they say hey, we have no info one way or the other about this rich young mans salvation; and it seems that he, at least at this point, is unwilling to obey, so it is likely that he is not saved. Yet, how does one reconcile this?

The answer is the first 2 points in Dr. Walls Video 2, but usually here focused upon his point # 2, God may love him, but he doesn’t “savingly” love him.

For me, the idea of that there is a difference between “electing’ love and another form of God’s love that does not save is no problem in the big picture.

However, I do personally, not really go with the whole Free Offer thing the way my denom and others do. I don’t really believe like the PRC either. I think it is a category mistake to call the Gospel an Offer at all. To me it is a proclamation, and a powerful one when accompanied by the Holy Spirits regenerative power. The Gospel should be proclaimed (ALL believe this also) from everywhere and at every time indiscriminately. After that it’s the Holy Spirit’s job; not mine. Humans don’t save humans.

As for Dr. Walls reference to the Aurora shooting, again he just cannot think outside of his Arminianism, I should say his post-modern or at least contemporary Arminianism, for we know that Arminius and the Wesley’s would have no problem affirming God’s Divine Providence.

Any Reformed person worth his salt is going to tell you that the shooting was God’s will. He ordained it, nothing can come to pass without His will and ordaining, just like the Confession says. If it is past tense, ---then it is God’s Will! The problem people get into is doing stuff like Pat Robertson saying X is judgment for Y. That’s bologna!

But, saying that this shooting is God’s will, or my death is God’s will or that Columbine, Katrina or the Hati Earthquake are all God’s will should be the party line for any and every Reformed person as well as many Classic Arminians.

I mean really many of us believe that a pre-incarnate Jesus killed 185,000 Assyrians in one night, so admitting that some whack job Aurora was ordained by God to kill 12 is really no hill for a climber!

I’d like to compare the A v C debate in the books above with the new Olson vs Horton back and forth, Against and For Calvinism, has anyone read these?

[Hans Deventer]

Like I have said in the past, to fully understand would be to embrace. He does not embrace and therefore does not fully understand.

This statement, George, is arrogant nonsense. Calvinism and Arminianism are choices. We can discuss the reasons for the choices, since none came down from heaven. It's just humans doing theology. And failable humans at that. Neither Calvin, Arminius, Wesley or any theologian worth anything would have claimed differently. .

[George Wallace]

This statement, George, is arrogant nonsense. Calvinism and Arminianism are choices. We can discuss the reasons for the choices, since none came down from heaven. It's just humans doing theology. And failable humans at that. Neither Calvin, Arminius, Wesley or any theologian worth anything would have claimed differently. .

Don't see the problem or the arrogance. I don't see Calvinism as a choice at all, I consider it the unadulterated Gospel and am just thankful that in His Grace he led me to the Doctrines of Grace and illuminated my mind. It is all to the praise and for His Glory so, no I don't see any arrogance. Where do you see it?

All I am saying is exactly the inverse of a Roger Olson blog article you posted not to long back, the one where he was lamenting about some radio talk show host was basically reading him Ephesian 1:14 and Romans 9 and saying 'Well what about that Huh!' Olson, stated something about this not being his first rodeo (my paraphrase or idiom) and that he starts out from the position that "It can't mean that". I'm just starting from the position that yes, it can mean that.

To clarify: all that I am saying is that, I believe if a person truly understands the Doctrines of Grace, then they cannot help but embrace them and love them. But, if they continue on in their alternative belief system and reject the Doctrines of Grace, then by virtue of that it appears to me that they cannot really understand them, for if they did they would fall in love with them.

[Hans Deventer]

Don't see the problem or the arrogance. I don't see Calvinism as a choice at all, I consider it the unadulterated Gospel and am just thankful that in His Grace he led me to the Doctrines of Grace and illuminated my mind. It is all to the praise and for His Glory so, no I don't see any arrogance. Where do you see it?

George, if you simply do not understand the nature of theology, there is no one who can help you. I'm astonished no one taught you this.

[George Wallace]

George, if you simply do not understand the nature of theology, there is no one who can help you. I'm astonished no one taught you this.

It just goes back to my original statement, to truly understand would be to embrace, you don't understand and therefore do not embrace.
'
You are trying to apply your Contemporary Arminian understanding of the Nature of Theology to all Theologies as if it were, or there were, one definition of the Nature of Theology. You're telling a Calvinist it was a choice? How silly is that?

There is no whole in my understanding, I am sure there are thing in general that I am still yet to learn and thing I can increase my understanding of, but I am reasonably solid here.

You are just trying to measure in centimeters and all my formulas are set up for inches!

The Definition or Nature of Theology
by Dr. William Ames

1. Theology is doctrine or teaching of living to God. John 6:68, “The words of eternal life…”; Acts 5:20, “The words of this life…”; Romans 6:11, “Consider yourselves…alive to God.”

2. It is called doctrine, not to separate it from understanding, knowledge, wisdom, art, or prudence–for these go with every exact discipline, and most of all with theology–but to mark it as a discipline, and most of all with theology–but to mark it as a discipline which derives not from nature and human inquiry like others, but from divine revelation and appointment. Isaiah 51:4, “Doctrine shall go forth from Me…”; Galatians 1:11-12, “The Gospel…is not according to man. For neither I received it from man, nor was taught it, but it came through a revelation.”

3 Since the highest kind of life for a human being is that which approaches most closely the living and life-giving God, the nature of theological life is living to God.

[Benjamin Burch]

I fully understand and do not embrace because it fails the most important tests. - scripture and tradition.

[Hans Deventer]

It just goes back to my original statement, to truly understand would be to embrace, you don't understand and therefore do not embrace.

Ok, I have to retract. I admit I was torn between two ideas: is this arrogant or stupid? Thinking you were not stupid, I settled for arrogant. But now I am wondering.

You are trying to apply your Contemporary Arminian understanding of the Nature of Theology to all Theologies as if it were, or there were, one definition of the Nature of Theology.

Come on, George, this is nonsense and you know it. Augustine of Hippo defined the Latin equivalent, theologia, as "reasoning or discussion concerning the Deity". He was an Arminian? You must be kidding.

You're telling a Calvinist it was a choice? How silly is that?

?? As silly as Augustine defines theology. How silly is it NOT to see it? Unfathomable! Really, don't you get it?

You are just trying to measure in centimeters and all my formulas are set up for inches!

No. I am proceeding from what theology is, and has been for ages, long before Calvinism or Arminianism came along. It's words about God, (the study of God if you like), and human words at that. It is a human attempt to speak about God, based on what He revealed to us in the Scriptures. We don't write Scriptures, George. We do theology, and we are not infallible in our theologies. Those who think they are infallible should be put in an asylum. Or become pope.

It's amazing this discussion should even be held.

[George Wallace]

Ok, I have to retract. I admit I was torn between two ideas: is this arrogant or stupid? Thinking you were not stupid, I settled for arrogant. But now I am wondering.

You are always so sweet thanks.

Come on, George, this is nonsense and you know it. Augustine of Hippo defined the Latin equivalent, theologia, as "reasoning or discussion concerning the Deity". He was an Arminian? You must be kidding.

Sorry,
I meant to convey that YOU were coming from that position, not that your position was necessarily derivative of THE Arminian position.

No. I am proceeding from what theology is, and has been for ages, long before Calvinism or Arminianism came along. It's words about God, (the study of God if you like), and human words at that. It is a human attempt to speak about God, based on what He revealed to us in the Scriptures. We don't write Scriptures, George. We do theology, and we are not infallible in our theologies. Those who think they are infallible should be put in an asylum. Or become pope.

It's amazing this discussion should even be held.

So first, we may be mixing up two different things, I might also be chastised for not be specific. If you are talking the full orbed development of Reformed Theology AKA Calvinism as a grown up child, then certainly this did not spring up as direct revelation. But note I was speaking of being illuminated by God to the Doctrines of Grace (AKA TULIP) That is just referencing my understanding of salvation and its Gospel import. Here I do believe this has squat to do with “words of men” but strictly was a gift from God. Words of men may have been used as means, but the light came from God. So I reiterate, to truly understand (THE DOCTRINES OF GRACE) is to embrace them, if one does not embrace them then one does not understand them.

There are many, many definitions of theology, and all of them are not the same one you are using whether it is your's or Augustine.

Thomas Aquinas defined theology as:

A unified science in which all things are treated under the aspect of God either because they are God himself or because they refer to God.

Charles Hodge
The science of the facts of divine revelation so far as those facts concern the nature of God and our relation to him.

William Ames
Said that the heart of theology is “the doctrine or teaching of living to God.”

John Frame
Theology is defined as “application of the Word of God by persons to all areas of life.”

I reject the idea that “Theology” is merely men thinking or studying about God. Theology can only properly be done by those who are believers, those who have been regenerated and Love the Lord. So, that is why I can dismiss so much of the old School Higher Critical stuff, because in the end most admitted that they DID NOT believe the Gospel.

[George Wallace]

I fully understand and do not embrace because it fails the most important tests. - scripture and tradition.

Then IMHO you do not "fully" understand. If you did you'd embrace and love the Doctrines of Grace.

I recommend to both you and Hans, the very small book by pastor Rick Philips entitled What's So Great About the Doctrines of Grace? This is the only book I know of that not only explains them but is primarily focused upon why they are Such a Great Treasure! Why they are in fact so Great! ( From our perspective)

Maybe that might help at least giving folks a glimpse of why anyone would Love these Doctrines with so much Joy and Zeal!

[Doug Ward]

Don't see the problem or the arrogance. I don't see Calvinism as a choice at all, I consider it the unadulterated Gospel and am just thankful that in His Grace he led me to the Doctrines of Grace and illuminated my mind. It is all to the praise and for His Glory so, no I don't see any arrogance. Where do you see it?

All I am saying is exactly the inverse of a Roger Olson blog article you posted not to long back, the one where he was lamenting about some radio talk show host was basically reading him Ephesian 1:14 and Romans 9 and saying 'Well what about that Huh!' Olson, stated something about this not being his first rodeo (my paraphrase or idiom) and that he starts out from the position that "It can't mean that". I'm just starting from the position that yes, it can mean that.

To clarify: all that I am saying is that, I believe if a person truly understands the Doctrines of Grace, then they cannot help but embrace them and love them. But, if they continue on in their alternative belief system and reject the Doctrines of Grace, then by virtue of that it appears to me that they cannot really understand them, for if they did they would fall in love with them.

This might be better in a different thread if you desire, but Romans 9 and Ephesians 1 do NOT argue for a Calvinist position at all - unless you completely ignore the context of the Scripture.

[Benjamin Burch]

Then IMHO you do not "fully" understand. If you did you'd embrace and love the Doctrines of Grace.

I recommend to both you and Hans, the very small book by pastor Rick Philips entitled What's So Great About the Doctrines of Grace? This is the only book I know of that not only explains them but is primarily focused upon why they are Such a Great Treasure! Why they are in fact so Great! ( From our perspective)

Maybe that might help at least giving folks a glimpse of why anyone would Love these Doctrines with so much Joy and Zeal!

The problem with this position is that it isn't logical. It isn't as though there is something mysterious about the Doctrines of grace. They are positions which are easily understood mentally. There is not mystical quality to them. Therefore, it seems much more logical a position to hold that while someone might fully understand them, for whatever reason God has not softened their heart enough yet to embrace them.... instead of claiming they don't understand them.

It's not a logically sound position because it requires some sort of mystical quality which doesn't exist. There may be a "spiritual goodness" to them that I would embrace if I could see it as good, but maybe my heart is still too hard and I do not see that as a "good", and my heart needs further softening from God. I'd be much more comfortable with that answer as it is logically consistent and flows naturally from your theological presuppositions and commitments.

And, no offense George, but I won't be spending my time reading a book which attempts to sell Calvinism to me. Even if that means I'm going to rot in hell, I'm very comfortable with that, and would rather spend my time on other things. I am at a comfortable place where hell is a better place than heaven if God is who Calvinism describes God to be. Take it for what it's worth. I genuinely mean no offense by it. I stand firmly with Wesley here. Calvinism makes God worse than the Devil and, if I have to choose, I'll spend eternity with the Devil. He seems a much better guy between the two in that system.

[Benjamin Burch]

So when all is said and done it sorta boils down to a definition of terms. We can set aside for the moment which definition may or may not be correct. But, am I correct in stating that the way "some" define SP this then is revealed as heretical or at least nonsensical; and there is another definition used by "some others" that renders SP as close too or inline with much of the belief of the Eastern Church on this matter?

And that the two earlier post claiming your affinity for SP are to be understood as the SP of the latter definition and the Heretical or nonsensical SP verbiage of your latest post refers to the former definition?

:sigh: One of us is struggling here. LOL

No, that is not what I'm saying.

I'm saying that SP, as normally articulated, is close to in line, if not the same as the belief in the East and almost all the Early Church. That is all.

When I used the words "is a nonsenical heresy", what I meant to say was, "the fact that it has been deemed heresy is nonsensical."

However, I did some reading of Kelly on the issue and found even he is vague and makes understanding/explaining SP like grasping jello. He says on the one hand that the initial movement of faith is the sinner's own and that grace aids and enables the one who has already begun to will his own salvation. Of course, for Hillary (his example here), no man can rescue himself and is in need of this enabling and aiding.

Then Kelly gets to Cassain, and suggests that it is only sometimes that humans might make the first step towards God, and God strengthens this step.

Either way, both of these articulations are, in reality, no different than the Greek fathers, who both affirm the necessity of God's grace in the process and the absolute inability of humanity to rescue themselves without grace, and yet hold free will even to the point of suggesting that we might be the ones who make our first step of will towards God of our own volition. There seems to be no meaningful difference.

[Ian Gentles]

The problem with this position is that it isn't logical. It isn't as though there is something mysterious about the Doctrines of grace. They are positions which are easily understood mentally. There is not mystical quality to them. Therefore, it seems much more logical a position to hold that while someone might fully understand them, for whatever reason God has not softened their heart enough yet to embrace them.... instead of claiming they don't understand them.

It's not a logically sound position because it requires some sort of mystical quality which doesn't exist. There may be a "spiritual goodness" to them that I would embrace if I could see it as good, but maybe my heart is still too hard and I do not see that as a "good", and my heart needs further softening from God. I'd be much more comfortable with that answer as it is logically consistent and flows naturally from your theological presuppositions and commitments.

And, no offense George, but I won't be spending my time reading a book which attempts to sell Calvinism to me. Even if that means I'm going to rot in hell, I'm very comfortable with that, and would rather spend my time on other things. I am at a comfortable place where hell is a better place than heaven if God is who Calvinism describes God to be. Take it for what it's worth. I genuinely mean no offense by it. I stand firmly with Wesley here. Calvinism makes God worse than the Devil and, if I have to choose, I'll spend eternity with the Devil. He seems a much better guy between the two in that system.

Calvanism IS fairly logical, not that I take any sides!
We seem to paint folks differing from us in extreme shades. Evengelical reformed folks tend to be much the same as other evengelical folks. Sure their are the extremes in Calvanism, as in all theological groups. I really dont care if I'm in Heaven by my own free will or predestination. Will just be kinda glad to be there.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Calvanism IS fairly logical, not that I take any sides!
We seem to paint folks differing from us in extreme shades. Evengelical reformed folks tend to be much the same as other evengelical folks. Sure their are the extremes in Calvanism, as in all theological groups. I really dont care if I'm in Heaven by my own free will or predestination. Will just be kinda glad to be there.

That's what i see, Calvinism flows logically and is internally consistent. Whereas other theologies aren't entirely consistent and require living in the tension.

[Doug Ward]

And, no offense George, but I won't be spending my time reading a book which attempts to sell Calvinism to me. Even if that means I'm going to rot in hell, I'm very comfortable with that, and would rather spend my time on other things. I am at a comfortable place where hell is a better place than heaven if God is who Calvinism describes God to be. Take it for what it's worth. I genuinely mean no offense by it. I stand firmly with Wesley here. Calvinism makes God worse than the Devil and, if I have to choose, I'll spend eternity with the Devil. He seems a much better guy between the two in that system.

I'm with Ben here. I would rather kneel and kiss the pope's ring than adhere to any tenet of Calvinism.

[Benjamin Burch]

I'm with Ben here. I would rather kneel and kiss the pope's ring than adhere to any tenet of Calvinism.

Well, that's not a very fair "rather." I actually would love to have the blessed fortune to be able to kiss the Pope's ring some day.

[Doug Ward]

Well, that's not a very fair "rather." I actually would love to have the blessed fortune to be able to kiss the Pope's ring some day.

Ben, sorry. I meant to say - I am with Ben here on his distaste for Calvinism. On a side note, I would rather.... Is that better?

[George Wallace]

The problem with this position is that it isn't logical. It isn't as though there is something mysterious about the Doctrines of grace. They are positions which are easily understood mentally. There is not mystical quality to them. Therefore, it seems much more logical a position to hold that while someone might fully understand them, for whatever reason God has not softened their heart enough yet to embrace them.... instead of claiming they don't understand them.

It's not a logically sound position because it requires some sort of mystical quality which doesn't exist. There may be a "spiritual goodness" to them that I would embrace if I could see it as good, but maybe my heart is still too hard and I do not see that as a "good", and my heart needs further softening from God. I'd be much more comfortable with that answer as it is logically consistent and flows naturally from your theological presuppositions and commitments.

Well, I will humbly confess, that much of what you said here, you have said "better" than my previous statements. Much of what you have said is actually more consistent with what I believe, than that which I stated. Thank You!

When I say "to embrace is to love and to reject is to not fully understand" it comes from or is derivative of my being a Monergist, a Predestinarian, and a believer in Divine Providence. So when I say that, the things you say about God softening the heart, or enlightening the mind are really very close to what I mean. I mean or these ideas are or should be implicit.

However, you have aptly shown me that, the way I have been phrasing this, does not as accurately reflect what I mean as it should. It is wrong to rely on things being implicit, in a statement like this. I should and will make the idea more clear by being more explicit in the future.

"I'd be much more comfortable with that answer as it is logically consistent and flows naturally from your theological presuppositions and commitments." This is most true! Thank you.

I am still uncomfortable with the idea of "fully" understanding though. It is sort of like having a mental assent, but that lacks the experiential, so thus it cannot truly said to be "full". I'll work on a better expression and run it by you. But, in the end what I am trying to express is that you can read books, you can watch recruitment videos; you can watch Jack Webb in The D.I. or watch R. Lee Ermey in the first half of Full Metal Jacket. Yet, having done all of that you still cannot say you "fully" understand USMC Boot Camp, until you have been through it.

Got go
TTFN

[Ian Gentles]

I'm with Ben here. I would rather kneel and kiss the pope's ring than adhere to any tenet of Calvinism.

Well, I sure wouldent kiss any mans ring.

[Billy Cox]

Calvanism IS fairly logical...

Logical like a house of cards in which compromise of any one card causes the whole thing to collapse.

[Cam Pence]

Well, I sure wouldent kiss any mans ring.

The Don is not gonna like this

[Ian Gentles]

The Don is not gonna like this

Gulp!

[Benjamin Burch]

Well, I will humbly confess, that much of what you said here, you have said "better" than my previous statements. Much of what you have said is actually more consistent with what I believe, than that which I stated. Thank You!

When I say "to embrace is to love and to reject is to not fully understand" it comes from or is derivative of my being a Monergist, a Predestinarian, and a believer in Divine Providence. So when I say that, the things you say about God softening the heart, or enlightening the mind are really very close to what I mean. I mean or these ideas are or should be implicit.

However, you have aptly shown me that, the way I have been phrasing this, does not as accurately reflect what I mean as it should. It is wrong to rely on things being implicit, in a statement like this. I should and will make the idea more clear by being more explicit in the future.

"I'd be much more comfortable with that answer as it is logically consistent and flows naturally from your theological presuppositions and commitments." This is most true! Thank you.

I am still uncomfortable with the idea of "fully" understanding though. It is sort of like having a mental assent, but that lacks the experiential, so thus it cannot truly said to be "full". I'll work on a better expression and run it by you. But, in the end what I am trying to express is that you can read books, you can watch recruitment videos; you can watch Jack Webb in The D.I. or watch R. Lee Ermey in the first half of Full Metal Jacket. Yet, having done all of that you still cannot say you "fully" understand USMC Boot Camp, until you have been through it.

Got go
TTFN

Much better communication here, and I think you've done a very fine job here of saying what you mean. Thanks for being patient and talking that one out George. That was a really helpful exchange!

[Benjamin Burch]

Ben, sorry. I meant to say - I am with Ben here on his distaste for Calvinism. On a side note, I would rather.... Is that better?

Should have included an emoticon! I was just having some fun!

[Greg Farra]

Should have included an emoticon! I was just having some fun!

So many things I could say, just not sure any of them are appropriate,lol!