tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post4971911744323993912..comments2024-01-24T10:39:27.668-05:00Comments on Coming Untrue: Dear Preacher: On Calvinism and PrideDr. S. L. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06303707167715370504noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-74486675825644738622019-05-04T11:39:21.384-04:002019-05-04T11:39:21.384-04:00Whatever happened to respecting both the Holy Spir...Whatever happened to respecting both the Holy Spirit as well as the mystery of the Holy Spirit?<br />Do all Hardcore Calvinists believe they have ALL of God’s wisdom and knowledge largely OUTSIDE of teaching and knowing that to be born again is to be baptized by the Holy Spirit first?<br />To have the indwelling of God promises one MIGHTY thing, that being that theologians haven’t solved or saved one single soul. God, in His marvelous GRACE does, <br />WHEN AND WHERE AND HOW HE CHOOSES TO!<br />After seeing the dumpster fire that Luther unintentionally started still smoldering I’d just Be careful to raise Calvin to a God-like entity.<br />No, of COURSE we’re not saved by good works however Gods word declares that faith without works is dead. Those who have to gnash their teeth about those simple truths don’t understand Jesus teachings or promises.<br />( hint: church “membership” won’t help one bit )<br />It certainly hasn’t exactly worked towards a level of the appearance of grace for members of Westborough Baptist Church who have clearly disgraced the Holy Spirit, the ONLY unpardonable sin.<br /> What say you Mr. Calvin?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-62165045116617738072019-01-11T16:52:09.509-05:002019-01-11T16:52:09.509-05:00Thanks, that clears it up. It's basically as i...Thanks, that clears it up. It's basically as is said "You made your bed , now lie in it."Qmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-77239605208148441382019-01-11T14:31:35.601-05:002019-01-11T14:31:35.601-05:00Hi, Q:
The Pharaoh case is one often trotted out ...Hi, Q:<br /><br />The Pharaoh case is one often trotted out by Calvinists to bolster the idea of election-to-damnation. They believe they are being scriptural because of their reading of what is said about Pharaoh in Romans. However, a quick check of the facts by looking at Exodus shows that Pharaoh hardened HIS OWN heart the first few times, and only “was hardened” later. If anything, that teaches us that while human beings do have free will, they do not remain forever free if they choose to abuse it. As C.S. Lewis so pithily put it, “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.' If we will not choose God, eventually, it seems, he accords us the full effect of our choice. But he does not elect people to damnation: rather, he is 'not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.' ”Immanuel Canhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580529966007662214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-18304462644461546622019-01-10T21:42:42.459-05:002019-01-10T21:42:42.459-05:00The Reformation time period was brutal and an unbr...The Reformation time period was brutal and an unbridled backlash against the omnipresent worldly influence of the Catholic Church and secular royal and economic favoritism, hardship, taxation and oppression. The Calvinist argument was just one of many trying to loosen the shackles of evonomic and religious unfairness via a different interpretation of how the creature should relate to its creator. As such it brings up the question of determinism in creation where man is not free to cooperate with God in his own path of salvation. This idea survives to our days in competition with other ideas. E.g., Einstein was spiritual and strongly believed in God, but not a personal God. Others have envisioned God as a clock maker where, once set in motion, everything follows a predetermined path, close to what Calvinism implies.<br /><br />Simple analysis shows the fallacies in Calvins ideas. E.g., it is clear that Calvenists, being clock automatons, would have no problem in calling another automaton a callous person if they met one that behaves that way and they would then act accordingly by shunning that person (which, of course, is also a programmed response). Likewise, by default therefore, they have no problem assigning the callous label also to the creator of the clock. Callous because all existing notions of love, caring and concern, compassion, etc. would simply have to be nothing but a self contradictory, cynical and programmed farce since none of them are really needed in achieving the redemption of a soul, which is simply a preprogrammed inevitability. Of course, unfortunately for the Calvinist, they can, however, not continue to shun and evade callousness in their lives forever since by their claims that simply is the character and nature of their God whom they will meet one day.<br /><br />It is unfortunate, but human logic can sometimes not be helped out of the abyss that some create for the unthinking with often terribly flawed ideas, and that many carelessly fall into with sonetomes horrific and tragic results. How true, therefore, when Christ compared us to sheep that can get lost and need the true shepherd.<br />Qmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-78284713264907466752019-01-10T12:33:27.315-05:002019-01-10T12:33:27.315-05:00Actually an interesting point made by Micah (not t...Actually an interesting point made by Micah (not that I think Calvinism is correct, but...) -<br /><br />"doomed from the womb (... by God) to certain death, and are to glorify Him by his destruction?"<br /><br />My question -<br />Hello? Anyone remember God talking to (... or about) Pharao about having been born to give him glory by his resistance to the Exodus of the Jews?<br /><br />Or should one say, well, it's just an isolated case?<br />Qmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-37236131956721337142014-03-27T20:40:47.434-04:002014-03-27T20:40:47.434-04:00Micah:
Thanks for the encouragement, Micah.
I ...Micah:<br /><br />Thanks for the encouragement, Micah. <br /><br />I share some of your reservations on the theological position in question, and could perhaps add some as well. However, I'm going to stand by my earlier statement about assuming goodwill on the part of interlocutors from the other side.<br /><br />Why, you ask? Because it is quite possible for a person to believe Neo-Calvinist things without any particular malice in mind. He could, for example, believe wrongly because he had been taught wrongly, and had never heard another side or reflected deeply enough to detect a problem. Or there could be something in his past which, through no fault of his own, predisposed him to think Neo-Calvinism was desirable, but did not equip him to see alternatives. (For example, I have a dear friend who is sadly afflicted with misapprehensions of doctrine, and I think it's largely a reaction to an abusive father: and i do believe he can grow past that.) Or he could be a person who started out in the wrong place, but was migrating in his views in the right direction and would be willing to learn.<br /><br />In the present case of "the Preacher," I know he went to a seminary where they taught a particular slant. There he met men of reputation who impressed him with their oratorical flair and thunderous pronouncements. I can see that he imbibed some of their phrases and assumptions without testing them properly. I'm not sure, in fact, he knew how to test them. But by my best assessment, I don't think his personal understanding or commitment to Neo-Calvinism is very deep. He's a nice man, though he is not a particularly astute philosopher. In straightforward matters, he teaches truth and teaches quite well. Moreover, he's not mean-spirited or hard. He simply doesn't know better yet.<br /><br />I'm not saying I've never met Neo-Calvinists who are irrational, mean-spirited and obdurate; but that is not a feature unique to Calvinism as an error. Even real Christians can sometimes, through fear or fleshliness, fail to be gracious and circumspect. We all need to with personal humility, even when we speak the truth with confidence: "...with gentleness and reverence," the Scriptures say.<br /><br />So I stand by my comment. Let's be gracious if we can. If we need to be confrontational and blunt, it should not be to people who merely make mistakes, but only to those who knowingly insist on error.<br /><br />Still, I appreciate your encouragement very much, and take you in the best spirit in offering your thoughts.Immanuel Canhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580529966007662214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-73677238235555309642014-03-27T17:24:41.137-04:002014-03-27T17:24:41.137-04:00Enjoy the fervency of your response, Micah. I'...Enjoy the fervency of your response, Micah. I've never been one to write on this subject because to me, it's evident that if you deny the possibility of a genuine reaction (pro OR con) to a sincere instruction or command from God in his word, you make nonsense of the entire exercise. Surely we must be able to accept or reject such things, respecting of course the occasional situations in the word in which God "hardened his heart", etc., for particular reasons and under unusual circumstances.<br /><br />That said, there are clearly those who struggle with this issue, genuinely trying to find an answer.<br /><br />I suspect in the particular situation that prompted this post, there was room for interpretation as to what the preacher intended. It was, perhaps, not entirely clear whether the speaker was stark staring nuts or simply misspeaking, in which case there is probable some latitude to graciously allow him the opportunity to clarify his position. Of course, that's my thought. I wasn't there. So I'm curious to see what Immanuel has to say ...Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00346761712248157930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-22206303565430914532014-03-27T14:50:49.170-04:002014-03-27T14:50:49.170-04:00I loved the post itself, but the comment to anon, ...I loved the post itself, but the comment to anon, not so much and I'll tell you why.<br /><br />"I think Calvinism is attractive to people for different reasons.......each other to be persons of goodwill first"<br /><br />I don't buy this type of consideration to a Calvinist because it's clearly ungodly teaching. Jesus emphatically states "you're either with me or against me" and "the battle isn't against flesh and blood, but principalities and powers of darkness. Either Jesus is correct and he wished that "NONE should perish but for ALL to come to repentance" or He didn't. <br /><br />Where does Jesus teach that some are "doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify Him by their destruction?" Am I supposed to share goodwill with that, Immanuel?<br /><br />What kind of grace is the type you can't reject? Did Jesus have to die so that only the preordained could be saved? What kind of glory is that, surely not the shekinah glory my Savior has? <br /><br />I also love the argument about being a three-point Calvinist so they don't have to answer for all of this foolishness. Well, I believe either John Calvin taught from Godly revelation and inspiration or he didn't. Remember the for me or against me reference?<br />Compromising the Gospel is not taught in my bible and I don't believe it's taught in yours either.<br /><br />2 John 7-11 teaches us how we should teach compromisers of the Gospel.<br /><br />Lastly, if any part of Calvinism is true then what type of punishment awaits those who preach the possibility of salvation to the unelected? <br /><br />Again, I loved the post. God bless you<br />Micahnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-32812820368519244192014-03-26T19:24:13.912-04:002014-03-26T19:24:13.912-04:00Thank you for your kind comments. My point is sim...Thank you for your kind comments. My point is simply to point out that charity works well on both sides. I think Calvinism is attractive to people for different reasons, depending on the person in question; I also think disinclination to Calvinism is possible and attractive for different reasons. The main thing is to listen to each other and assume no evil until we are certain of the motivations of the person to whom we are talking.<br /><br />Beyond that, the logical difficulties are a secondary question. But we'll never get to the logical issues until we accept each other, assuming each other to be persons of goodwill first. Communication and mutual learning always require goodwill.Immanuel Canhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11580529966007662214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-1963981730615719962014-03-26T01:17:48.714-04:002014-03-26T01:17:48.714-04:00The Calvinism debate is not one I have gotten into...The Calvinism debate is not one I have gotten into in years. However, I really appreciate, in ANY debate, an approach like yours. "Nuance", in the political arena, has gotten a bad name, and rightly so; but any attempt (such as the one made in this article) to see the best in people and their motives (when there is no obvious evidence of bent thinking or ill will) is most welcome. As is the clarity of thought!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com