Much of the debate about Election is about cause and effect. Reformed types even use the term "effectual cause" when claiming that God causes individuals to come to Him. The opposition says, "No, no, God doesn't cause it. He simply influences it." And they'll suggest that God draws or woos or urges or calls -- all things outside the person -- but that the person is the cause. But, oh, no, that is not what they say. Because now we've walked into a known problem.
You see, if I caused my own salvation, then I have something to boast about. And we all know that this cannot be the case. No one, then, will agree that I cause my own salvation. "It's a gift" they'll say and indicate that there is no room for boasting just because you received a gift.
I've used this illustration before, but it's worth repeating (primarily because it is likely forgotten or readers never heard it before). Imagine a town built at the base of a tall hill. At the top of the hill is a massive boulder. Thus, the town is called Boulder. (No, not Colorado. This is imaginary.) The boulder has never moved, but when geologists examine it they find that a single, small, key stone is wedged in at the bottom and keeps it in place. Interesting, but, well, okay. One day a couple of boys climb the hill as boys are wont to do and are playing around the boulder. One dares the other to grab that little stone, not actually believing that it would make any difference at all. So the dared one deftly snatches the little rock from its position and returns triumphantly. A minute later the boulder rolls down the hillside and crushes everything in its path, creating a swath of destruction. Now, the question. Who caused that boulder to roll down the hill? The town is certainly going to blame the kid. But, given the thinking of the non-Reformed, wouldn't it have to be God? I mean, those kids didn't put that boulder there. They didn't balance it precariously. They didn't wedge the stone in there. They didn't build the hillside or create gravity. No, no, God did 99.99% of the work here. All that kid did was one, little, tiny thing. He removed the stone. Of course, that one thing was the thing that changed the entire set of conditions -- from "town" to "crushed town". But if logic is to be consistent and we can see that God did 99.9% of the work here, shouldn't we exempt those boys from any responsibility?
Consider another illustration. "Pool party!!" I like this one, of course, living in the desert as I do. A fellow lives in the big house in the middle of his community. He loves his neighbors, so he has a brand new pool put into his backyard big enough to include everyone. He arranges the best possible pool party of all time. He goes door to door handing out flyers, meeting and greeting, inviting each and every person to come to his house for a pool party. Everything is paid for. Everything is provided. Just come! He is a little disappointed, then, when so many don't show up on the day of the party. So, who determined who would show up? Was it the fellow with the pool? Was it the guy in the big house who paid for everything and arranged for everything and invited everybody? Or was it the individuals in the community? Who made the final determination of who would get wet that day? The pool owner decreed that there would be a pool that would have people in it. Who decreed who would be in it?
Another Arizona example would be a firearm. I buy a gun. I load the weapon. I cock the weapon. I take the safety off the weapon. I put the weapon in your hands and point down the gun range at the target. You shoot the target. What determines whether that gun went off? I did all the work. All you did was point and pull. So where does the credit for shooting the target lie? Is it me who did all the work, or is it you who pulled the trigger? And to whom would the blame go if that weapon, prepared as it was by me, was used to do something illegal? You or me?
The constant claim by all sides is a sound, "We have nothing to boast about." No one will claim that our salvation is by our doing. It is "all of God." Right claim. I just can't figure out how, if I determine if I get saved and my choice determines that I am "in" or "out" it can be said that I and not God is the final determination.
33 comments:
All I can say is that your examples are fallacious with no real comparison to what non-TULIPers claim. I'm really surprised that you stooped so low to come up with these nonsensical non-examples of analogies. I had more respect for you than that - you normally have such good arguments. It would take a whole article to show how these examples are so poor.
Your point seems to be, the non-reformed view should state (or must logically state) that we cause our own salvation. In this way we must be able to boast, because we were the cause. In each case the end action would not be possible with the first initial conditions. The town could not have been destroyed without the boulder's placement, the neighbors couldn't attend the party without the man's hospitality, and the target couldn't be hit without your ownership, loading, and cocking of the weapon. In the same way we would say that it is impossible for us to come to God on our own. God has made it possible by his work on the cross, by drawing us to Himself, and offering the gift of grace.
It would make no sense for the boys to claim they pushed the boulder to the top of the mountain and let it go down. It would be absurd for the attenders of the party to claim any special status over the non-attenders, because all had been invited. It would also be silly for the shooter to take full credit for the purchase, loading, cocking, and firing of the weapon.
It seems to me each stance has a mystery involved. The Reformed mystery is "Why does God irresistibly draw some, when he could just as easily draw all, all the while telling us he wants ALL to be saved?" The mystery of the non-Reformed is, "Why do some choose God, and others continue in rebellion, when the Holy Spirit works in each?" Both are tough questions.
One final point. You have authored these stories. The people, boulders, guns...etc have done exactly what you have penned them to do. It makes no sense to assign REAL moral culpability to a character in your authored story. You in fact would be responsible for the decimation of the imaginary town, the attendees of the party, and the shooting of the target. If we are just living out the story of God's authorship, how can we be held morally culpable when we are in fact just living out the story that has been planned for us from all time?
Josh: "In each case the end action would not be possible with(out) the first initial conditions."
True. That would be the proverbial "99.9% that God did". But, it is equally true that none of it would have happened if the persons involved didn't do it. All the preparations ("99.9%") would have been useless -- worse, failed -- if the persons involved didn't act. It appears that you deny this.
As for "authorship", is there any possibility of a distinction in your mind between "ordain" and "cause"? The argument I hear all the time is that apparently there is not. I don't understand that.
If you were to ask any evangelical, Arminian or Calvinist,
(1) whether the Holy Spirit has any role at all in bringing one to faith in Christ, then all would gladly be obliged to answer in the affirmative. Similarly all evangelicals believe that
(2) apart from any action of the Holy Spirit, that no man has the natural capacity/desire to convert himself to Jesus Christ. Left to our unregenerate nature the will is held captive to sin until Christ sets it free. It is not a discussion about coercion by some outside force, for none of us believes that, rather it is about necessity due to our nature. So the contention between evangelicals is not the nature of the will, for we have already determined above that man has no free will; the issue, rather, where evangelicals truly differ is the nature of God’s grace (Is it monergistic or synergistic?)
While synergism does believe grace to play a cooperating role in a persons new birth, yet, unlike monergism, it does not believe regeneration is by grace alone. Instead, to the synergist, it is grace plus the response of our fallen autonomous self which makes us to be born again. So when we scrutinize the position carefully it becomes apparent that grace plays the same role in the one who ends up as a believer as the one who does not ... so this synergistic grace does not carry with it the power to believe and thus only makes available the offer of salvation for natural men to choose or reject Christ of his own innate faculties and natural ability.
The Holy Spirit works in the heart of those who seek God. If they don't seek Him, they won't find Him; God does indeed say, "If you seek him, He will be found by you." (1 Chron 28:9)
for we have already determined above that man has no free will
Um, no. You've only asserted it with no Scriptural back-up. I keep waiting for someone to show me from Scripture that man is unable to chose to follow God.
It is all by grace even with the non-TULIPers. Accepting a gift does not affect the grace of the person giving the gift. The giver of the gift has done every thing; chose the gift, purchased the gift, and offered the gift, all by His own grace. All the person does is accept the gift - which is by faith alone. Choosing to accept the gift takes nothing away from the giver, adds nothing to the gift.
The "power to believe" is in everyone; it's just a matter of choosing to believe, choosing to exercise that belief in the work of Christ, choosing to accept the gift offered. There is nothing in Scripture which says differently, nothing which says man is unable to exercise his free will to accept the gift.
You want just 1 verse that says we don't choose God? "12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God." John 1:12-13
"Not...of human decision..., but born of God". Is that clear enough? We don't choose to receive Him. Or, you say it is only faith that saves, that's not really "something". How about this one, "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God" Ephesians 2:8. Grammatically, "it" is in reference to both grace AND faith. Both are a gift from God. There, 2 verses that say that a) no human decision, and b) faith is from God. And they're just the 2 I quickly looked up. Stan has presented at least a dozen verses a dozen times, and I hate to say it, your denial of the presentation of said verses (not just saying you don't agree that those say that) sounds like another certain someone we used to know.
David,
I believe I respond to this “proof text” (John 1:12-13) previously. It does NOT say man is unable to choose to follow or reject God, nor does it say man cannot to chose to accept the gift of salvation. What it says is that people are born of God when they accept the gift that God provided. Man had nothing to do with the gift of salvation - it was not a decision of man to provide salvation, and when we are born again it has nothing to do with a natural birth - that only God can provide the way of salvation, and — note what it says — they must believe in His name. “ALL who did receive him” — not those who rejected Him. They made a choice to receive him, to believe in his name.
God gives everyone faith, and it is up to the individual to use his faith accordingly. Eph. 2:8-9 is another one with claims back and forth as to what is the “gift of God,” but grammatical structure is salvation. Salvation is not of our own doing, it is a gift of God, given by his grace and accessed by our faith.
There, you have not provided a single passage which says man is unable to choose to follow God, nor has Stan. Don’t read into a passage more than what is there.
Find me one, just one passage which says “man is unable to choose to follow God,” or something remotely similar.
Now, Glenn, I think I need to point out that you're inserting words in the text that aren't there. At least one ... a key one. Nowhere in all the pages of Scripture will you find the concept of "accepting Christ" or the gift of salvation or anything like it. "Accept" isn't in there. In the text in question, the word is "receive" which is not the same thing as "accept". Nothing in the text speaks of accepting the gift. It is received. That is an entirely passive word. "Receiving Christ" is a gift placed in your hands. That gift empowers you to become a son of God. That gift is received not by your choice (very clearly in the text). Very clearly regeneration ("born") is not by our lineage, our efforts, or out wills.
Now, David, I think I need to point out that the text does not say that the one receiving Christ cannot choose. It says that the new birth is not by your choice, but that's not the same thing as saying you cannot choose.
Great! Now I appear to have disagreed with both of you!
Oh, and, Glenn, the suggestion that "that" refers to "salvation" suggests that "grace" and "faith" are your own doing. Grammatically and contextually, the "that not of yourselves, it is a gift of God" refers to the entire phrase, "saved by grace through faith". And I'll be sure to get to your request for a text on "cannot".
Again, I point to my final sentence from my last comment. Just because you don't agree on what we say it is, doesn't mean it doesn't say what we believe it says. Again, Stan has provided numerous verses to corroborate his view (he wouldn't hold to his view if it wasn't Biblical). You don't agree those verses say what he says they say. And that's fine. But accusing us of not providing passages is untrue. We just didn't provide passages that were convincing to you, which is not the same as not providing passages. Please, either complete your sentences (if you meant no one has provided you with passages you agree say what they say) or refrain from making false accusations.
Dad, as for it saying the new birth is not by choice, isn't that same as saying being saved is not a choice, since new birth equals saved? Plus, doesn't the structure seem to demand new birth before choice? If we don't have the right to choose, how can we in any way choose?
Stan,
"Accept" and "Receive" are pretty synonymous. When I receive a gift, I accept it.
I'm still unclear as to how accepting the gift isn't doing something? If I am proffering you a gift, you must make the effort to take the gift. I'm still unclear how you don't have something, even the slightest bit, to boast about in accepting the gift, when so many others don't. What made you smart/special/clever/spiritual enough to accept it where so many don't?
Now, I'm not saying we don't need to accept the gift. That's a given. But the only way to not make you special in being the one to make that choice, is that no one is able to make that choice without God first making you able. Otherwise, there is something special in you that isn't in someone else.
David,
"You don't get here by crossing the bridge" does not say whether or not you have a bridge to cross. "You don't bet saved by your will" doesn't say whether or not you possess a will.
Glenn,
To "receive" a gift is to have one handed to you. To "accept" a gift is to take possession. The first is done without your input. However, it could be argued that a gift received is not a gift accepted until you actually accept it (your choice). On the other hand, it would no longer be true that your new birth is not by your will, then, would it?
Another point that seems to be lost on the 99.9% crowd, they seem to forget that in our natural state, we HATE God. We want nothing to do with Him. So, to accept the gift of salvation from Him would not be something we would want to do in a dozen lifetimes. Saying that there's nothing in us to accept the gift is missing the point that we don't want the gift. If there is something in us (Christians) that made us able to choose the gift despite our hatred, then there is something for us to boast in. On the other hand, if God awakens something in us to allow us to stop hating Him long enough to accept the gift of salvation, there is NOTHING for us to boast in because we didn't have anything to do with the choosing process. There was nothing about us that made us special enough to accept the gift against our hatred of God. Now, if you don't believe that we hate God, then I can see how there would be nothing to boast in, because who boasts in accepting a gift from someone they like?
Both sides agree that the choice must be made to accept the gift. Our side just says that it is God that makes us able to overcome our hatred of Him, and the other side says we kind of like Him already, so there's nothing holding us back from accepting the gift.
Sorry Dad, that didn't make it any clearer. If "You don't get here by crossing the bridge" is the instruction, then there would be no bridges to cross in the getting here. I guess while not directly stated, the implication is that there is a bridge on the trip, otherwise it is a meaningless instruction. And I don't know of anyone that doesn't say we have a will. All I know is that we don't have the ability to use our will in that direction. "You don't get here by crossing the bridge", "because the bridge is blocked". "You don't get saved by your will", "because your will is in opposition to choosing salvation."
The claim that Glenn is objecting to is that Natural Man does not have the capacity to choose God. The text you offered does not say we don't have the capacity to choose God. The text says that we are not born of God by our choice. It doesn't say we don't have the capacity to make the choice.
David,
I'm still trying to figure out how accepting a gift is doing something to merit the gift. I had a Lutheran pastor (back in the days when we were Lutherans) who said that exercising faith was a work; something that doesn't make sense because the Bible many times contrasts faith with works.
David,
None of the passages either of you have posted ever say man is UNABLE to choose for GOD. None. It isn't a matter of my interpretation - they just don't say it.
New birth is not by choice. New birth is the result of the choice. The structure only says that the whole salvation process had nothing to do with man's decisions. God made the decisions as to what his mode of salvation would be and what man would have to do -- what conditions needed to be met - to receive salvation. I understood it that way the very first time I ever read it, and at the time I had never heard of "Reformed" or "Arminian" or any other "ism." I could very well read and understand the English translation.
Stan,
To receive is to accept. The dictionary says they are synonymous. If you received something, you had to accept what was offered. Salvation is offered, and we receive/accept it.
David,
People can "hate" others, and be won to them all the time. If a person hates another, and the other shows continual kindness, the normal person responds to the kindness.
And I don't remember anywhere in the Bible where it says man's natural state is to hate God.
You don't get saved by your will", "because your will is in opposition to choosing salvation."
Merely an assertion. Paul says "If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you shall be saved."
THAT implies will. YOU have to confess, you have to believe, and if you do so, you will be saved. Hebrews says that a person who seeks God will be rewarded.
No, exercising faith is not a work, mustering up faith that you don't have is. We are dead, hostile toward God, and not seeking after Him. Something must change within us to show us to overcome this state. We believe God does 100% of the work to get us there, you believe we do something. Yes God presents the gift, but you must make the effort to accept. That is a work. The fact that you were able to overcome your blindness to the spiritual means you have something to boast in.
As for being "won over" by someone you hate, do you think you could ever be friends with Hitler? The scale of disgust we have for Hitler pales in comparison to the hatred we have toward God. Our thoughts are nothing but wicked before Christ redeems us. 100% wicked wants -100% to do with absolutely holy and perfect and good.
Glenn, Not because it will matter, but the verse about Man hating God is Romans 8:7. Just an FYI.
David
More mere assertions about being dead (taking the dead in sin way beyond the allegory)
So if we don't have the faith to begin with, then there are more lies in the Bible telling us to use our faith.
So if someone buys me a birthday gift and hands it to me, and I accept it from them, that was a work?!?! You like to redefine the word "work." Exercising one's faith is NEVER considered a work in the Bible.
Nice try. failed again
Stan,
My Bible reads "hostile." Even so, Paul says that is over with salvation, when one is then controlled by the spirit.
Man has the ability to seek God even when he lives as hostile to God, because if he didn't, then God is lying when He command man to seek Him. And He is a "rewarder of those who seek Him."
Paul doesn't say man is UNABLE to seek God.
Glenn, again, it's not that I think it will make a difference, but did you not understand that the conversations about Man's inability were in reference to Natural Man, to Man-not-yet-born-again? Of course the regenerated Man is a different case. This one can do good, can seek God, is not hostile to God, any of that stuff. I was just wondering if you never caught that distinction.
Wait, "dead in sin" is allegory? "And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses..." Col 2:13 "Once you were dead because of your disobedience and your many sins." Eph 2:1 In what way is that allegory? Or do you not believe that the death spoken of in the "wages of sin" or "when you eat of it you shall surely" is talking of spiritual death? Even the Colossians verse indicates that we were dead and made alive, not that we made ourselves alive. Again, nobody is disputing that we need to make the choice. I might also go far as to say yes, exercising faith is a work, because faith without works is dead faith. I find it amusing that you can say "Exercising faith is not a work". "Exercising" means to do something. The Bible says that exercising faith does not produce salvation, not that exercising faith is not a work. How would it be a lie to tell us to exercise the faith God has given us? We are told to work because of faith, not the unregenerate.
Your side says that God does 99.9% of the work of salvation, and all we need is that .1%. God CANNOT save anyone if they don't make that step. That is a work of salvation, plain and simple. If God doesn't do 100% of what is necessary for salvation, then we have done something to earn salvation.
The belief that we cannot choose God before He chooses us does not make the rewarding of a seeker moot. He rewards us for doing what He enabled us to do. Doesn't that make grace all that much better? Reward for doing what you're supposed to is called payment, not a gift. Reward for doing what you were enabled to do when you did nothing to earn that reward is a gift.
And you still apparently can't see that you choosing to accept the gift makes you more special than the one that doesn't choose the gift. What made YOU so much smarter/spiritual/special than all those that don't choose? By your standard, there must be something in YOU that makes you smart enough to accept the gift, and trillions of others to not. Why were you so smart? That is what we say you have to boast in. What ever it is in YOU that made you choose while most others don't made you intrinsically special. Our view does not make us intrinsically special. Our view makes our special-ness a gift. Our view aligns with those verses that say we are hostile toward God (pre-conversion), not seeking, always wicked. Your view MUST ignore those verses or re-interpret them. We agree, we must choose. How much more gracious is it that He allows us to choose? We agree that the choice must be made, we agree that we must exercise faith. The thing we disagree on is our ability to muster up the will to make that choice. Our view does not negate the commands for choice, and still agrees with the claims that none are righteous, none seek God, all are dead, all are wicked always. Our view makes grace .1% better than your view. Your view makes grace .1% less than our view. And no matter how far out you drag that decimal, the act of choosing is influencing God to do something on our behalf, negating the gift and replacing it with payment.
The scripture has numerous passages where it says man CAN seek God before being saved. God commands man to seek him before he is saved. If man is unable to seek God before regeneration, then all these numerous passages do not make any sense, and it is all a lie.
Paul still didn't say man is unable to seek God. Saying man hates God is not the same. You have yet to demonstrate from Scripture where it says man is unable to seek God, unable to choose to follow God. It just isn't there.
David,
“Dead” in sin, is not referring to physical death, so it is an allegory. TULIPers over use the allegory by saying that a dead man can not respond to God. The problem with that allegory is that a dead man cannot reject God either.
When we are talking about “works,” it is in the context of works which one hopes will save him. Yet we know that works do not save. Faith is what saves, but it isn’t just faith sitting around, it is faith which is exercised - i.e. used, directed at something. THAT is not a work; it is contrasted with works in Scripture, so it cannot be a work. Works are the result of exercising one’s faith.
It is NOT a work of salvation to accept the gift of salvation. NOWHERE does it say that in the Bible. This was a concoction of Augustine which the Romanists took hold of and the “reformed” teachers didn’t let go of. Nowhere does accepting salvation equal ANY PART of salvation. Salvation is 100% from God. BUT God, in His sovereignty, allows man to choose to accept it or not. BUT the TULIP version says God forces it on the people he has pre-selected, which equates to programming the people without their knowledge or consent.
So if God doesn’t enable a person to seek Him, to repent, then that person is unable to do so, and yet God commands him to do so and holds him responsible for not doing so?!?! Your God is a fickle and illogical God.
And, no, accepting the gift of salvation doesn’t make me any more special than the person who refuses the gift - if just means I’m save and he isn’t.
So then, with all the passages that command to seek, what do YOU do when the Bible says none seek? By your logic the Bible is either lieing about our requirement to seek or is lieing about none seeking. Either way, your Bible is lieing. From our side, the requirement is that we seek God, but none do. The command to seek is not canceled but no one seeking. The command remains if nobody obeys.
So, you don't believe spiritual death? From our side death is not an allegory but the state of our spirit. That is why before Christ we CANNOT understand the things of the spirit because that part of us that would understand is dead
Whoa, we don't believe anyone is condemned for rejecting Christ. We are condemned for choosing to sin, not for not choosing Christ. Choosing Christ saves us, failing to choose Christ doesn't condemn us.
Slight contention on your faith/works segment. Works are not something we do because we have faith. Faith produces works. Exercising faith is making faith do something. Your production of faith is what we claim is a work. You produce faith to accept the gift. YOU did something. You manufactured the faith necessary to accept the gift. Faith is not something we are all born with, so it must be something produced. That is what we say is a work. That is why we say faith is a gift, and the amount of faith is also a gift.
God enabling us to choose Him is not programming. Anyone who is able to choose Him will, why wouldn't they?
And accepting the gift by your own power makes you more than those that don't. You overcame something they didn't.
David,
We keep going to the same “proof” texts; i.e., Rom. 3:11 citing Psalms. The Psalm was referencing Israel, and Paul is using it to point out that Jews and Gentiles behave a like. BUT, to say it literally means no one does good, no one seeks God — rather than hyperbole — then you’d have to say it’s wrong because people do good all the time! I see it like Elijah saying he was the only one left. God let him know that he really wasn’t. We do indeed feel like no one seeks God by looking at the world around us, and as a whole the majority suppress the knowledge of God like Rom 1 says. There is still a big difference between saying no one seeks God because they don’t want to, and saying no one seeks God because they are unable.
I never said I didn’t believe in spiritual death - I said the allegory can’t be taken to an extreme. Because if you take the analogy to mean we are unable to seek/choose God, then you confuse the issue. “Dead men can’t choose God” — But dead men can’t do ANYTHING.
Whoa, we don't believe anyone is condemned for rejecting Christ. We are condemned for choosing to sin, not for not choosing Christ. Choosing Christ saves us, failing to choose Christ doesn't condemn us
Straw man. We non-TULIPers agree that all people are condemned because of sin, but that we can be saved by receiving Christ’s gift of salvation.
You TULIPers have nothing going for you but assertions and word games. “Faith produces works” - this is the fallacy of reification. Faith can’t do anything. When we exercise our faith, we produce works. Faith is not a work. We are all given faith, or else we couldn’t be told throughout Scripture that we need to apply it. Again, if we are commanded to exercise faith, to seek God, to Choose God, etc, we must have the ability or the whole bit is a lie.
Your TULIP logic is very poor. You just keep asserting things are so without any Scriptural backing.
God enabling us to choose Him is not programming
So, we are all programmed to be able to choose, but God only enables — turns on the switch — for those he selects independent of their choices, and then He holds everyone else responsible for not having their switch turned on? Capricious God.
Anyone who is able to choose Him will, why wouldn't they? You’re kidding, right? Ever read Romans 1? How many times have I heard that accepting the idea of God will interfere with one’s morals, so they will choose to remain unbelievers so they can imbibe their sexual proclivities!
I’m really tired of this debate because it is getting nowhere and I have a lot better things to do. You will never change your TULIP beliefs and I will never change my Bible beliefs.
Interesting, Glenn. I don't think anyone has accused you of being a heretic or of denying Scripture or even of being stupid. And, yet, you appear to be ... hostile. People like me don't believe what we believe because we're stupid, "asserting things without any Scriptural backing", "too Romish", or any such thing. But you are "biblical" and we're "TULIPers" as if the two are distinct. It's not possible that we believe what we believe because it's what we see in Scripture. We only believe it ... what ... because we're evil or blinded or ... something unpleasant and unkind.
It is really a good idea that you end this debate. It has made you look bad not from a position perspective. It has made you look like a hater of the brethren if they disagree with you, as if no one can have a different opinion of Scripture than you. Very sad, in fact. It would likely be best for your Christian testimony if you didn't argue so harshly with Bible-believing Christians who happen to disagree with you on fine points of Scripture.
I just love how people assume "hostility" and "anger" when in discussions. I am not projecting any "hatred" of "the brethren." Funny, though, when I call out cultists for their false teachings, they also call me a "hater," as do homosexualists when I say homosexual behavior is wrong. What is it with people who pull out the "hate card" when someone disagrees with them? I thought better of you than that, Stan.
Well, I AM "hostile," not to people, but to false teachings, teachings which unnecessarily burden believers with all sorts of worries. TULIPism (I don't dare call it "Calvinism") does just that. NO ONE can know if they are saved because no one can KNOW if they are one of the elect.
I am also "hostile" to cult teachings, such as Romanism, Mormonism, JW, etc (yes, I consider Romanism to be cultic, since, like the cults, they add their own prophets (popes) and teachings from them over and above Scripture, etc.
And TULIPism is NOT "fine points of Scripture." It's the difference between a capricious, puppeteering, and unloving God and a God who loves all mankind enough to send His son to die for their sins and who gives them their own choice whether or not to accept the gift.
And guess what - as I read the Bible, I see Christ hostile to the false teachings as well as false teachers. I see Paul also hostile to false teachings. So if I am "hostile" to false teachings, I guess I'm in good company.
By the way, I never said anyone was "stupid," but I get that inference from TULIPers that I am stupid because I just don't understand TULIPism.
And I have more than many times tried to avoid the TULIP/non-TULIP debate but whenever I duck out I get denigrated for leaving and goaded and goaded to respond to false claims, assertions, etc.
Glenn,
I think you're wrong about your interpretation about these passages of Scripture. I do not think you're too Pelagian, too heretical, too unbiblical. Why do I think you're too harsh? Because you are not allowing for a difference of opinion, but assuming something far worse. At best we're just too stupid to understand plain Scripture. At worst we are intentionally distorting it. I have not made any such accusations towards your views. I haven't called your God powerless, incompetent, or incapable. You've called mine capricious, puppeteering, and unloving. This is not a hatred for false teaching. It is an absolute denial that I can possibly be attempting to follow Scripture. That makes it more than "false teaching" to which you are opposed. It is an opposition to anyone who holds it as indicated by your descriptions. And, really, Glenn, would you expect me to see less hostility toward me than you see from others who disagree with you? I think you've portrayed all the same characteristics you decry in others. I don't, on the other hand, think I've exhibited any such thing toward your view. In this case turnabout is not fair play. So, please, by all means, duck out on this argument. As you have indicated, it serves no further purpose but to create interpersonal tensions with someone, up until this exchange, I counted as a confederate.
Post a Comment