Who you callin’ what?

Posted by: Nathan
in Misuse of Scripture, ODM Responses, Original Articles, Uncategorized
2
Aug

It seems like the new word of choice is “pelagian” around the watch doggie sites. I have done some studies on early church heresies in both my undergrad and graduate studies, so I have a descent understanding of the term pelagian and semi-pelagian. According to Wikipedia, this is the definition of pelagianism

Pelagianism is the teaching that man has the capacity to seek God in and of himself apart from any movement of God or the Holy Spirit. According to semi-Pelagianism, man doesn’t have such an unrestrained capacity, but man and God could cooperate to a certain degree in this salvation effort: man can (unaided by grace) make the first move toward God, and God then completes the salvation process.

I don’t know too many emerging thinkers would follow pelagiansim as it is defined. Really, I can hardly think of any. In fact, I don’t know too many that would follow semi-pelagianism as it is defined here. Just because someone does not believe that God chooses who and who doesn’t go to hell does not mean that they do not believe in grace. In fact, it seems more gracious of God to send his son for the whole world with the simple idea that whosoever believes in Him will receive eternal life. There is no clause saying whosoever God chooses will go to hell… it is graciously offered freely to anyone who believes. I wake up every day thanking God for the grace that he extends to me daily. The fact that I am breathing shows His amazing grace. But Him extending me the offer of salvation…now that shows absolute Grace. Rather than seeing God’s grace a small streams going to select people, I see it as a mighty river flowing towards humanity.

So watch doggie writer, next time you start to type out p-e-l-a-g… stop. think. Is the person you are about to attack really dismissing Grace completely? Or do they just see the doctrines of grace much greater than you do?

  • Share/Bookmark
This entry was posted on Thursday, August 2nd, 2007 at 5:05 pm and is filed under Misuse of Scripture, ODM Responses, Original Articles, Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

 

+/- Collapse/Expand All

36 Comments(+Add)

1   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
August 2nd, 2007 at 5:10 pm

“watch doggie writer”

*tsk tsk*

2   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 2nd, 2007 at 5:16 pm

Why is it OK to believe that God will offer grace to some, but it is not OK to believe that God offers grace to all? It’s just a disagreement concerning numbers, right?

As far as the exact chronology of the invisible workings of the Spirit concerning salvation, there is an element of mystery. And if you believe that man has no will whatsoever, and if that is true, then why do you care about pelagian, semi-pelagian, quarter-pelagian, emerging pelagian, oriental pelagian, orthodox pelagian, limited pelagian, unconditional pelagian, irresistable pelagian, and perservering pelagians?

I thought a pelagian was the cousin to the Platypus.

3   Julie    http://www.loneprairie.net/lp_blog/blog.htm
August 2nd, 2007 at 6:22 pm

Regarding the whole pelagian, Calvinism, Arminian, etc. debates: there is no way we humans are going to get it 100 percent right.

None. The sooner we quit thinking we have our theology flawlessly perfect with no room for error, we have surely made the biggest error yet.

I would, in that case, much rather err on the side of grace and that when God so loved the world, it meant everyone. If I am wrong, obviously God will take care of that. But to go around saying “Nope, not you, you, you, or you. You’re not regenerate” is an error I don’t wish to have on my head. I will assume that “whosoever believeth in Him” means just that, and I will assume that until I get to heaven and find out otherwise. In either case, it’s not my problem to figure out who gets there and who does not.

Go into all the world an preach the Gospel.

End of story.

Not, “Go into all the world an preach a human version of the Gospel and then go back and discuss on your blog who you think isn’t going to get to heaven.”

To borrow a horrible spaghetti western concept: Shoot ‘em all and let God sort it out.

(”Shoot” as in, tell them the Gospel.)

4   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:23 pm

Ken,

Tim did not call you out specifically, so perhaps it is your own conscience bothering you (or perhaps your own inflated ego), assuming that you’re the only ‘watch doggie writer’ out there.

5   Ken Silva    http://www.apprising.org
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:56 pm

It was Nathan… :-)

6   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:22 pm

Just some thoughts re: the following comment: Just because someone does not believe that God chooses who and who doesn’t go to hell does not mean that they do not believe in grace. In fact, it seems more gracious of God to send his son for the whole world with the simple idea that whosoever believes in Him will receive eternal life.

For me it’s not a emphasis on who God chooses “[to] go to hell” but rather who He chooses for salvation. Those not chosen, simply receive their just punishment. Isn’t hell what we all deserve? Since I have no way of knowing specifically who those people are, I witness/give the Gospel to all…and then, as Julie says “God sorts it out.”

“Go into the world and preach.” Couldn’t agree more.

Consider two possibilities:
(1) God chooses “before the foundation of the world” who will be saved and at the proper time/His time, God draws them, they believe, and they are saved.

(2) God “graciously offer[s salvation] freely to anyone who believes”, they believe and are saved.

Both scenarios have the same end:
Some people–mabye lots–are NOT saved. People are born, live and die, because God either didn’t choose them for salvation OR He looked into the future, saw they would not believe, and did nothing. (I assume if God looks into the future and sees an “event,” it WILL happen. No one is going to pull an end-around on God.)

My question: Why is it more gracious for God to allow someone to be born that He sees/knows full well will not believe versus Him not choosing them for salvation?

7   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:39 pm

Keith,

There is another possibility, though, involving string theory, which would also allow explanation of other parts of scripture. It is rather a long explanation, which I touched on here. I will most likely be touching on it again.

8   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
August 3rd, 2007 at 2:10 am

Here is an interesting quote…

“I say God alone chooses whom He will save according to His will and grace and nothing whatsoever to do with anything any human being ever does. You say, at least on some level, man cooperates with God. Monergism vs. synergism. Opposites.” Ken Silva to Mike Clawson

“God the Holy Spirit does do all the work but only through obedient believers willing to die to self and let Him use them as empty vessels filled with Christ. To do this means we simply must be open to more than mere intellectual “contextualization,” we must be willing preach the Biblical Gospel of the historic orthodox Christian faith from the Scriptures alone regardless of the culture or the personal cost. http://www.apprising.org/archives/2006/10/got_faith.html

So which is it… is through only obedient believers? Or by God alone?

Talk about semi Pelagian theology!

Ken again speaks out onside and then the other of his own mouth… it is by our own obedience that proves we are saved, and yet it is ALL God.

Now, the interesting thing is I see it ALL God and yet I am wrong and not saved according to Ken Silva. So… I am a bit confused how he can toss a word around…. “I think that word, does not mean what you think it does.”

My view is that dead and lost people give their death to Jesus to receive His Life… and then live by His obedience as taught in Romans 5:19… we walk in Jesus’ obedience and not our own as we have none to give… it is as if Ken is stating we by our own obedience are then good enough to be accepted by God… which is semi Pelagianism if I ever heard it.

Ever walking in the Life of Christ and trusting in His obedience,
iggy

9   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
August 3rd, 2007 at 2:30 am

Keith,

Is man immortal? Did God choose men to be saved?

I see that it was Jesus Christ that God “chose” and was “The Elect”. Otherwise man would have had to be “in Christ” before the foundations of the world… and from all eternity, yet, the Bible is clear only Jesus is and was ever immortal and man is not.

It is that God predestined those to be “IN CHIRST” and to be saved… for it is Jesus who was in the Father before creation and through all creation came.

God foreknew those to be “IN CHRIST” .
Romans 8

1. Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,
2. because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death.

This context stays until verses 28,29,30.

This is also why we are to be born “of the Spirit” as we are only temporal creatures need be raised immortal. WE did not exist in some abstract form of thought in the mind of God before creation… that is Hinduism and other religions.

We then who are “in Christ” are predestined to be conformed to His Image.

Ephesians 1: 4 – 6 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will– to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.

Notice that God chose us “in Him” before creation… that those who would be in Him would be predestined to be adopted.

” Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!” To be a new creation one must be “in Chirst”…

I know this is a bit abstruse and complex but if grasped the understanding of what and who God foreknew comes clearer. God simply foreknew that those who would be “in Christ” would be saved. For there is no other way or Person to be saved.

Be Blessed,
iggy

10   Ian    http://lostintheheartofsomewhere.blogspot.com
August 3rd, 2007 at 2:35 am

“For me it’s not a emphasis on who God chooses “[to] go to hell” but rather who He chooses for salvation. Those not chosen, simply receive their just punishment. Isn’t hell what we all deserve? Since I have no way of knowing specifically who those people are, I witness/give the Gospel to all”

but the problem is that if God chooses who are being saved, then they are not being judged according to the same standard as those who are being sent to hell. This means that either God is unjust, or that he only offers the unmerited favour of grace to some. Both of these options do not show God in a good light (and yes … the ‘potter’ scripture can be quoted here, but that is about the choice God makes and not the standards he uses or the motivation ebhind it which is what we are discussing here). In one option he sets a standard and the disregards it to get a few people into heaven, and in the other he chooses who goes to hell by choosing who to bestow grace upon.

You cannot have a single presestination – it has to be a double presestination to make sense.

I would suggest that God’s sovereignty is proven more by allowing the choice to accept grace to be given to every human being – it is in His sovereignty he can make that offer – which then means a subsequent judgement is truly just.

11   D.MacDonald    
August 3rd, 2007 at 3:05 am

Comment from Julie
Regarding the whole pelagian, Calvinism, Arminian, etc. debates: there is no way we humans are going to get it 100 percent right.

None. The sooner we quit thinking we have our theology flawlessly perfect with no room for error, we have surely made the biggest error yet.

I would, in that case, much rather err on the side of grace and that when God so loved the world, it meant everyone. If I am wrong, obviously God will take care of that. But to go around saying “Nope, not you, you, you, or you. You’re not regenerate” is an error I don’t wish to have on my head. I will assume that “whosoever believeth in Him” means just that, and I will assume that until I get to heaven and find out otherwise. In either case, it’s not my problem to figure out who gets there and who does not.

Go into all the world an preach the Gospel.

End of story.

Not, “Go into all the world an preach a human version of the Gospel and then go back and discuss on your blog who you think isn’t going to get to heaven.”

To borrow a horrible spaghetti western concept: Shoot ‘em all and let God sort it out.

(”Shoot” as in, tell them the Gospel.)

I agree (insert smiley)

12   phil    
August 3rd, 2007 at 7:17 am

To me the thing that gets lost in the debate about Election and such is what exactly is means to be one of the Elect. In Scripture, God’s chose people to serve Him by being a blessing to others, to all Nations. Israel largely neglected this mission and was dealt with harshly because of it. What makes Christians think that we are any different?

If we neglect are mandate to advance the Kingdom by serving and sacrificing for others, we are no better than Israel in the OT. If we think of Election in individualistic terms, I believe we miss the actual point of what God is “electing” us for.

13   keith    
August 3rd, 2007 at 8:05 am

Iggy: Don’t get bogged down in the Romans 8-9 or Ephesians passages. I’m not trying to convert anyone to my side. I’m probably in the minority here, and that’s OK. We simply see the “how” people are saved differently. The fact that they ARE saved is still cause for joy!

I AM still asking the question, which I don’t see as being answered yet.

Q: Why is it more gracious for God to allow someone to be born that He sees/knows full well will not believe versus Him not choosing them for salvation?

I’m assuming we are not questioning God’s ability to see/know/look into the future who will and who will not believe–and I don’t think anyone is doing that.

Ian: Where does Scripture say that God HAS to deal with everyone “according to the same standard?” Are you suggesting “fair” or “equally?” Scripture doesn’t tell us, at least I don’t see it, what His motivation is in choosing. Note phrases such as: “God’s purpose according to His choice…”, or “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy…” God doesn’t give an explanation, and I’m not so sure He’s obliged to. You referred to “the potter” and I think it’s a good point: “Who are you to answer back to God?” I’m certainly not happy about the fact that people go to hell–whether it is by God’s or “their own choice”, but I don’t see as being my business to tell Him how to do things.

God chose the Jewish nation over all others and no one seems to have a problem with that.

14   phil    
August 3rd, 2007 at 8:18 am

Keith,
I don’t think we should turn this into a huge debate about predestination, but I think even Christians who are more Arminian in their theology would accept the concept of “collective election” as in the nation of Israel. Personally, thinking of the Elect as collective group is a model that satisfies me. I have a hard time seeing how seeing it in individualistic terms is really beneficial, actually. It seems to me that when people start thinking of themselves as “Elect” it can lead to serious problems.

15   Keith    http://www.fivepts/blogspot.com
August 3rd, 2007 at 8:27 am

Phil: I agree re: not turning this into debate. I can tell you up front, I’m not budging–and I’m pretty sure Iggy won’t either. That’s NOT what I’m asking. Again, it doesn’t matter HOW it happens, my question still is:

Why is it (or is it) more gracious for God to allow someone to be born that He sees/knows full well will not believe versus Him not choosing them for salvation?

Isn’t the end result the same?

16   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
August 3rd, 2007 at 8:46 am

Also, to be clear as to Israel being ‘chosen’:

They were chosen to be blessed so that they could pass that blessing on through Torah, so that everyone could know who God is. In the Temple, there was a large area, the Court of the Gentiles, where ‘God-fearers’ were allowed (and encouraged) to come worship Him. God-fearers were not required to keep the Mosaic Covenant, but to keep the Noaic Covenant.

Being the ‘chosen people’ was not an issue of salvation in the afterlife, but one of blessing and duty in this one.

17   phil    
August 3rd, 2007 at 8:52 am

Keith,
Honestly your question is not one I have the desire to find an answer to. In all practicality, my views on the matter are closer to the much maligned Greg Boyd’s than either of the options given. I tend to view God as one who both goes through time with us, and is outside of time. There will always be a tension that is beyond our comprehension.

Chris,
As always, you say more succinctly and clearly what I was trying to get at. That’s an excellent explanation.

18   Keith    http://www.fivepts/blogspot.com
August 3rd, 2007 at 8:58 am

OK.

19   nathan    http://www.nathanneighbour.com
August 3rd, 2007 at 9:17 am

Keith,

I posed that question/statement in reaction to the watch doggies constantly saying that I am defecating on the doctrines of Grace. The fact is, even those who reject reformed theology hold to a strong sense of Grace. To me, it seems more gracious of God to allow man to have free will and give “whosoever” a choice of salvation than to give some hell and some heaven.

20   Ian    http://lostintheheartofsomewhere.blogspot.com
August 3rd, 2007 at 9:29 am

Nathan

To a conservative reformed person the doctrine of grace is not just about the unmerited favour of God, it is about God’s choice to bestow that grace. As such, to not accept predestination (and perserverance) is to reject the doctrines (note the plural!) of grace.

This, in the end, is the problem. as long as someone is described as rejecting the gospel because they do not hold to calvinism (thereby rejecting the doctrines of blah blah blah) there will be this gulf between most of historic Christianity and the ODM and their ilk.

21   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 3rd, 2007 at 10:55 am

I want to be open minded about this, so let me interject that Calvin was completely wrong. I hope that brings light.

22   keith    
August 3rd, 2007 at 12:17 pm

Henry (Rick), Ian, and Phil: I’m not concerned here whether Calvin was right or wrong. My original question was prompted by Nathan’s original post–and it still is. I’m not questioning whether someone is a Christian or not; whether someone believes in “grace” or not. I don’t want to debate election or what that term might mean. All I want to know is:
As far as the end result–why is it perceived to be more gracious of God to allow an individual to be born, live their life, NEVER believe, die and spend eternity in hell because THEY didn’t choose God. They still died and went to hell and GOD KNEW ALL ALONG THAT’S EXACATLY HOW IT WAS GOING TO PLAY OUT. How is that gracious? How is that showing God in a “good light” (Ian’s term)?

Chris: I understand your response re: Israel and would agree, but that still doesn’t help me with my dilemma/question. I’m honestly trying to understand something here.

23   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
August 3rd, 2007 at 12:25 pm

Keith,

About the “I’m not budging”… I emerging, so I still have that option… = )

The point on predestination is that there are many interpretations… I think there be only one that is right, but at this point there is so much noise and confusing that only the Holy Spirit and Paul know for sure….

My position is centered on Jesus… So my theology is centered on Jesus as the answer to the hard passages. I just look at them from that point of view and see the central theme as being “in Christ” and work out from there.

But, I have changed my mind many times. I was once a strong Arminian who if someone OSAS they would want to change their mind so they would not have to be in heaven with me… :-)

I was legalistic though I knew inside I was not even keeping up with the standard I believe…. I almost walked away from God at one point, yet God started revealing His great Grace to me… and I have been infected by it ever since. (I even at one point became legalistic for grace, until God showed me His true freedom) :- )

I was never a “Calvinist” but I have seriously and still do look at it. I just see in consistencies and places where one must bend and twist the scripture around to fit that doctrine… (The same i did as an Arminian), yet it seems now I read it and see what it states and see a totally different picture.

Yet, I am the first to state this is my view today, until God shows me otherwise so as far as “predestination” I hold loosely to my view and tightly to Jesus.

Be Blessed,
iggy

24   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
August 3rd, 2007 at 12:28 pm

Keith,

My newest post may give you an answer (or at least a non-answer) to your question.

25   Ian    http://lostintheheartofsomewhere.blogspot.com/
August 3rd, 2007 at 12:30 pm

“As far as the end result–why is it perceived to be more gracious of God to allow an individual to be born, live their life, NEVER believe, die and spend eternity in hell because THEY didn’t choose God. They still died and went to hell and GOD KNEW ALL ALONG THAT’S EXACATLY HOW IT WAS GOING TO PLAY OUT. How is that gracious? How is that showing God in a “good light” (Ian’s term)?”

Sigh – I’ll bite. This is a great question, and one that in the end we cannot fully answer because of the issue raised in the post on crn.info ‘Of Blind Men, Elephants and the Tyranny of the OR’. However, I think the difference could be explained as an issue of Justice. The Bible tells us that God is a God of Justice, and that He is no respecter or persons. As such, he has chosen to judge everyone equally. His Grace is available to everyone (”whomsoever believes …”) so everyone must have the chance of accepting that Grace offered. If someone was created who could never accept Grace then the Bible is untrue.

C S Lewis summed it up nicely when he said that in the end there would only be two types of people. Those who say to God ‘Thy will be done’ and those to whom God says ‘Thy will be done’. By giving everyone the chance (even though he can see the end) Justice is thus satisfied.

26   keith    
August 3rd, 2007 at 12:59 pm

Chris: good enough. We probably could have said that in the very beginning. Still don’t feel like I got a real answer, though. I personally didn’t think it was that hard of a question.

For the record, either way, I believe God is no more or no less gracious however He determines to deal with us. “God is God…”

Ian: I think you’re trying too hard to make sure God isn’t perceived as “the bad guy.” Just my perception based on your remarks; apologies if I’ve misread something.

27   Keith 2.0    
August 3rd, 2007 at 2:00 pm

Keith – I’m not implying in any way that I’m improved or anything like that, I just put Keith 2, and then the .0 seemd a good idea.

That said, I’d just like to put my oar in.

As far as the end result–why is it perceived to be more gracious of God to allow an individual to be born, live their life, NEVER believe, die and spend eternity in hell because THEY didn’t choose God. They still died and went to hell and GOD KNEW ALL ALONG THAT’S EXACATLY HOW IT WAS GOING TO PLAY OUT. How is that gracious? How is that showing God in a “good light”

Suppose God didn’t do that? Suppose he only allowed people to be born who would believe. What sort of a world is that? If everyone makes the same choice, are they really making a choice? God knows how everyone is going to act, but if he suddenly removes all the non-believers from the world, what happens to the believers who were suppopsed to be the children of people who were non-believers? He knows how it’s going to pan out, and lets it pan out that way. It doesn’t show God in a “good light”, it’s just the only way it ever could be.

I hope that makes sense.

Keith 2.0

28   keith    
August 3rd, 2007 at 4:43 pm

From where I’m sitting, I don’t get why this is such a hard question.

When people discuss the topic of Pelagianism vs Calvinism vs Arminianism vs Whateverism, at some point, the topic of God’s choosing and what that means in light of Scriptures like Eph 1:3-5 comes up. Invariably a comment will be made: “I don’t believe God chooses because that wouldn’t be fair/equal/just, etc. If a person isn’t saved, it’s because they chose not to believe.”

Somehow in their mind, that relieves God of some terrible label or something or makes their view of grace better (”greater?”).

It’s very simple, regardless of how great you think your view of grace is, whether you believe God made salvation possible for ALL men, women, boys, and girls that ever lived and ever would live. People go to hell every day. God sees it before it happens, has full knowledge of it, and He lets is happen. All the posturing, double-talk, etc. in the world doesn’t change that…and it doesn’t make God BAD or evil.

Ian said “If someone was created who could never accept Grace then the Bible is untrue…” I don’t get that. I don’t think Pharoah was EVER going to be anything different that what he was. That doesn’t make the Bible untrue for me.

I think some are trying to apply too much human logic and the concept of fairness to the situation.

Oh well, another fun day at CRN & Analysis.

29   Chris L    http://www.fishingtheabyss.com/
August 3rd, 2007 at 5:01 pm

Keith (1.0?)

Once again, though, you are picking and choosing scriptures, all the while placing God inside the realm of time, which he sits apart from, since He existed before (apart from?) the beginning. There are also a number of scriptures that indicate that men choose (or not) to follow Him.

We only assume that time going forward (and back) is set in stone, and we’ve adapted our language to it. The same way that those you criticize have extrapolated ‘free will’, you are extrapolating ‘pre-destined’. It is quite possible that Eph 1:3-5 is referring to a people and not to individuals, since Judaism and early Christianity was first focused on the kingdom (the people of God) and then on the individual.

Using your same extrapolation which traps God inside the bounds of time for ‘predestining’, it then also would indicate that Jesus was just faking it in the desert being ‘tempted’ and that his prayer in Gathsemene was just for show – along with a myriad of other inconsistencies. You are illustrating, rather succinctly, the pitfalls of systematic theology and the use of eisegesis in interpretation.

Have you considered that you may be a blind man examining only one aspect of the elephant?

30   Zan    
August 3rd, 2007 at 5:06 pm

Keith (1.0),

Like Keith 2.0, I, in my limited mind, don’t see any other way it could ever be. Why did God create humans, when he had the angels? Because he wanted created beings that would WANT to be with him, that would love him and choose him. But we cant choose him if he chooses who will choose Him. (HUH?) Which makes you happier: 1. your child cleans his room (with you standing over him, instructing him and forcing him to do exactly as you say), or 2. your child cleans his room, without you telling him to, because he knew it was what you wanted and it would please you? How does God determine what free will he gives us and where he intervenes? I believe that, quite possibly, God purposely keeps his hands out of certain situations – one of which is often procreation. The Bible doesn’t really say much about that, does it? Then how can know one way or another. So we try and formulate a “God view” according to what we “see”. As Chris wrote in his post, if all views of the elephant are true but incomplete, then we must live by what we can best judge, but leaving room for the probability that we don’t have the whole view (read: truth). It is in relation to all these questions and views that the “emergents” (dare I say more than just them) believe that you cannot know all truth just from reading the bible and the holy spirit. Some in the ODM camp reject that notion, I know, but any other way, and we are saying that our finite minds can understand and see ALL views of the elephant.

Anyway, sorry for the rambling. Just my thoughts…

Zan

31   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
August 3rd, 2007 at 7:15 pm

Zan,

I have never heard on any “emergents” state “that you cannot know all truth just from reading the bible and the holy spirit.”

I have heard them state that the Holy Spirit can use anything to reveal God’s true. No one emphatically states the bible is not God’s word… nor that it be trusted… even the “big dogs” state that the Bible is what guides their thoughts and heart…..

It is that the fundamentalist cannot bear to hear a certain word… “just” meaning “only”. They view (mostly dispensationalists) that the Bible is the only thing that guides us, often at the expense of the Holy Spirit.

Just wanted to clarify that a bit.

blessings,
iggy

32   Keith    http://fivepts.blogspot.com
August 3rd, 2007 at 7:17 pm

Chris:
“Have you considered that you may be a blind man examining only one aspect of the elephant?”

This is what I love about these types of conversations. You are assuming that I have “examin[ed] only one aspect of the elephant” because I’m not agreeing with you?! Isn’t it entirely possible that I HAVE examined multiple aspects…and I still don’t come up with the same conclusion as you? I came out of a “non-Calvinist” church. I have looked at more than one “aspect.” I didn’t arrive at the same conclusions as you. That doesn’t mean I think your Pelagian or semi-Pelagian or not a Christian. I don’t hink you have only examined “one aspect” just because you don’t agree with me.

Honestly, I was just trying to get a SIMPLE answer to what I thought was a simple question. You guys make it too hard. I spend half my time trying to understand WHAT you said! Just a dumb ol’ Calvinist, I guess.

33   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 3rd, 2007 at 9:29 pm

Keith – It is not FAIR that anyone goes to heaven. But fairness is only a human perspective, God would be fair if he never provided redemption. The Bible is replete with free will references even as Jesus called Jerusalem and observed “You would not”.

You have examined more than one aspect of the elephant, brother, you have examined five aspects. (Just a little joke among friends). I appreciate your tone, if you spend anytime on the ‘net you’ll see that there are other Calvinists/reformed that have a different tone toward others. I have a real attraction toward humble Calvinists such as Mike Ratliff. I consider him a good brother and friend. God Bless You, keep adding to the discussion!

34   Ian    http://lostintheheartofsomewhere.blogspot.com/
August 4th, 2007 at 5:39 am

Actually – I take back using the term ‘fair’. The question is, does God judge everybody by the same standard?

If not, how does this square with the assertion nin Scripture that God is a God of justice?

35   iggy    http://wordofmouthministries.blogspot.com/
August 4th, 2007 at 7:41 am

Ian,

Actually that is what the book of Romans is mostly about. I see it that God’s mercy and grace has been on man from the fall as Adam fell and God could have wiped out all and started again and been fully just in His actions.

The real question to me is this, why is it that this Just God shows so much mercy and grace… and loves us so much… or as the scirpture asks, “What is man that you make so much of him, that you give him so much attention, that you examine him every morning and test him every moment?”

It is as Romans 9 teaches that some are vessels of wrath and some vessels of mercy, yet it seems that in God’s great mercy that the vessels of mercy may be vessels of wrath and the vessels or wrath be vessels of mercy so that God’s grace can be made known. (the Calvinist miss this as the point of that chapter and get hung up in their own interpretation of proving the elect they miss the point is not God’s wrath but God’s mercy is the topic)

Be Blessed,
iggy

36   Henry (Rick) Frueh    http://judahslion.blogspot.com/
August 4th, 2007 at 11:17 am

God does judge everyone equally, we are all guilty. The question is does God offer grace to all or just some. And if you claim only some, then how can you wear the moniker “doctrines of grace”? It should accurately be labeled the “Limited doctrines of grace”.

One Trackback/Ping

  1. Fishing The Abyss    Aug 03 2007 / 11am:

    [...] Having read recent discussions over on the group blog I manage dealing with Pelagius, semipelagianism, monergism, synergism, open theism, and mixtures of -isms from the practical folk who don’t talk in -isms, I am drawn back to this analogy for a number of reasons, but primarily to to the nature of God and Time. [...]

Back to top