Response to Critique of Calvinism

[Abiding]

If calvinists and monergists were true to form
they would never be arguing with people over
soritology since its unnecessary and irrelevant
Since if right doctrine is necessary for saving faith
than it would be a work and condition. And if its necessary
and not a work and condition then its a prevenient grace.
And if its a prevenient grace than the person is not
regenerated before Faith. But rather its the grace of
which faith itself requires.

Unless of coarse regeneration isnt enough to be called saved.
And if regeneration comes first and since you cant lose salvation it
shouldnt matter much what you believe. Because it will all work
out fine, unless the human will matters after regeneration, but
that would bring up a ton of other theological problems, concerning
human ability and will and Gods sovereignty.

And if heretics are not regenerated as some say, what good is
it going to do to talk to them? Since if they wernt saved and
have no human ability to understand spiritual matters at all one bit.
Then why ever bother with them? Futhermore what could you hope
to accomplish?

You cant say because of the sheep that will be lost, because
they cant be lost. The elect will come no matter what and cant resist.
Nor get lost.

Im willing to believe all monergists are not created equal and maybe
thats why they get bent outa shape. But i cant see a 5 pointer has
any excuse at all to get worked up unless he has a lapse of faith to
his own belief system.

signed, your loyal currently synergist heretic abiding

 

[Elizabeth619]

There's quite a few people here in the CC peanut gallery(that was just funny when the OP posted that) who think I am Calvanist because I was raised in the Church of Christ congregation.

Of course I then learned that most of the people that accuse me of this got their Church of Christ "information" from youtube or some jaded, bitter charismatic...maybe even David Icke who has no idea what we/I believe in the first place.

 

[zone]

Abiding would you be careful to do a full explanation of the various views of monergism?
rather than just a single post which makes it seem as though

1) you understand it fully (i think in this thread you already said you don't)
2) all views are the same (they are not)

thanks dear

if we look at the OP, we had someone who had sincere questions about his current studies.

Re: Response to Critique of Calvinism

he made comments, and expressed what he was doing, studying.

...then the immediately following posts kinda crashed in, short-circuiting the OPs queries, directing him away from the subject (somewhat firmly, and if we are honest, forcefully). which is totally legit - if somebody rejects calvinism, they have the right to say so. for sure.

what i found amusing though

was the OP was followed immediately within seconds by hardcore anti-calvinist posts, which were then later followed by posts which purported to say no one should jump in with iron boots when someone is expressing their studies are relatively new.

ahem.

not getting it.

but i guess the thread is dead at this point.
which is good for anti-calvinists and anti-monergists.

which is fine with me.

maybe a thread on the involved topic monergism, and the varying views of it would be helpful.
zone

 

[zone]

its funny...LOL
cuz it's another don't do "isms" - i never do 'isms'
by folks who don't do "isms"
haha.

aaahh....mkay
love yas

 

[psychomom]

That is exactly it, psychomom. The Calvinist/Arminian dispute hinges on differing definitions of "sovereign". Since there is no real contradiction between sovereignty and human free will, we should accept the full force of all the scripture says about God being sovereign. There is no reason to interpret the clear and consistent scriptural witness of the absolute sovereignty of God through any kind of theological lenses; other verses speak of human choice in no way mitigate against the absolute sovereignty of God as expressed in scripture.

Our God is in the heavens; He hath done whatsoever He pleased." (Ps. cxv. 8.) "All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and He doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?" (Dan. iv. 35.) "All that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine." (1 Chron. xxix. 11.) "The earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein." (Ps. xxiv. 1.) "Thine is the kingdom, O Lord, and thou art exalted as head above all." (1 Chron. xxix. 11.) "Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine." (Ez. xviii. 4.) "Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioned it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands?" (Is. xlv. 9.) "Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?" (Matt. xx. 15.) He "worketh all things after the counsel of his own will." (Eph. i. 11.) "Of Him, and through Him, and to Him are all things: to whom be glory forever. Amen." (Rom. xi. 36.)

I'm sinking in even DEEPER. Where is a good Wesleyan or Pentecostal when you need them?

hi, drew. i am a monergist, and love God's sovereignty. it comforts me even in good times, and in difficult ones i couldn't do without it.

i have to admit that when i look at God's Word i see God choosing, and i see man's responsibility.
i see that our God is absolutely sovereign over the affairs of man, and man is responsible for his/her sin.

and i like what you said above. this issue has been talked about a lot recently, and some of us are weary, and some of us are hurt, and some of us are confused. lol

but like all Biblical things, discussion is merited and thinking is needed!
so thanks.

love,
ellie

 

[crossnote]

My beef with Calvinism has more to do with their Theocentrism rather than being Christocentric.

 

[Abiding]

Abiding would you be careful to do a full explanation of the various views of monergism?
rather than just a single post which makes it seem as though No

1) you understand it fully (i think in this thread you already said you don't) I dont understand anything fully.
2) all views are the same (they are not) do you mean all monergists views? Is that like being half drenched?
Not sure what you mean. I already said im sure not all monergists are equal, but how could i explain that?

thanks dear

if we look at the OP, we had someone who had sincere questions about his current studies.

Re: Response to Critique of Calvinism

he made comments, and expressed what he was doing, studying.

...then the immediately following posts kinda crashed in, short-circuiting the OPs queries, directing him away from the subject (somewhat firmly, and if we are honest, forcefully). which is totally legit - if somebody rejects calvinism, they have the right to say so. for sure Well go back and look he has already responded to me and i certainly dont think ive derailed it.

what i found amusing though

was the OP was followed immediately within seconds by hardcore anti-calvinist posts, which were then later followed by posts which purported to say no one should jump in with iron boots when someone is expressing their studies are relatively new.Well sure, you certainly didnt see me sneaking round trying to hide the facts. It was obvious as is all thats done on the forums. So i cant understand how it could have amused you.
ahem.

not getting it.You dont get what?

but i guess the thread is dead at this point.Dead, why dead?
which is good for anti-calvinists and anti-monergists.I didnt start the calvinists/monergists thing, and im not responsible for it either.

which is fine with me.

maybe a thread on the involved topic monergism, and the varying views of it would be helpful.​Ive told you before you dont tell me what threads to post. Surely you can do that as you see fit.
zone

..............

 

[eternally-gratefull]

There's quite a few people here in the CC peanut gallery(that was just funny when the OP posted that) who think I am Calvanist because I was raised in the Church of Christ congregation.

Of course I then learned that most of the people that accuse me of this got their Church of Christ "information" from youtube or some jaded, bitter charismatic...maybe even David Icke who has no idea what we/I believe in the first place.

I think this happens with most of us, People listen to a few "key words" and they think they know exactly what we believe, Because they are for some reason schooled as to what other people believe.. That is the one thing I have seen from many denominations. they tell you what others believe and why, and use this to say you should stick with us, we are right they are wrong..

and people wonder why their is no unity.

 

[Elizabeth619]

I think this happens with most of us, People listen to a few "key words" and they think they know exactly what we believe, Because they are for some reason schooled as to what other people believe.. That is the one thing I have seen from many denominations. they tell you what others believe and why, and use this to say you should stick with us, we are right they are wrong..

and people wonder why their is no unity.

I was reading an article online once about the CoC being demonic and why. It was interesting. I learned things that I never knew I believed. The CoC didnt teach these things, but according to this one article they do. Its always good to see what people dont like about certain congregations and how far off they really are..

 

[Abiding]

What bugs me is they sound like pullstring dolls

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I was reading an article online once about the CoC being demonic and why. It was interesting. I learned things that I never knew I believed. The CoC didnt teach these things, but according to this one article they do. Its always good to see what people dont like about certain congregations and how far off they really are..

I deal with this on an almost daily basis in here. It gets frustrating sometimes, sometimes I just want to scream and punch something, which is not a good thing!!lol

If people would just put their pre-concieved ideas of what they were taught aside, and actually listen. they would realise the church and people they trusted so much led them astray.

Thats what I like about the church I am in now. They do not talk about other churches or denominations. The open themselves up to questions at the end of every teaching, so if someone disagrees, they are aloud to speak.. And we are united with many churches doing many ministries, Of all denominations.. the way it should be.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

What bugs me is they sound like pullstring dolls

I think that is what the church has made them, in their defense of their own religion..

 

[zone]

..............

i did mean me making a thread on monergism.

 

[superdave5221]

hi drew
i am a Confessional Lutheran, but prior to this was Reformed.
i can not say i ever held to 5 pt Calvinism,
though some of my friends identify as Calvinists.

i'm not qualified to answer some of the more involved questions you might have,
but would like to say i love my Calvinist brothers and sisters,
and am certain they can help you in your studies.

one of the things we have in common is monergism.
love zone

I'm sure it's safe to say that Calvinism has evolved from Calvin's initial five point views, (at least for some people), and that has led to some of the confusion in the debate over free will. Many Calvinists are slow to recognize that the free will position has also evolved and salvation by faith alone is a common point of agreement rather than an issue of contention.

Most free will people recognize salvation by faith alone but do not recognize the idea of irresistability. This seems illogical to most people that someone would resist such a wonderful gift as eternal life. But this is no more illogical than to think that God would hold people accountable for something that they have no control over, or to assume that they make choices that they have no choice to make.

Also, the argument that God must look ahead in time to determine what choices people freely make is untenable because a God who knows all truth already knows what choices we freely make without having to "learn" them. This is so because the choices we make are truth, and God already knows all truth by His nature.

In any event, I am open to the monergist view, and I am currently studying it. I think that such open mindedness is recommended as none of us in in possession of all truth, and in some sense are still in the process of santification and learning and should not be overly dogmatic on an issue that has divided the church for centuries.

 

[zone]

One of the criticisms offered by Rogers, Ronnie W. (in "Reflections of a Disenchanted Calvinist: The Disquieting Realities of Calvinism" CrossBooks. Kindle Edition) is the over-emphasis of the sovereignty of God. Because of the Calvinist view that man is passive in regeneration and justification, the responsibility for salvation of some, (hence for damnation of the rest), lays squarely on God's shoulders. That God might be responsible for damnation paints a horrifying picture of his role as father.

For as Arminian as one's theology might be, the same "problem" of people going to hell emerges. It does not take the responsibility for damnation off of God's shoulders because you slide it on to men's shoulders. God, even without a Calvinist definition of His sovereignty, could have chosen to create men differently, but did not. God could have ensured that no one went to hell under any reasonable Christian theological framework, but did not. Shifting soteriological sovereignty from God to man does not eliminate any problems and shifts the basis of salvation from grace to works.

Full ethical responsibility must be born by both creature and creator in any Christian theological framework. A high (Calvinistic) view of the sovereignty of God does not detract from the freedom of choice of individuals. God has decreed to work through the agency of human hearts. Christian good flows from a solid ethical character which God himself has restored over the power of sin. This good character overflows, assuring that external norms will be observed, not by external compulsion, but rather through an internal passion that burns in the heart of every true believer. This occurs precisely because of the sovereign Lordship of God. His authority and control do not suppress free will, but rather give free will its place in the human heart.

Context: Over the last several months I have had the blessing of having time to read some theology. Now, I am drawing theological conclusions. In this thread, I am trying to talk myself into being Calvinist, and inviting (informed) comments from the Christianchat peanut gallery. Call it a poor man's college education; you are invited to participate voluntarily as peer/teacher, as the shoe fits.

restart....

 

[zone]

I'm sure it's safe to say that Calvinism has evolved from Calvin's initial five point views, (at least for some people), and that has led to some of the confusion in the debate over free will. Many Calvinists are slow to recognize that the free will position has also evolved and salvation by faith alone is a common point of agreement rather than an issue of contention.

Most free will people recognize salvation by faith alone but do not recognize the idea of irresistability. This seems illogical to most people that someone would resist such a wonderful gift as eternal life. But this is no more illogical than to think that God would hold people accountable for something that they have no control over, or to assume that they make choices that they have no choice to make.

Also, the argument that God must look ahead in time to determine what choices people freely make is untenable because a God who knows all truth already knows what choices we freely make without having to "learn" them. This is so because the choices we make are truth, and God already knows all truth by His nature.

In any event, I am open to the monergist view, and I am currently studying it. I think that such open mindedness is recommended as none of us in in possession of all truth, and in some sense are still in the process of santification and learning and should not be overly dogmatic on an issue that has divided the church for centuries.

hi super-duper

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I'm sure it's safe to say that Calvinism has evolved from Calvin's initial five point views, (at least for some people), and that has led to some of the confusion in the debate over free will. Many Calvinists are slow to recognize that the free will position has also evolved and salvation by faith alone is a common point of agreement rather than an issue of contention.

Most free will people recognize salvation by faith alone but do not recognize the idea of irresistability. This seems illogical to most people that someone would resist such a wonderful gift as eternal life. But this is no more illogical than to think that God would hold people accountable for something that they have no control over, or to assume that they make choices that they have no choice to make.

Also, the argument that God must look ahead in time to determine what choices people freely make is untenable because a God who knows all truth already knows what choices we freely make without having to "learn" them. This is so because the choices we make are truth, and God already knows all truth by His nature.

In any event, I am open to the monergist view, and I am currently studying it. I think that such open mindedness is recommended as none of us in in possession of all truth, and in some sense are still in the process of santification and learning and should not be overly dogmatic on an issue that has divided the church for centuries.

I guess I will have to study this.. As with most things.. there is probably alot of good in there. I find most "isms" though I do not agree with everything, each of them have good points which we can learn from.

 

[psychomom]

I think that is what the church has made them, in their defense of their own religion..

not always, though.
i 'grew up' in a baptist church that where full synergism was taught.

then i began noticing things in parts of the Bible never taught at the church.
i didn't want to know it...but couldn't help it, either.

never even knew the term monergist till years later.
i just knew my while life, and especially my salvation, was God's work, not mine.

don't want to offend, or provoke.
just sayin' i may not be the only odd case history out there.

love,
el

 

[superdave5221]

hi super-duper

Hey Zoney.

 

[psychomom]

I'm sure it's safe to say that Calvinism has evolved from Calvin's initial five point views, (at least for some people), and that has led to some of the confusion in the debate over free will. Many Calvinists are slow to recognize that the free will position has also evolved and salvation by faith alone is a common point of agreement rather than an issue of contention.

Most free will people recognize salvation by faith alone but do not recognize the idea of irresistability. This seems illogical to most people that someone would resist such a wonderful gift as eternal life. But this is no more illogical than to think that God would hold people accountable for something that they have no control over, or to assume that they make choices that they have no choice to make.

Also, the argument that God must look ahead in time to determine what choices people freely make is untenable because a God who knows all truth already knows what choices we freely make without having to "learn" them. This is so because the choices we make are truth, and God already knows all truth by His nature.

In any event, I am open to the monergist view, and I am currently studying it. I think that such open mindedness is recommended as none of us in in possession of all truth, and in some sense are still in the process of santification and learning and should not be overly dogmatic on an issue that has divided the church for centuries.

dave! it's you!

^ ^ ^
see there, you made me smile, just by showing up.

love,
el