|
|
Post by Brother Ben on Aug 19, 2004 12:49:59 GMT -5
I thought it was about time for some provoking discussion to show here so here we go. I have brethren in both schools of theology. I personally think you don't have to be either, but can come out in between. The sovereignty of God and the free-will of man, where do they meet? Can they be reconciled? Give me your thoughts Bro. Ben Here is a study I did on this a while back www.ourchurch.com/view/?pageID=148170 |
|
|
|
Post by hszoo on Aug 19, 2004 13:15:08 GMT -5
Ok, here goes. God is sovereign. To me that means He's God and I'm not. He's got all the power to control everything. BUT, that doesn't mean He operates us like so many puppets. He gave us free will to choose life or death, to choose Him, to choose to serve Him. Without free will and us choosing Him, He gets no glory for our worship.
Being sovereign, He chooses to step back in some instances. Also being sovereign, He sees and knows what our choices will be, but that doesn't mean He controls them. Like watching someone throw a water balloon off a 9 story building and knowing it will burst when it hits the sidewalk doesn't mean we made it happen. We just know it will. God, also, knows all of the future and all of the past but allows us our free choice. We don't know the future, or what choices we will have to make, so it's all new to us. God is there ahead of us.
Time means nothing in His kingdom, so He is in the beginning, He is in the present, and He is in the end, and He is in all "time" beyond that....all at the same instant.
He puts our sins behind His back. Since He is everywhere at all times, where is His back? He puts our sins as far as the east is from the west. Look on a globe. If you travel east, you never reach a point where you begin travelling west! And vice versa! Our sins simply can't be found again, according to His Word!
What do I think all this means as far as salvation goes? I think it means that we are still free agents. He knows if we'll choose His Son. We don't know until we do it. Yet, knowing it doesn't mean He made us choose Jesus.
Because we live in such a finite world, comprehending the forever now-ness of God is beyond us. Everything we see and experience has a beginning and an end. But you know what? If I could fully comprehend Almighty God, that means I could bring Him down to my limited level and place Him in my tiny box. He wouldn't be God, then, would He?
I am awed by Him and amazed that He would allow me into His presence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eric on Aug 23, 2004 10:25:16 GMT -5
Well, here goes....I was raised a Baptist, if that means anything anymore. I was raised with the scriptures quoted both at home and at church. I was raised forced to read the works of Spurgeon and other giants. I was, than, surprised when I was finally called to salvation by God, at the age of 20, and found most if not all of my fellow congregants were hardcore Arminians. I am, obviously, of the opposite persuasion. I do not call myself a Calvanist, nor do I agree with a great deal of what Calvin did and taught. However, on the issue of predestination and election, I fall on the side of God's TOTAL sovereignty and man's TOTAL depravity.
I think there is a major misunderstanding between the two camps of thought though. One side accuses the other of saying God "plays us like puppets" while the other side accuses them back that they serve a God who can't do anything if He can't do everything. And back and forth this goes, but I think both side have yet to really listen to eachother. There will, especially in America, home of personal liberty and choice, likely never be a consensus regarding the issue but I would love to continue this discussion with the group.
Eric
|
|
|
|
Post by hszoo on Aug 23, 2004 10:34:51 GMT -5
Just throwing in a question or three here: Is it right to identify with a person? Like saying "I'm a Calvinist." Didn't Paul address this issue about people saying things like "I am of Apollos"? Do you suppose it grieves God's heart when people put the emphasis on a teacher instead of on Him?
|
|
|
|
Post by Eric on Aug 23, 2004 10:46:13 GMT -5
As I said in my message, I don't ever call myself anything but a Christian. I never call myself a Calvinist. Nor should any person holding Arminianism, but truely loving God, call themselves an Arminian. There is however for the sake of making a long introduction short, times when it behooves an individual to give one of these names simply so everyone has a basic idea of what is being discussed. When I say -Conservative- you automatically get the jist without my having to list ad infinitum what my views may be.
That being said, any person claiming to be a follower of a man: Calvin, Arminius, Billy Graham, etc.... needs to seriously evaluate their loyalty.
Eric
|
|
|
|
Post by Brother Ben on Aug 23, 2004 13:06:55 GMT -5
I think we all three would agree about the "name" calling issue. However, when someone wants to know what I am, nine times out of ten, I'm going to tell them I'm a Baptist. If they are Muslim, Hindu, etc., I'll tell them Christian, but Baptist lets most folks know where you stand on key issues. I think calivinst helps to identify one's stand a little more clear than an Augustinian or Reformed Theology. These both are pretty much the same, but most folks wouldn't know that.
I read a quote once by Dr. Harold Willmington, author of 'Willmington's Guide to the Bible.' Great book if you don't have it. He said, there is as it were a river that goes through time called the plan of God. One bank of the river is the sovereignty of God, and the other the free will of man. People dwell on both banks and can sometimes be seen saying things to each other. As long as the river stays within the banks all is well. In the event of some disaster, if the water overflows the banks there is destruction and trouble. The river flows on into eternity and we never see where the river ends on this side, sort of like two train tracks that disappear into the distance. When we get to heaven, I believe, we are going to find out that these two man-made theories actually fit hand in hand. What's funny is you can't deny either arguement from scripture. God and his "whosoever wills" and likewise his, "those who were ordained unto eternal life" like in Acts, heard it this morning.
Just a couple of observations,
Bro. Ben
|
|
|
|
Post by Eric on Aug 23, 2004 13:20:34 GMT -5
Amen brother! It is a sad thing to hear Christians "refuting" a scripture with another scripture... Leaves a bad taste in the mouth no doubt. Our goal should be to "understand" a scripture BY another scripture. Amen.
I have always like to think of my beliefs regarding predestination as a problem of perspective, not scripture. While I believe that it is impossible for a man to come to God without having been called, it is a resolution with very little merit to me on this side of the grave. Can I decide whom to witness to by it? Certainly not! Can I alter my service to the Lord by it? God forbid! The real fruits of it come only to the born again who see their salvation as secure, their service as free, and God's grace required as awe inspiring. I have no worry for the future for IT IS in His hands.
Eric
|
|
|
|
Post by Brother Ben on Aug 23, 2004 16:56:05 GMT -5
Spurgeon said, If all the elect had a yellow stripe up their back, I'd run up and down the streets of London pulling up coat tails!
Isn't that great. The bottom line is God ordained that the Gospel should be spread through the foolishness of preaching!
Let's Go!
Ben
|
|
|
|
Post by hszoo on Aug 23, 2004 17:28:57 GMT -5
The fact that no one has a mark on them to show us anything about their spiritual destiny gives us a good indication that we should be witnessing to all we encounter. It's not up to us to save them anyway. That's God's job and the work for it was completed 2000 years ago. We don't have to be their Holy Spirit and draw them. We only have to introduce them to the Lord of our salvation and share how real and wonderful He is to us.
After all, the Godhead isn't taking any applications for new members, and I'm certain I wouldn't qualify even if He was!
|
|
|
|
Post by Eric on Aug 24, 2004 12:31:13 GMT -5
I agree. We should constantly witness. Spurgeon, a die hard "Calvinist" was renowned for his alter calls and personal witnessing. We can't use God's election as a crutch to avoid our service.
It does, however, provide me with a great deal peace in that I have no doubts concerning the security of my salvation (I had NOTHING to do with getting it how can I keep it), that the future is in God's hands (quite literally because he has planned everything that will be already), and about the lost in the "deepest darkest jungle" (missionaries will go where God sends. God will send when He is ready).
Predestination/election has also done a great deal for my prayer life. Before I received the doctrine prayer was for me a means of asking God to do stuff for me. If I really wanted something I had to pray very hard. Sure, maybe I still wouldn't get it, but praying for it and wanting it could consume me. I view prayer differently now. It is not a time for asking for stuff, though I do make my requests known before God. It a time for me to commune with my Father and to EXPERIENCE the peace He is and gives.
But enough of my ranting. God bless.
Eric
|
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Sept 20, 2004 15:37:52 GMT -5
I attended a small southern baptist college in MS where Calvanism was often debated among the "theologically elite" students in the Biblical studies department...personally, i stayed out of the debates. I then went to a seminary (Southern Baptist) that is known for it's faculty and administration that leans heavily toward Calvanism (5 pointers for the most part).
I have read Calvin's "Institutes of the Christian Religion" and there is a lot of it i agree with, and a lot i don't agree with. Personally, i'm still working on some issues when it comes to election, and in God's timing, He will lead me to the answer, and i know it will be from His word.
I do not refer to myself as a "Calvanist" or an "Arminian" or by a name based off of any other person because none of them died on the cross for my sins, and not a single one of them rose from the dead after 3 days. I am a Christian, and i am a Bible believing Christian (hence my desire to be here).
A great reference that i'm hoping to read in the near future (on my book shelf...but haven't had a chance to read it yet) is "Chosen By Free" by Norman Geisler.
God bless as we seek God's will!
in HIS grip
bobby
|
|
|
|
Post by funnyd on Sept 20, 2004 19:37:24 GMT -5
Most traditional Baptists could be considered to be "3-point Calvinists"
- Total Depravity
- Unconditional Election
- Preseverance of the Saints
I've never been able to reconcile the concept of Limited Atonement with the "whosoever" of Romans 10:13, among many other references.
The concept of Irresistable Grace is one that perplexes me. It seems to exist in some and not others. The Apostle Paul's conversion is perhaps the most vivid example of Irresistable Grace. God's power fell so heavily on Paul, that acceptance and obedience was the only real option. On the other hand, Judas stands as the counterpoint. Despite being in the very presence of the Lord, his heart became hardened to the point of betrayal.
Ah, one would point out, Judas was the son of perdition and devoted to destruction. True enough, but was that a case of predestination, or just God's foreknowledge?
Which brings us to the concept of free will. This is an issue I still have a difficult time in gaining a complete understanding of the concept. How does one reconcile the facts that God whose will is for all of us to come to repentance and be saved, yet created in us the very tool that allows us to reject Him? If God has complete foreknowledge (and I firmly believe He does) of what our decision will ultimately be, is it truly a free decision on our part?
I cannot believe in predestination for the reason that if, as according to the pure Calvinist, our eternal fate has already been determined, then the very concept of evangelism seems completely irrelevant, Dr. Spurgeon's quote notwithstanding.
However, the concepts of Arminianism give far too much creedence to man's efforts in salvation to be acceptable. Taken to it's logical extreme, it can lead to belief in a works-based salvation, even though that wasn't one of Arminius' teachings, it formed a framework that left the door open to teach that man still had good in him that could be exercised through his own efforts.
FWIW
- David
|
|
|
|
Post by Brother Ben on Sept 20, 2004 20:14:06 GMT -5
I was listening to Dr. Charles Stanley one day and he said this, "The only person that has complete free will is God." I liked that and it has caused me to ponder the extent of our free will. At this point in my Christian walk I heard a guy refer to himself as a Calvaminian. In other words, like many others, he is still trying to figure it out. I was talking to a preacher friend of mine and he said this is one of the mysteries we won't completely understand this side of glory. Perhaps we want all the answers, and the fact of the matter is we aren't going to get them ALL.
"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."
I Tim 3:16
"For my thoughts [are] not your thoughts, neither [are] your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." Is. 55:8,9
I guess the hardcore Arminians would not like this phrase, but how about, "limited free-will." That's a new one. But I believe it is true.
Ben
|
|
|
|
Post by nightingale on Sept 21, 2006 13:01:10 GMT -5
I just thought this was a great article...one that was worthy to re-read or read for the first time...Hope you all can be blessed by this article...I have been...Thanks Brother Ben...
Sis Debbie
|
|
