elected4ever
New member
cfisher said:
Sorry I missed the type-o. That is embarrassing
ARGH!!! Open Theism makes me furious!!!
- Thread starter Swordsman
- Start date
Sorry I missed the type-o. That is embarrassing
Adam_Kratt
New member
Clete said:
Calvinism teaches heresy with its predestination theology. The NT clearly states. that "God gave his only begotten son so that those who believe in him shall have everlasting life and not be destroyed.
if you take Calvinistic teaching.. then someone who God predetermined to be saved could live a life of evil through adultry, murder and drunkeness. and some one who theoretically was predetermined to Hell couls actually believe in Jesus Christ as his saviour live a life of service to the community but still get shafted... lets really look at this and reject the Predestination Hypocracy
Did you right this thinking that I would disagree or agree? I believe Calvinism to be among the most dangerous heretical teachings that has ever come along.Adam_Kratt said:
Your comment makes an appeal to an intuitive sense of justice which I believe we all have had placed within us by our Creator but the Calvinist will reject your comments out of hand without a second thought because in their view God can do anything at all and remain just because His actions are what define justice and therefore if God is inconsistent then so also is justice. There is no accounting for God's actions in the Calvinists worldview; He can do whatever, whenever, regardless and there's nothing anyone can rightly do or say about it. In short, they do in fact believe that God is unjust. Oh, they will scream and have their hissy-fits over someone saying so, but denial without refutation is meaningless and if the word 'justice' is to have any meaning at all then the conclusion cannot be rationally escaped.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Bob Hill said:
Men like Piper and Sproul are exceptions to this generalization. Despite their flawed theology, they do have a passion to preach the gospel as the means by which God saves men. Calvinism has tended to diminish evangelism and missions historically, but it does not have to necessarily. It does not offer hope to the lost, since they are supposedly unable to respond to the gospel if not part of the 'elite/elect'.
Piper and Sproul are responsible (at least indirectly) for taking perhaps hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Christians out of the game, godrulz! They aren't exceptions to the rule, they're a big reason why the rule in in place! If no one was taught this ridiculous nonsense, no one would believe it nor would their spiritual growth and effectiveness be stunted by it.godrulz said:
Resting in Him,
Clete
elected4ever
New member
I don't think it right to throw the baby out with the bath water. There are some good things in the CV and there are some good things in the OV. The excesses of both should not over power the good. The closed view attempts to make God responsible for all that is bad and evil and the OV seeks to give man to much credit for the things of God. I have been on both sides of this fence on different issues.
elected4ever
New member
We were making progress in understanding one another and now we seem to be getting back to the contentiousness that divides. Most disappointing.
Clete said:
I understand and share your concerns. However, Piper has a passion for missions and evangelism and stirring believers, even if it is technically inconsistent with his theology at times. I think we need to be fair when we 'attack' others lest we misunderstand and misrepresent all that they believe and practice.
Poly said:
Just as closed viewers live practically as if the future is open and not predestined, so the average Calvinist lives as if the gospel needs to be preached to all men impartially. They leave it to God to sort out elect vs non-elect. It is possible for the issue to be ivory tower and theoretical while practicing as if their view is not totally true. This is inconsistent. Remember the passion of Moody for preaching the gospel to all men, despite Calvinistic views. There is a difference between hyper-Calvinism leading to passivity and a more moderate postion that still urges evangelism and missions.
godrulz said:
I partially agree. I disagree with the notion that missions and evangelism contradict Calvinism. We evangelize because God commands it, not because we beleive that God needs us in order to lead others to faith. God commands it, in my opinion, in order to give those He loves the joy of participating in His work. The participation is not necessary in order to achieve God's purposes.
If we think that others cannot (not will not) be saved absent our efforts, then we diminish God.
docrob57 said:
God chose to use the gospel and human instrumentality (vs sky writing or angels) to persuade men in the power of the Spirit and His Word. It is more than God just wanting to give us some pleasure in the process. Logically and theologically, God should save everyone if it is just a matter of unilaterally saving the lost regardless of what we do or do not do in relation to our obedience to the Great Commission. Historically, hyper-Calvinism has led to a decline in missions and evangelism. Other groups understood that the gospel needed to be preached impartially to all men with the understanding that whomsoever will may come. All who repent and believe, as God commanded, will be saved. Elect vs non-elect is specious.
It is not human effort that saves people, yet God works through this means. Faith comes from hearing the Word, but how will they hear if we are not sent, go, and proclaim?
If one person or church refuses to obey, then He can raise up someone else. If 80,000 people die and go to a Christless eternity, we have some culpability. The stewardship of our time, treasures, and talents is keeping us from prioritizing the gospel. Some who die would have responded if they had a clear presentation of the gospel. They lacked the opportunity because we spend our money on pleasure, war, Hollywood, Christian entertainment, books, big homes and cars, etc. The lost are accountable before God for their godless lives, but the Church will have some responsibility if we failed to send, go, preach, teach, disciple, etc. A deterministic view puts all of the responsibility on God. A free will theism view recognizes that God alone provides, initiates, draws, woos, convinces, convicts, and regenerates, but not without the response of saints and sinners to preach (saints) and believe (sinners). Salvation is a reconciled love relationship, not a unilateral thing caused by God (if it was, all would be saved automatically).