tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164961175157919774.post6301910518837844299..comments2023-09-01T07:14:24.180-05:00Comments on Theological Ponderings: Where do we draw the lines?Michael.Gabrielhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10312040031325923270noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164961175157919774.post-69743773870186399692008-02-02T15:31:00.000-06:002008-02-02T15:31:00.000-06:00This page has been transferred to the "Flapjacks a...This page has been transferred to the "Flapjacks and Theology page here:<BR/>http://flapjacksandtheology.myfastforum.org/about6.html&highlight=Michael.Gabrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10312040031325923270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164961175157919774.post-19581276368795492252008-01-28T06:54:00.000-06:002008-01-28T06:54:00.000-06:00Fixed link from above:http://www.svchapel.org/Reso...Fixed link from above:<BR/><BR/><A>http://www.svchapel.org/Resources/Articles/read_articles.asp?id=69</A>Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09548448285978266025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164961175157919774.post-48050632384433321372008-01-28T06:51:00.000-06:002008-01-28T06:51:00.000-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09548448285978266025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164961175157919774.post-85585709818703737612008-01-28T06:49:00.000-06:002008-01-28T06:49:00.000-06:00Mike, as per above, the distinction you're making ...Mike, as per above, the distinction you're making isn't only in the area of salvation; you're taking what an Arminian says about soteriology and applying it to everything (as per your example above of God's mere reaction to mankinds actions). That isn't Arminianism; it's Open Theism, and there is a logical disconnect between the two. <BR/><BR/>This seems to describe the distinction well:<BR/><BR/>http://www.svchapel.org/Resources/Articles/read_articles.asp?id=69Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09548448285978266025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164961175157919774.post-25622461083835214942008-01-27T22:52:00.000-06:002008-01-27T22:52:00.000-06:00A few considerations, which, IMO, should soften yo...A few considerations, which, IMO, should soften your view of Arminians:<BR/><BR/>1. Arminians do not deny that God is sovereign. They deny that God's sovereignty means what we say it means.<BR/><BR/>2. Arminians do not deny that God's sovereignty could mean what we say it means, they just deny that it does mean what we say it means.<BR/>In other words, Arminians do not believe that God is unable to determine our choices; they just deny that He does.<BR/><BR/>3. Arminians do not deny that God knows what we will choose; Open Theists do.Scott Clinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16876591259277154966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164961175157919774.post-76787451366975384492008-01-27T22:50:00.000-06:002008-01-27T22:50:00.000-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Scott Clinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16876591259277154966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164961175157919774.post-48352053771093744732008-01-27T02:24:00.000-06:002008-01-27T02:24:00.000-06:00Viz,You asked: "are they creating a god in their o...Viz,<BR/><BR/>You asked: "are they creating a god in their own minds (obvious sin), or are they just mistaken?"<BR/><BR/>My question is not whether or not they are mistaken. My question is: (If they are mistaken and confronted) What does the fact that they reject the clear demonstration of the sovereignty of God from indisputable passages of Scripture (yes, disputed by them, but not logically disputed by a consistant application of their own hermeneutic) mean? Are they rejecting who God is? If they accept the salvation given freely through faith in Christ yet reject the Father, what does this mean for them? I mean, you're not just talking about what God does-- you're talking about WHO God is!<BR/><BR/>You also said:<BR/><BR/>"...you've moved from talking about someone who would affirm God's sovereignty (outside of our reformed interp) ... to someone who wouldn't even affirm His sovereignty in any sense. Based on your last post it seems like you are describing Open Theism, not just its incipient forms. Am I incorrect?"<BR/><BR/>I could reject any type of reformed theology, pick up a Bible and read it, and still look at the plain meaning of the text according to a historical-grammatical hermeneutic, and come to only one conclusion--and it's not the one I'm arguing against.<BR/><BR/>And yes, it does seem as though I'm speaking of Open Theism. That's why I'm so bothered by this. Those who insist on granting man the power of self determination and leaving God in the background as a simple responder are treading on ground that is dangerously close to Open Theism. So close, in fact, that I can't see how they can avoid the title of Open Theist.<BR/><BR/>And SBC, I don't think that the people in question start with insincere intentions. I DO, however, think that they are not being honest when looking at the passages in question and attempting to formulate some interpretation that's not there in order to keep their trditional view of God intact. When reaching this point, who or what are they defending? If they believe that they are defending God because they believe that He couldn't possibly use men in a way that would compromise their "free will" are they defending God, or an erroneous CONCEPT of God which isn't actually God in the first place. Finally, if it comes to this point is God pleased with His creatures defending their (mythical) god against the One, True, Most Holy and Sovereign God of all creation and everything in it? Or is He angry when men defend false gods?<BR/><BR/>I'm attempting to go straight to the core of the issue--please demonstrate the error if there is one.Michael.Gabrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10312040031325923270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164961175157919774.post-77861436250244802972008-01-26T10:35:00.000-06:002008-01-26T10:35:00.000-06:00Viz said,If however, after reading and inferring l...Viz said,<BR/><BR/><EM>If however, after reading and inferring logically from Scripture that there (for instance) is a genuine call that God wants everyone to be saved (which is the initial interp for more than one passage, not just 2 Peter 3:9), are they creating a god in their own minds (obvious sin), or are they just mistaken?</EM><BR/><BR/>This is what I'm talking about: Compassionate Calvinism.<BR/><BR/>Let's face it, if the election/sovereignty passages were not in the Bible, everybody would look at 2 Peter 3:9, and a host of other passages, and be Arminian. And if those other passages were not in the Bible, but the election passages were, everybody would be Calvinistic.<BR/><BR/>I'm not embarrassed to admit that some of the passages Arminians point to, <STRONG>do</STRONG> initially look like they mean what Arminians think they mean. <BR/> <BR/>Further exegesis often shows that the universals should be taken more narrowly, of course. <BR/>And, IMHO, there are times when context does <EM>not</EM> limit universals, and that's ok: I'm not scared to say, with Piper and others, that God has <EM>some</EM> desire that all without exception should be saved, but that that desire is outweighed by a stronger desire (for reasons sufficient unto Himself) to elect some and damn others.<BR/><BR/>Again, I digress.<BR/><BR/>What I'm really getting at is this: we prioritize the election passages, and view the "universalistic" passages alternately. Arminians favor the universalistic passages, and view the election passages alternately. We all do it. What's important is that we admit it.<BR/><BR/>We all do it because we all presuppose that there are no <EM>actual</EM> contradictions in Scripture; therefore, when one is apparent, we assume that we misunderstand one of the passages in seeming tension, and interpret it alternately. <BR/><BR/>Now, I could not be more convinced that the Calvinistic answer to the tension is the correct one. This is not the place to explain why, but there are many, many good reasons to prioritize the sovereignty passages.<BR/><BR/>Still, I can put myself in the Arminians' shoes, and see how they could favor the other side of the tension. They are non-sinfully mistaken.<BR/><BR/>The only people I know who don't admit to this approach are Dispensationalists. They insist that they never, <EM>ever</EM> depart from a plain-sense hermeneutic... Where's their plain-sense hermeneutic when they read Eph. 2 (and other passages)?<BR/><BR/>Don't get me wrong, we must never depart from a plain-sense hermeneutic <STRONG>except when a seeming tension demands it</STRONG>, and in that case, we must extremely careful.Scott Clinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16876591259277154966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164961175157919774.post-9911772039536604932008-01-26T09:21:00.000-06:002008-01-26T09:21:00.000-06:00Hey Scott, appreciate the critique. My intent, how...Hey Scott, appreciate the critique. My intent, however, wasn't to highlight absolute logic, but rather what <I>we</I> see as logic. If God is the source of all truth and logic, and the Scriptures come inerrant from God, then they must be true and logical. There's no dispute there. <BR/><BR/>What Mike said was: <I>I'm not asserting that these people are sinning who are disagreeing with a reformed view of the soteriology, theology, or whatever. I'm asking whether or not these people are worshiping the God of the Bible or some version of God that they've created in their minds due to the fact that they can't deal with a God who IS sovereign.</I><BR/><BR/>You say you're not asserting that they're sinning by disagreeing with a reformed view, but then you show your criteria for determining sin is a reformed view of His sovereignty. You turn around and essentially say they are sinning by breaking the second commandment. I'm wanting to address that with my earlier question. <BR/><BR/>If they can look at the Bible and say "God is not sovereign whatsoever" than they're not even orthodox in any sense of the Word. If however, after reading and inferring logically from Scripture that there (for instance) is a genuine call that God wants everyone to be saved (which is the initial interp for more than one passage, not just 2 Peter 3:9), <B>are they creating a god in their own minds (obvious sin), or are they just mistaken?</B> <BR/><BR/>It may be that we're not even talking on that level anymore. I think as you've developed the thought you've moved from talking about someone who would affirm God's sovereignty (outside of our reformed interp) ... to someone who wouldn't even affirm His sovereignty in any sense. Based on your last post <B>it seems like you are describing Open Theism</B>, not just its incipient forms. Am I incorrect?Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09548448285978266025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164961175157919774.post-7519587611403745732008-01-25T20:04:00.000-06:002008-01-25T20:04:00.000-06:00Will there be APPARENT contradictions? Yes. Will...Will there be APPARENT contradictions? Yes. Will logic always line up with Scripture? Yes. Those two questions are not the same. Scripture would be illogical only if its contradictions were actual, not apparent.<BR/><BR/>We ALL use the "analogy of faith." Covenantalists, Dispensationalists, Calvinists, Arminians, whatever... we ALL interpret at least some verses to mean something other than they initially appear to mean. That's the only way to deal with apparent contradictions. <BR/>There are two kinds of people: people who admit that, and people who don't (Dispensationalists don't).<BR/><BR/>Anywhoo, we digress...Scott Clinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16876591259277154966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164961175157919774.post-81427175143549707452008-01-25T19:11:00.000-06:002008-01-25T19:11:00.000-06:00Mike, you're a heretic. ;-) Sorry, I just couldn't...Mike, you're a heretic. ;-) Sorry, I just couldn't resist, cause I've been called the same at times. Probably not quite in the same context, but close. I appreciate your candor in bringing this up.<BR/><BR/>Let's try this line of reasoning (not rhetorical): will the common rules of what we consider logic consistently line up with Scripture? Or to phrase it another way, after severe exegesis is done, are there still paradoxes/seeming contradictions to be found in Scripture?<BR/><BR/>And no, I'm not about to sell you the whole man's free will vs. God's sovereignty pitch. :-D I too am a firm believer in God's sovereign, pre-temporal, individual election.<BR/><BR/>(html fixes from above)Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09548448285978266025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164961175157919774.post-16718137185368425942008-01-25T19:09:00.000-06:002008-01-25T19:09:00.000-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09548448285978266025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164961175157919774.post-6920200943296175412008-01-25T15:01:00.000-06:002008-01-25T15:01:00.000-06:00"SBC," I'm not asserting that these people are sin..."SBC," I'm not asserting that these people are sinning who are disagreeing with a reformed view of the soteriology, theology, or whatever. I'm asking whether or not these people are worshiping the God of the Bible or some version of God that they've created in their minds due to the fact that they can't deal with a God who IS sovereign.<BR/><BR/>Even when approached logically, we are confronted with certain things about who God is that lead us to undeniable conclusions. Please read this excerpt from "Classical Apologetics" by R.C. Sproul and others: <BR/><BR/>The question is, Did Being unintentionally make things which revealed Himself? Being omniscient, He would have at least forseen it. If He did not want it to happen, He could have prevented it. Therefore, He must have wanted it to happen. That is, He intended or purposed it. Since He has willed everything to come to pass that comes to pass (or it would never have come to pass), He must have purposively ordained everything to come to pass (pg. 124).<BR/><BR/>Next, I'll paraphrase what I recently heard from someone who I would have no reason, necessarily, to call an unbeliever:<BR/><BR/>God has given man a freewill in order for him to make whatever choices that he might make, and God will allow whatever this man does to take place--as long as it doesn't interfere with His ultimate plan. Beyond this, God will USE the sinful actions of man in His overall purpose in time, and He will make it all work out in the end for His final, perfect plan. <BR/><BR/>If God were merely doing what He could with the free actions of mankind, how would He be able to guarantee anything? Who is in control of this situation between God and man? From this perspective, God cannot GUARANTEE anything. Joseph's brothers could've had compassion and made up with their brother, Cyrus could've denied the Jews the freedom to return to Jerusalem, and Pilate could've listened to his sister and taken Jesus to a safe house in Rome. Is God just some passive referee making sure that this project of His doesn't get out of hand, or did He and does He have a plan that He is accomplishing in all of this? If He does, then He wouldn't allow any loose ends, would you? <BR/><BR/>I think that this latter view is dangerously close to the Open Theistic view, and if someone doesn't want to abandon this view then church members and others could be in serious danger as well.Michael.Gabrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10312040031325923270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164961175157919774.post-42619255793181776542008-01-25T01:06:00.000-06:002008-01-25T01:06:00.000-06:00Is this a discussion about our view of God's sover...Is this a discussion about our view of God's sovereignty, or is this discussion about our view of people who view God's sovereignty differently?<BR/><BR/>I agree with your understanding of God's sovereignty. You don't have to convince me that God ordained everything that happens, in one sense or another.<BR/><BR/>What I DO doubt is that we ought to view the common, non-reformed, evangelical understanding as heresy. There are too many good, godly, faithful, God-centered, God-loving men who disagree about this.<BR/><BR/>Can I put myself in their shoes, and see how they could sincerely but mistakenly believe what they do? Yes, on this issue I can (obviously, I'm not talking about Open Theism here!).<BR/><BR/>You asked, "If someone does not submit to the clear teaching of the Scriptures then are they still obeying God?"<BR/>The answer is no. There are some things that are SO clear, and SO indisputable, that anyone who disagrees is disobedient.<BR/>But the reformed view of God's sovereignty (as opposed to the view espoused by good, non-reformed evangelicals) does not fall into that category. What I mean is, even though the reformed view of God's sovereignty is pretty clear, it isn't so TOTALLY indisputable that those who disagree MUST be sinning.Scott Clinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16876591259277154966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164961175157919774.post-3671398706518378582008-01-24T21:00:00.000-06:002008-01-24T21:00:00.000-06:00I have no quibble with you over the idea that genu...I have no quibble with you over the idea that genuinely saved people may have misunderstandings about what God does, but I still want to reserve the right to clarify these things with people in my discussions with them. If someone does not submit to the clear teaching of the Scriptures then are they still obeying God?<BR/><BR/>The person who I may have more of an issue with is the one who claims, "God is sovereign, but..." And the but is not based on Him doing something outside of His character. No God cannot make a square circle or lie. God can, on the other hand, orchestrate certain events which bring glory to His name and much benefit for many people through the sinful acts of men (Gen. 45:4-8; 50:20; Acts 4:26-28). Is God in sovereign control or not? Is He able to act ccording to His own plan, or is He forced to passively react to the mishaps and catastrophes wrought by the freewill of sinful men?Michael.Gabrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10312040031325923270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7164961175157919774.post-15181125240318902002008-01-24T19:33:00.000-06:002008-01-24T19:33:00.000-06:00In terms of one's own theology, we must recognize ...In terms of one's own theology, we must recognize profound unity between who God is and what God does. However, in terms of how we view others, we must recognize some distinction between who God is and what God does.<BR/><BR/>What I mean is this: there can be no legitimate disagreement about who God is. There CAN be legitimate disagreement about what God does.<BR/><BR/>If someone says, "I do not believe that God is gracious," we can safely assume that that person is unregenerate. We can assume the same about someone who says, "I do not believe that God is sovereign." However, we are not free to assume the same just because someone says, "I believe that God is gracious, but I do not believe that God has unconditionally elected some."<BR/><BR/>Directly attacking some aspect of the nature or character of God is different than disagreeing about things He does or does not do.<BR/><BR/>Is the Bible very clear about God's sovereign selection in salvation? I think so. But I choose to practice a "generous orthodoxy" (I use that term much more narrowly than Emergents).<BR/><BR/>If we have to lean one way over the other, lean toward generosity in these things. "Believe all things." Assume the best about people. Try to come up with any possible way that a sincere believer could believe what he does. Differentiate between sinful mistakes and non-sinful mistakes.<BR/><BR/>Of course, there will be issues about which there can be no disagreement, either because the doctrine is too clear ("do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers"), or too significant despite clarity (the doctrine of the Trinity).<BR/><BR/>IMHO, the Arminian error is often a non-sinful mistake.Scott Clinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16876591259277154966noreply@blogger.com