God is Unavoidably in the Mix

Dizerner

Well-known member
No one yet objected that my position involved any unfairness. But since you brought it up...

I didn't say someone objected. I brought it up because YOU brought it up. Why make an irrelevant point? Red herring much?

God created Adam (and mankind) in such a way that propagation is of the whole being, body and spirit (or soul). Just as our body comes from out parents, so also our soul. This puts all of mankind, in a germinal but nonetheless spiritual way, in Adam and participating in his sin. All men sinned while "in the loins of" Adam. All men deserve nothing but death, misery and wrath. Therefore, God is free and fair to do whatever He pleases, since we have no right to object about anything. And God, loving humanity enough to want to save some instead of letting all perish, chose some to save. And the remainder have no valid objection. Fair enough?

Under deterministic beliefs, all of that is irrelevant.

God DECREED each person to become what they are.

Under true free will, all of this makes actual sense.

Adam DECIDED to rebel against God.

Fair enough?
 

Carbon

Well-known member
To elaborate, I hold to a more immanent grace--one that works with the free will of men. Rather than the unable-enabled dynamic, I see in Scripture an aversion-persuasion dynamic, by which the inability of sinners is figurative for their unwillingness, and all men encounter--to varying degrees--the grace of influences toward God and truth.
So where the rubber meets the ground, it's mans free will.
 

Carbon

Well-known member
Carbon said:
So where the rubber meets the ground, it's mans free will.

And yet, God unconditionally elected in eternity past and these alone He saves.
So, I understand your position as a modified Arminian position. No offence, but it is not a middle position from which the bible supports, but instead one you created. I would think the Arminians would be a bit upset with you because you have modified some of their doctrines which they see as distorted.
However, it is far from the Calvinist position and Being an Arminian for many years, from that perspective, I wouldn't call you a Calvinist. Being a Calvinist, I can see your position as a modified Arminian position.

It's like you tampered with someone's computer program, changing some of the program codes and such, tweaking it here and there.

Scripture does not teach God works synergistically with a lost sinner until he finally decides to believe. It's like God becomes someone's buddy to get him born again.

Jesus didn't go into the tomb, sit at the side of dead Lazarus and persuade him to rise. He called Lazarus forth, just as He calls dead, lost sinners forth. He gives them a new heart of flesh and puts His Spirit within them so they can do so.

I do however admire your thinking, it looks like you have spent some time putting this together, even though your not completely convinced of it yourself yet.
 

Ken Hamrick

Active member
So, I understand your position as a modified Arminian position. No offence, but it is not a middle position from which the bible supports, but instead one you created. I would think the Arminians would be a bit upset with you because you have modified some of their doctrines which they see as distorted.
However, it is far from the Calvinist position and Being an Arminian for many years, from that perspective, I wouldn't call you a Calvinist. Being a Calvinist, I can see your position as a modified Arminian position.

It's like you tampered with someone's computer program, changing some of the program codes and such, tweaking it here and there.

Scripture does not teach God works synergistically with a lost sinner until he finally decides to believe. It's like God becomes someone's buddy to get him born again.

Jesus didn't go into the tomb, sit at the side of dead Lazarus and persuade him to rise. He called Lazarus forth, just as He calls dead, lost sinners forth. He gives them a new heart of flesh and puts His Spirit within them so they can do so.

I do however admire your thinking, it looks like you have spent some time putting this together, even though your not completely convinced of it yourself yet.
After I've indicated that I hold to unconditional election and salvation of these alone, you assess my position as modified Arminian?? That strikes me as terribly uninformed, since the main difference between Calvinism & Arminianism has to do with whether election is unconditional and of individuals. UE disqualifies me as Arminian by all reasonable measures. If I must be labeled as one of the two, I would be a 1 to 3 point Calvinist, depending on how strict the points are assessed: TU_I_.
 

Carbon

Well-known member
After I've indicated that I hold to unconditional election and salvation of these alone, you assess my position as modified Arminian??
Well, you got me there. I'm really not sure what ism to call it. Surely not Calvinism, probably not Arminianism either. Perhaps you should make a name for it? Kennieism?
That strikes me as terribly uninformed, since the main difference between Calvinism & Arminianism has to do with whether election is unconditional and of individuals.
In my understanding it's not accurate to take one point of a system and define it. The 5 points make up a whole. Your comment strikes me as terribly uninformed.
UE disqualifies me as Arminian by all reasonable measures.
If you agreed, understood and taught it as scripture does, you might be on to something.

If I must be labeled as one of the two, I would be a 1 to 3 point Calvinist, depending on how strict the points are assessed: TU_I_.
News flash Ken. There are no 1, 2, 3, or 4point Calvinists.
Each of the 5 points are in harmony, and they hold each other together. Remove one, and that system no longer exists.
It's people who cannot agree with the doctrines of grace who claim to be 3, 4 point Calvinists.
 

Carbon

Well-known member
Calvinism isn’t a produce stand from which we can pick and choose which doctrines we wish to keep and pass over the rest in a sort of hermeneutical reprobation. Calvinism is an interwoven system of theology which must be accepted or rejected as a whole.

From: The banner of truth.
 

Ken Hamrick

Active member
Calvinism isn’t a produce stand from which we can pick and choose which doctrines we wish to keep and pass over the rest in a sort of hermeneutical reprobation. Calvinism is an interwoven system of theology which must be accepted or rejected as a whole.

From: The banner of truth.
And t reject it. As I said, I'm a Centrist --in between two erroneous extremes whose errors are repugnant to each other, but who each share part of the biblical truth. When fallen men are faced with truth, they have often veered to either side, causing unending division but obscuring the truth in between them.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
And t reject it. As I said, I'm a Centrist --in between two erroneous extremes whose errors are repugnant to each other, but who each share part of the biblical truth. When fallen men are faced with truth, they have often veered to either side, causing unending division but obscuring the truth in between them.

You make the mistaken assumption that "extreme" means "false", and "moderate" means "true". That is simply not the case.
 

Dizerner

Well-known member
I find it amusing that you consider Banner of Truth to be the "supreme source of authority".

The sarcasm wasn't that hard to perceive, even with just text.

But thanks for jumping to the conclusion that seemed the most insulting to you.

And by the way... that's sarcasm. ;-)
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
The sarcasm wasn't that hard to perceive, even with just text.

Your sarcasm was (1) incredibly easy to spot, and (2) incredibly misplaced, hence my response. NOBODY claimed that BoT was "authoritative". But since you can't support your position with facts, you have to resort to cheap shots, and "sarcasm".

But thanks for jumping to the conclusion that seemed the most insulting to you.

I'm just holding you to your words.
YOU made the claim, YOU need to take responsibility.

And by the way... that's sarcasm. ;-)

So thank you for pointing out that the fruit of the spirit of the god you follow is "sarcasm".

I suggest you instead follow the God whose spirit is peace, love, truth, joy, etc. etc.
 

Carbon

Well-known member
And t reject it. As I said, I'm a Centrist --in between two erroneous extremes whose errors are repugnant to each other, but who each share part of the biblical truth. When fallen men are faced with truth, they have often veered to either side, causing unending division but obscuring the truth in between them.
Well aren't you fortunate to have landed right in the middle of ultimate truth!
 

Carbon

Well-known member
Wow. Can't argue with that supreme source of authority there.
I shouldn't have to explain this to you since you do have a noticeable measure of intelligence. But,
I'm quoting the source where I got the info from. I'm not taking the credit for someone else writing.
 

Ken Hamrick

Active member
Well, you got me there. I'm really not sure what ism to call it. Surely not Calvinism, probably not Arminianism either. Perhaps you should make a name for it? Kennieism?

In my understanding it's not accurate to take one point of a system and define it. The 5 points make up a whole. Your comment strikes me as terribly uninformed.

If you agreed, understood and taught it as scripture does, you might be on to something.


News flash Ken. There are no 1, 2, 3, or 4point Calvinists.
Each of the 5 points are in harmony, and they hold each other together. Remove one, and that system no longer exists.
It's people who cannot agree with the doctrines of grace who claim to be 3, 4 point Calvinists.
I just call it Biblicism :)--like the myriad Baptist saints before me who, although not making a name for themselves in theological debates, held to the truths they found affirmed in Scripture regardless of what Calvinists or Arminians thought. I venture to say that there are probably more of us in the middle than there are C's and A's together. But I'm talking about people in the pews and pulpits, and not those in debate forums or seminaries. Like A. W. Tozer, for example, who was a C&MA preacher in the 50's & 60's, famous for his book, The Pursuit of God. Not holding regeneration prior to faith and not identifying with Calvinists, he beautifully wrote of God as being the "master of destinies" and how sinful man will often bow to God, acknowledging Him as God, but while having a crown upon their own head and wanting to master their own destiny. He was right, of course. God is the Master of destinies and the Bible affirms that election is individual and unconditional. You and I can praise God together for that truth! But there are very many of us who hold to that truth who also see--quite clearly--that the Bible affirms that the gospel has both a universal call and a universal warrant that all men can and should repent and would find salvation if they did. For such middlers, unconditional election is not some limiting factor on who or how many may be saved, but is instead, a mysterious correlate to how much labor we are willing to apply to the "fields white with harvest."
 
Last edited:

Ken Hamrick

Active member
Well aren't you fortunate to have landed right in the middle of ultimate truth!
Fortunate? I'm blessed! But I didn't just land here without much study. And I'm happy to substantively engage, as time allows. There are too many drive-by slogan-posters. We need more people willing to reason together--and who care enough about the truth to be willing to carefully consider whether their own tradition may have erred on anything, as much as to be willing to engage substantive opposing arguments.
 
Top