Yes, Virginia, There Really is a Middle View

His clay

Well-known member
There are MANY ways to describe Tibias' position apart from focusing on a perceived PROBLEM of it.

Can you understand that the FOCUS of the address shows a choice to zoom in on ONE problem?



This questions shows a focus on the problem.

Why ask the question?

Because we need to explain why it seems like it happens.



I explained it multiple times and in detail. Why act like I didn't do that?

I'm not going to "scrap" a term for no good reason.

I don't think you are deliberating wanting to make invalid points, but until you see this thought pattern it will just always be responding to things that distract from valid points I'm making, which feels like dishonesty—however, again, I will give the benefit of the doubt and believe it is unintentional.
"I explained it multiple times and in detail. Why act like I didn't do that?"
Have you had a chance to read my post #219? It is just before your post quoted here. It is addressed to you, but I quoted myself and responded to my prior post.

The unfortunate thing is that you probably didn't get the notification because I quoted myself.
 
Last edited:

Ken Hamrick

Active member
I'm responding to myself here. I've placed in bold what I am responding to.

Dizerner has already stated, in post #217, "the principle and idea is that God does not intervene to do more to save all people or give equal grace to all people." This may appear as an argument from a Calvinist to an Arminian because the Arminian has claimed to have a superior grounding in God's love. The Calvinist responds asking why God's didn't do more or give equal grace to all people. This is called a reductio ad absurdum argument. The Arminian is claiming the superior position, that God is more loving in their view. The Calvinist responds taking the love idea from the Arminian and asks the Arminian to deal with reality. Namely, what about those who have not heard? They obviously have not had the grace given of the gospel that others have received. Usually, it is the Arminian (or non-Calvinist if you prefer) who says that God showing grace for some and not others (the Calvinist view) is morally wrong for God. But again, Ken has put forward the argument that some die without hearing the gospel. How is this not some receiving more grace than others? The point is that the objection fails.

Changing focus for the moment, the Armininian (or non-C if you prefer) typically responds that God does not wish to violate the creature's autonomy. God doesn't want forced, robotic people. Hence, the "more" that the Calvinist is pushing for is not possible. I'm responding to the words, "to do more to save all people." Then the Calvinist puts forward the issue that some level of force is good at times, like during a drug addiction intervention. And the Calvinist may ask how people can be more loving than God. Again, this is an argument that takes the high position--God's love is better represented in the A or non-C view--and exposes it for not being nearly as loving as it purports to be.

Dizerner, am I getting closer to the issue that you are wanting to addressed? I am trying to follow your point, and I've already sought to correct myself in light of trying to better understand your point. I hope that you can see that I'm trying to deal with the issue you are seeking to raise (even if we disagree on the use of a term).
An interesting discussion. Just a small point to interject: the term, “non-Calvinist,” includes both those who hold to determinism and those who do not. Its use is mostly by those who assume that no deterministic middle position exists, so it’s not a helpful term.
 

Ken Hamrick

Active member
If there were a true middle—where true autonomy and true determinism existed—the deterministic side would be completely irrelevant to us and it would be unnecessary to even know the "secret" decrees behind the "revealed" decrees.

The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us... (Deu 29:29 NKJ)

The reason I reject this intriguing position, is that it would make God disingenuous.
It is the biblical truth that is between the two, but it is not defined by either. The Centrist view is only centrist because Calvinism and its backlash, Arminianism, have resorted to excesses in either direction from the biblical truth (respectively). However, Arminians have, by resorting to libertarianism, veered farther from the truth than Calvinists in their determinism. It’s vitally important that we let the Bible define and delimit the meaning and extent of both freedom and determinism, and not philosophy. While myriad examples can be found where men choose their course uncoerced, no example of a man choosing his own inclinations (or choosing his destiny on the same level with God) can be found. None. Also, no example can be found where a man had no real choice in the matter—the outcome a necessity precluding all legitimate alternatives as impossible. Again, none. So the middle, more biblical view is that of a determinative certainty, short of necessity, by which a man’s choices are made freely enough to leave him rightly accountable and deny him the objection that he could do no other.
 

Ken Hamrick

Active member
Yes, it's basically the idea. It is very strange that the Calvinist will often object the Arminian God seems less loving, then go on to say that's not even the right definition of love when it comes to reprobation—it seem like a very bizarre double standard.

I had explained some principles of victimization in this post I probably assumed you had been following:

You might find this 8-part series helpful.
 

ReverendRV

Well-known member
An interesting discussion. Just a small point to interject: the term, “non-Calvinist,” includes both those who hold to determinism and those who do not. Its use is mostly by those who assume that no deterministic middle position exists, so it’s not a helpful term.
You should get into a discussion with them as to if a little Determinism, determines the whole Loaf. You could probably point out places in the Bible where God DID determine something; then they would have to believe in Hard Determinism because they always round-up Soft Determinism. I would enjoy reading that discussion; I've had it with them for years now...
 
Last edited:
G

guest1

Guest
I would say there is more than one kind of love.

There is soulish love that is based on the emotions.

There is a supernatural impossible love that only God can give, to love someone that doesn't love you back.

And it would be conflation and equivocation to use those two kinds of love to equal the same thing.
how is hard/soft determinism conflating when they can prove a distinction ?

are you claiming its a distinction without a difference ?
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Might I just point out that the ideas behind Arminianism came before those behind Calvinism historically.


Have you looked up all the quotes in this video, and checked their context, as well as checking the other teachings of those quoted to check for consistency?
 

Carbon

Well-known member
Have you looked up all the quotes in this video, and checked their context, as well as checking the other teachings of those quoted to check for consistency?
I don’t think it would make a difference.
All he sees is God forcing everything on us robots.
 

preacher4truth

Well-known member
Cool, love the robot dialogue.

In the meantime here is @Ken Hamrick's gospel:

Every man must keep the law. Divine righteousness alone cannot save us, since we are not gods but men who need human righteousness--the kind of righteousness achieved by a man and worked out in the actions and attitudes of a human life, step by step and day by day. Christ did not give us merely His divine righteousness--that is the heresy of Osiander. Rather, He became one of us so He could walk in our shoes and do all that we should have done, keeping the law perfectly in our place.

We all need two things to gain heaven:
1. We need a human life lived perfectly righteous in every detail from birth to grave;
2. As those who have sinned, we need to suffer the complete wrath of God against sin.

Christ fulfilled both of these: He lived a perfectly righteous life from manger to grave, fulfilling the law's requirements on any man in every detail. And He suffered the complete wrath of God against our sin, suffering our penalty. When we come to Him in faith, Christ is sent into our hearts in a spiritually identifying union by which we gain an ownership in all of His human deeds, including both His righteous human life and His propitiatory, atoning death. After we are joined to Christ, we are seen in the eyes of justice as having lived His life and having died His death two thousand years ago. Christ in me and I in Christ have become one new man, and the old identity is no longer valid--no longer condemnable--no longer lacking at the bar of Judgment.
Any one knowing anything about the Gospel knows indeed the above is a false gospel. Philippians 3:9, Galatians, and a myriad of NT truth affirms this. This guy needs to be under Titus 3:9-11.
 

Carbon

Well-known member
Cool, love the robot dialogue.

In the meantime here is @Ken Hamrick's gospel:


Any one knowing anything about the Gospel knows indeed the above is a false gospel. Philippians 3:9, Galatians, and a myriad of NT truth affirms this. This guy needs to be under Titus 3:9-11.
Yep, the first couple lines says enough.
 
Top