Yes, Virginia, There Really is a Middle View

Carbon

Well-known member
I'm FB friends with his daughter, probably because we have mutual friends who evangelize Mormons (including two co-pastors and their wives).

She just recently wrote a book about her father, and Hank Hanegraaf.
That’s awesome Theo, sounds pretty exciting!
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
God says it is, so it is.

24 Because I have called and you refused, I have stretched out my hand and no one regarded,
25 Because you disdained all my counsel, And would have none of my rebuke,
26 I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your terror comes (Pro 1:24-26 NKJ)

Where does any of that say God "loved" those He "called and .... refused"?

But anyway, thank you for summarily dismissing my analogy, which means that any analogy given by non-Calvinists can just as validly be summarily dismissed.

Gotta love those double standards! :)
 

Carbon

Well-known member
One of Calvinism's errors is taking what is literal and treating it as a figure, analogy or metaphor. Spiritual death is a literal condition, and not an analogy to an inanimate body in a grave. Spiritual death is not about being inanimate--it's about being separated from God. "As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead." And a spirit without God is dead. There is also the condition of being "dead in sins," in which you are not only spiritually separated from God, but also a dead man walking, as it were, regarding the coming judgment. But neither way of expressing the condition of spiritual death contains within its meaning the idea of being inanimate.
Another one who is judging Calvinism who does not understand Calvinism.
Calvinists tend to object that the Bible says that sinners are deaf and blind, like dead bodies in a way.
They do? Since when?
And in every case, it was God alone who decided whether to bring to bear enough gracious influences (internal and external) to bring that man to genuine, repentant faith in Christ
God does not need to deal with man as men deal with each other. As men by different ways seek to persuade a man to be willing to repent.

People have the gospel preached to them all the time, and scripture teaches this is not sufficient to convert people into believers. Scripture teaches faith is a gift, For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, Eph 2.

The gospel must be accompanied by God's almighty power to cause man to believe. 19 and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his great might Eph 1.

20 Now may the God of peace who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant, 21 equip you with everything good that you may do his will, working in us that which is pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen. Heb 13.

, or to not bring to bear that level of influences that He knew would have resulted in successful conversion. It is all according to God's eternal plan, which has as its ultimate goal the glorification of Himself.
Your thoughts on God's plan is different then God's plan in His word.
 

Carbon

Well-known member
Now before you claim Heb 13:21 is God working with the sinner to persuade him to repent and believe, ......

20 Now may the God of peace who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant, 21 equip you with everything good that you may do his will, working in us that which is pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen. Heb 13.

My understanding is Paul is teaching of the three parts required in the work of sanctification.
equip you with everything good that you may do his will, working in us that which is pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.

The first is the framing of the new man in the Spirit, which is absolutely a work of God.

Second, the practice of this gift by the regenerate man, doing God's will by virtue of this gift.


Third, God's perpetual assistance to stir up this gift. Causing it to increase and bring forth true fruit.

This is all so the perfection of the work belongs to God, not man. Through Jesus working in the elect by His Spirit.
 

His clay

Active member
i read the interlinear at scripture4all…

it’s simple to see in genesis 1 as an example…

that eden had no toil sweat death illness..
all of nature obeyed Him…

and that adams fall meant we got barred
— in reality we were, not just subjectively…


God said to eat of it was death…
which is not a mental state but also cosmological. and adam ate…

many features of the world He created do not match this one, which was a big battle of science at the end of the medieval… but many conflated the worlds. His for example is not geocentric, does not evolve etc. There was a raqia… etc.
Where in Genesis 1-3 do you get the idea of multiple worlds? Certainly, we can agree that prefallen creation and fallen creation are different, but this does not demonstrate that there are multiple worlds. After all, God cursed Adam, Eve, the serpent, and creation (see the later portion of ch3). No positive assertion is ever made of multiple worlds, and thusly your best argument would be from silence. Why would an angelic guard be needed if the tree of life was on a different world?

Raqia is often misunderstood as entailing a hard structure (firmament)(canopy theory, etc); rather, the term is referring to an expanse based off the idea of raqia dealing with the spreading of metal, rather than the metal itself. It is a conflation of the object of the action with the verb.
 

His clay

Active member
the dimensional veil between this world and the other world is actually related to that separation you mention.
Once again, the passage does speak of an expanse. It does not mention more than one world, and it certainly doesn't mention a dimensional veil. Why would an angelic guard be needed if the tree of life was on a different world? Did you notice that erets is always in the singular? Badal is what is translated "separate."

I've watched plenty of Star Trek when I was younger, but that is not where we should get our theology of cosmology from . . . or from imaginative leaps built from arguments from silence.
 

His clay

Active member
i disagree on your interpretation.
that does not bother me that you see it another way.
What interpretation? That erets is always in the singualar is objective fact. Badal's translation is objective fact. Expanse as a good translation is objective fact. The fact that it makes no sense to guard a tree that is on another world from people who can't get there is objective fact. It is objective fact that your argument is based upon no positive textual evidence. Please don't use the postmodern rhetoric of interpretation, when all that you have in this case is pure unadulterated subjective baseless opinion. It doesn't bother me that you have a different interpretation, but don't call the objective reality you have chosen to ignore an interpretation.
 

Dizerner

Well-known member
First, I've never once thought about victimization, and so your comment seems absolutely foreign and completely unrepresentative of my view or any that I've read. I've never read that from Ken either.

It's just the word itself isn't used, the idea is constantly used.

Notice this quote from Ken's latest post:

So then, you're saying that the inequities and negligence on our part, which results in many people perishing who would have been saved if not for our inequities, is not God's fault but ours? Then God has left the destiny of so many people in the hands of those whom He foreknew would not get the job done, but He preferred that those be lost rather than cause too much divine "interference?

God "preferred" to refuse divine interference and allow some to be lost.

It doesn't matter that you don't use the word "victim" or "victimization," the principle and idea is that God does not intervene to do more to save all people or give equal grace to all people.

And if you forced me to do the work, I could come up with similar quotes from you.

Yet you unfairly and unjustly accuse me of being "unrepresentative" of your view or "any that [you've] read."

I've read for and listened to literally hundreds of hours dealing with Calvinism, and if you sort and sift the ideas down, this is the one single major issue that motivates and prompts the ideas, why God seems unfair concerning grace. Sure it can obfuscated by sophistry and doublespeak, but that's always it.

 

His clay

Active member
It's just the word itself isn't used, the idea is constantly used.

Notice this quote from Ken's latest post:



God "preferred" to refuse divine interference and allow some to be lost.

It doesn't matter that you don't use the word "victim" or "victimization," the principle and idea is that God does not intervene to do more to save all people or give equal grace to all people.

And if you forced me to do the work, I could come up with similar quotes from you.

Yet you unfairly and unjustly accuse me of being "unrepresentative" of your view or "any that [you've] read."

I've read for and listened to literally hundreds of hours dealing with Calvinism, and if you sort and sift the ideas down, this is the one single major issue that motivates and prompts the ideas, why God seems unfair concerning grace. Sure it can obfuscated by sophistry and doublespeak, but that's always it.

It's just the word itself isn't used, the idea is constantly used.

Notice this quote from Ken's latest post:



God "preferred" to refuse divine interference and allow some to be lost.

It doesn't matter that you don't use the word "victim" or "victimization," the principle and idea is that God does not intervene to do more to save all people or give equal grace to all people.

And if you forced me to do the work, I could come up with similar quotes from you.

Yet you unfairly and unjustly accuse me of being "unrepresentative" of your view or "any that [you've] read."

I've read for and listened to literally hundreds of hours dealing with Calvinism, and if you sort and sift the ideas down, this is the one single major issue that motivates and prompts the ideas, why God seems unfair concerning grace. Sure it can obfuscated by sophistry and doublespeak, but that's always it.

Yes, those are Ken's words, but they are seeking to describe TibiasDad's position (clearly not a Calvinist). Did you notice the part where he said, "So then, you're saying . . ." ?

Do people deserve equal grace?

Edited to add: I'm not sure why my post is double quoting you???

Edited to add: What do you mean by victimization then? Let's just scrap the term and get at the point of the word. What do you mean when you use the term, and how does the meaning correspond to Calvinism? I ask these questions because I don't want our discussion to get hung up over a simple term.
 
Last edited:

His clay

Active member
Yes, those are Ken's words, but they are seeking to describe TibiasDad's position (clearly not a Calvinist). Did you notice the part where he said, "So then, you're saying . . ." ?

Do people deserve equal grace?

Edited to add: I'm not sure why my post is double quoting you???

Edited to add: What do you mean by victimization then? Let's just scrap the term and get at the point of the word. What do you mean when you use the term, and how does the meaning correspond to Calvinism? I ask these questions because I don't want our discussion to get hung up over a simple term.
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).
 

Dizerner

Well-known member
Yes, those are Ken's words, but they are seeking to describe TibiasDad's position (clearly not a Calvinist). Did you notice the part where he said, "So then, you're saying . . ." ?

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?

Do people deserve equal grace?

This questions shows a focus on the problem.

Why ask the question?

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

Edited to add: What do you mean by victimization then? Let's just scrap the term and get at the point of the word. \

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.
 

His clay

Active 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.
 

Dizerner

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.

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.
 

Dizerner

Well-known member
"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.

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:

 

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:
Top