Thursday, October 08, 2009

Moving on from a Theological Rut

This blog was never intended to be a place where anyone and everyone could try to promote their questionable doctrines. Many other blogs allow (and some even encourage) the ongoing “Arminian/Calvinism debate” and the same old ground is trodden and the theological rut deepens.

I have made no secret that I detest the doctrines of Calvinism. They portray a god far different from the one true God revealed through scripture by the Holy Spirit. But constantly going over that same old ground, refuting the same old arguments and facing a barrage of the same old proof texts is clearly a waste of time and it distracts from things that are genuinely important. I will no longer give time to answering the same misrepresentations of the gospel presented by the same people over and over again. Therefore I will make more active use of the moderation options and will delete those comments that try to perpetuate the theological rut-digging.
That process has already begun – and if the writers of the comments I have deleted feel snubbed by not having their views addressed, I suggest they go back to the replies I gave to their earlier comments and see what I said about the very same views the first time they were expressed.

Before I move on from the matter of deleting comments; the following statement comes from a comment I rejected for the reasons stated above.

Paul G said: “Because you don’t believe or understand the doctrine of election, it ultimately forces you to trust and believe in your own TRUST and BELIEF and not in the finished work of Calvary.”

Firstly I have quite a good understanding of “election” as depicted in scripture. I also have a good understanding of the Calvinist doctrine of “unconditional election” – a doctrine that clearly contradicts God’s revelation given in scripture. But that is not the main part of the statement that I want to address.

Note the confusion in the latter part of the statement: the part that accuses me of trusting and believing in my “own TRUST and BELIEF and not in the finished work of Calvary”. Does Paul G trust in the finished work of Calvary? Is he not then trusting in his own trust in the finished work of Calvary? What makes his situation and his “trust” different to mine?

The difference is that the Calvinist doctrine of “unconditional election” effectively bypasses Calvary all together. It makes salvation the result of a pre-creation decree that determined which individuals were lucky enough to be saved. Therefore salvation has nothing to do with Calvary and Christ’s sacrifice and everything to do with having one’s name drawn out in god’s salvation lottery.

Paul closes his comment with the statement “Salvation is of the Lord” – and I totally agree. The disagreement is not with the source of salvation (the Lord), it is with the MEANS by which salvation is made available. Does that means reflect the character of God as revealed throughout scripture: does that means reflect His justice, His righteousness, His love and His mercy?

Debating Calvinists has never been my intention. My only interest in this matter has been to expose the evils of Calvinism’s doctrines. Those who choose to remain adherents to those false doctrines do so according to their own free will (ironically a free will many of them would deny having).

One of the most difficult experiences of the past few months has not been due to the response I've had from Calvinists. It has come from the reactions of some who deny being Calvinists who for some reason took offense when I drew attention to what Calvinism really promotes. To me this reveals a false sense of loyalty, an almost ecumenical approach that is willing to “agree to disagree” over important truths in order to maintain an appearance of peace.
Despite those difficult experiences, there have been indications that some have taken note and have realised for themselves how sinister the doctrines of Calvinism really are.

11 comments:

Paul G said...

Onesimus;
I understand why you deleted my comment and that's OK with me.

However, that is not good for your sake because it hinders you in growing in the knowledge and understanding of the Word of God and His ways.
The man of God is forged on the battlefield and not in a secure and safe place of his own understanding.

Perhaps one day you might love the Royal doctrine of election (the sovereignty of God) and hate the doctrine of man which you believe so passionately.

In this post you suggest that I believe in unconditional election. As I said before, that I am not a Calvinist! And I don't really like John Calvin because he murdered one of my brothers Michael Servetus.

As you know, the Calvinists believe in unconditional election, but I believe in CONDITIONAL election based upon the condition that they are children of God or children of Adam, not by their choice but God's choice.

Because you don't take anymore of my comments, then there is no need for me to give you a comment to this post and that is also OK with me.

I have not been rude or disrespectful to you, that's because I love you as a brother for Christ's sake and not for the sake of agreement in a doctrine.
Lots of love
Paul

yeah, me again said...

One should suppose that proper instruction in the doctrine of man’s depravity and the necessity for justification through the righteousness of Christ alone would deliver us from the power of self sins, but it doesn’t work that way. Self can live unrebuked at the very altar.--Tozer

Self is the opaque veil that hides the face of God from us. Opaque means that you cannot see through it. Self in its subtlety, in its power to conceal, will take on any form so long as it will be allowed to continue and to flourish. If it will not be allowed to continue in carnality, or sensuality, or materialism, it will graduate to other levels. It will go on to culture, to intellect, and if that is abandoned, it will go on to religion. If religion is abandoned, it will go on into spirituality. Self is pervasive, tenacious. It doesn’t want to give up the ghost. So long as it remains, it is a veil. It is opaque. It hides the face of God. It keeps us from entering. The way is open. God bids us come boldly, but we can’t. We come but nothing happens. The veil is open on His side, but we bring our own veil with us, and we don’t make that divine contact.

So self is the opaque veil that hides the face of God from us. It can be removed only in spiritual experience, never by mere instruction. We might as well try to instruct leprosy out of our system. There must be a work of God in destruction before we can go free. The true cross is deadly; it is painful, but it alone can bring to death that veil and part it that we might enter boldly into the new and living way made available once and for all through His blood. It is not fun to die. To rip through the dear and tender stuff of which life is made can never be anything but deeply painful. If you presume to have come to the cross and have experienced no pain, you have not come. If that is what the cross did to Jesus, then that is what the cross will do to every man to set him free. God must do everything for us because it is rent from top to bottom. Our part is to yield and trust, to desire and welcome its work. We must confess, forsake, repudiate the self-life, and reckon it crucified, but we must be careful to distinguish lazy acceptance from the real work of God. We mustn’t fail here. We mustn’t spiritualize this or think that because we can verbalize it, we have the actuality. It is a genuine experience that is required, as genuine and authentic as the splitting of the veil that was over the holiest place of all. Something very real must take place, and merely verbalizing about it does not mean that it has been actualized.--Art Katz, The Veil of Self

yeah, me again said...

If that birthing has taken place and is the birthing of the nature of God, the divine nature into an earthly vessel, the incarnation again, then there should be evidence. Such a phenomenon cannot take place without there being some expression, some outworking of that new nature, that divine thing. If one of these decisional Christians has gone on now for 10, 15, 20 or more years and is not showing evidence of the divine nature, notwithstanding the ongoing struggle between flesh and spirit, we need to ask if indeed the new nature has been imparted. If there is no evidence of a new nature, then it is not too extreme to raise the question of whether there has been a new birth. We should even encourage the one who is not evidencing that nature, and is acting contrary to it, to put that question to the Lord: Have I really ever been born from above? If not, Lord, I implore You that that birth might come. Katz, same

Will you now just unlink from Katz? That is the easy way...

Onesimus said...

yeah, me again quoted:

We should even encourage the one who is not evidencing that nature, and is acting contrary to it, to put that question to the Lord: Have I really ever been born from above? If not, Lord, I implore You that that birth might come. Katz, same

------


Interesting quote darren.

Will you now admit that the unregenerate are ABLE to implore God that "birth might come"? Or did you miss that bit of Katz in your quote?

Darren, you continue to make wrong assumptions about my beliefs - assumptions that have been instilled into you by your Calvinst brainwashing. You have been prejudiced against the truth by your willing submission to Calvinist lies.

Interesting also that you would keep quoting Katz and Tozer. Neither of them would be in agreement with your hyper-calvinist views.

And what do YOU think of Katz's prophetic views of Israel and the future of Israel? What do YOU think of Katz's preaching on the literal earthly theocratic reign of God from Zion?
Or do you merely cherry pick the quotes that you THINK may make the point you want?

It IS a little dishonest to use out of context quotes to support your own view when the writer of those quotes does not hold to the views you are trying to support.

But then again THAT is what you do with scripture all the time.

Onesimus said...

Yeah me again (darren),
Since you are fond of quoting Tozer:

"God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, “What doest thou?” Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so.

A.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy, chapter 22 "The Sovereignty of God".

Onesimus said...

In deleting some of darren’s (yeah me again) comments I mistakenly deleted the following. Somehow I highlighted ALL of the comments and not only the one that I intended to delete.

I therefore post them here in full:


COMMENT 1

problem is you cannot answer to what is written of the natural man's inability; so you have created your own philosophy; your problem is not with any "ism"...please, Tim, read what is written of the natural man, and then see that your argument for man's will causing regeneration is false and dishonoring to God

I am not troubled that you do not put these comments up on your blog--delete them all...I only pray that you would study the truth as it is in Scripture and may God open your heart to see the truth of man's depravity in all aspects of his being including his corrupt will, and God's absolute sovereignty in salvation

MY REPLY:

I am well aware of the state of natural man. But I am also aware of God’s desires (for all to be saved, for all to come to repentance) and I am well aware of God’s capability to enable man to respond to His gospel and to the conviction of the Holy Spirit. I am also aware that God wants a WILLING people to be adopted into His family so He does not use irresistible force to override the freedom that He in His sovereignty has given mankind.

And I agree man’s will does NOT cause regeneration. Suggesting that I believe that is a total misrepresentation of my beliefs. It is a misrepresentation that you have learned from your Calvinist teachers and NOT from an honest assessment of the facts of what I believe or the facts of what Arminians believe. Such lies are false and dishonouring to God when they are presented in His name.

God is the source and the power behind regeneration – but regeneration is not forced upon anyone.

Yes God is absolutely sovereign in salvation – HE alone has determined that Salvation should be made available to mankind and He alone has determined the means by which salvation is given. That means is by faith in Him enabled by the convicting power of the gospel and the Holy Spirit. It is not through an arbitrary, pre-creation “unconditional election” and it is not through the enforcement of a mythical “irresistible grace”.

Since you have proven yourself keen to quote Tozer, I suggest you take another look at the Tozer quote I provided earlier about God’s sovereignty and His provision of free will to mankind.

And darren,
in saying "may God open your heart to see the truth"... don't you see the irony? Do you have more concern about my eternal destiny than God? Would you not be expressing deires contrary to His will if according to your Calvinist viewpoint I was not one of His elect?

Onesimus said...

COMMENT 2 from “yeah me again”
you are linked to Katz' ministry; do you ever read with understanding?

"...the more mainline evangelism, which is more a decisional Christianity. The preacher makes an altar call, the person comes forward, makes a confession, recites a prayer, and he commences his Christian life. It is a good question whether an actual birth has taken place if it is initiated by man, however well-meaning his intention, however moved he is by the message, however much he now desires to be a Christian or to forsake sin. Can man initiate that birth that has got to be wholly given of God? It is clear that there are untold numbers, maybe millions of people, who have entered Christianity decisionally; it was their decision, but it was not His birthing. It is good to be reminded that this birthing is from above, and we cannot commence this life and obtain this nature, except that it is actually birthed in us. We need to insist upon this divine prerogative, and look for that, and believe for that, and wait for that, and trust in that, and not religiously process people into a kind of evangelical Christianity by virtue of their decision." Katz, Born From Above

----------------------

Now my comments:

Firstly here is a link so the WHOLE article may be read.
Born from Above

An article that includes a quote from Oswald Chambers that says: “The characteristic of the new birth is that I yield myself so completely to God that Christ is formed in me. “

An article in which Katz says (as I highlighted in a previous comment) “. If one of these decisional Christians has gone on now for 10, 15, 20 or more years and is not showing evidence of the divine nature, notwithstanding the ongoing struggle between flesh and spirit, we need to ask if indeed the new nature has been imparted. If there is no evidence of a new nature, then it is not too extreme to raise the question of whether there has been a new birth. We should even encourage the one who is not evidencing that nature, and is acting contrary to it, to put that question to the Lord: Have I really ever been born from above? If not, Lord, I implore You that that birth might come.”


Now again – how does that fit into your theology of regeneration preceding man’s ability to seek God and to express faith in Him? Could anyone (according to your theology) implore God “that birth might come”.

Onesimus said...

Paul G said: “In this post you suggest that I believe in unconditional election. As I said before, that I am not a Calvinist! And I don't really like John Calvin because he murdered one of my brothers Michael Servetus.

As you know, the Calvinists believe in unconditional election, but I believe in CONDITIONAL election based upon the condition that they are children of God or children of Adam, not by their choice but God's choice.”


Paul, do you really think there is any difference between your “CONDITIONAL election” and the Calvinist “unconditional election”?

According to your doctrine who becomes a child of God so that they can be conditionally elected? It seems a very circular theology to me. Conditional election based on the condition of being a child of God which is based on what? Being chosen by God?

To misquote Shakespeare, “Unconditional election by any other name is no less foul”.

Paul G said...

Yes Onesimus there is a difference!
Conditional election means, elected by a condition. (They must be sons.)
Unconditional election means, elected by NO condition, perhaps randomly picked out of a hat as you have said somewhere.

Onesimus; you cannot become a son of God because you would like to, just as you cannot become a son to the Queen of England.

Imagine you walk up to the Queen and say, now I chose to receive you and I will put my faith and trust in you.
What do you think she would tell you?
If you cannot do that to an earthly Queen, neither can you do that to the King of Kings.

Have you become a son of your father by your choice?
Or was it the choice of your earthly father to bring you into life?
The same is in the Lord; it was His choice to bring you forth and it had absolutely nothing to do with you.
You were the recipient of life in both the natural and the spiritual.
Therefore you should be thankful to the Lord that you were one of the elected ones and not a reprobate, (son of the devil).
Paul

Onesimus said...

Paul,
And what condition does God apply to determine who He will choose to be sons?

It seems to me that you are merely adding an extra unconditional step to distance yourself very slightly from Calvin.

Instead of unconditional election you invent an unconditional sonship that leads to conditional election.


And sorry Paul, I am not so self-obsessed that I could "be thankful to the Lord that [I am] one of the elected ones and not a reprobate" when countless billions will be damned soleley becauseyour God did not (unconditionally) choose them to be sons.

However I CAN be thankful to the Lord for the salvation He has provided to whosoever believes in Him and His sacrifice. I can be thankful to the Lord who desires ALL to be saved, who is being patient, not wanting any to perish but EVERYONE to come to repentance.

Onesimus said...

http://onefiles.blogspot.com/2009/10/why-i-am-not-calvinist-by-dr-tim-pierce.html