Are you Arminian, Calvinist, or other?

[Eleanor]

You made reference to a thread that I started and what I said in it. That is what drew me into a post that was to someone else. It was not a put down, an indictment, or an accusation. It was a statement.

Sorry for the mix-up.

As indicated, my post #377 was an addition to my post #375 to the Rev, it was not to you.

Regarding the issue of Covenant theology: it does not use "covenant" the way it is used in the OT, causing confusion with Scripture.

Hope this unscrambles everything that got scrambled.

 

[Eleanor]

What's your opinion?

I guess I need nuances distinguished.

The nuances which I find profound are those that are an application from another part of Scripture or are in keeping with Scripture.

I think I've seen supposed nuances that were self-authorized, in fact, they go beyond nuance, they are presented as necessary conclusions.

 

[Carbon]

I prefer "monergist," as opposed to Calvinist. Calvin wrote some things with which I disagree.

Monergist is good.
Calvin was only human, but one of the humans God used mightly during the reformation. No human is perfect.

Soteriologically, he believed baptism was salvific.

I have to disagree here. I have never read where Calvin thought or taught that. I think you may have misunderstood.

I do not.

I'm with you there bro.

Most Cals don't, either.

It was likely a holdover from His Roman Catholicism.

I think you should look into it. I'm sure you will find he did not.

Calvinism has evolved and some matters are not decided. You all may recall a thread I posted in CARM on the diversity within Calvinism to evidence that fact. Remember: it was Luther, not Calvin, who started the Reformation, and it was Luther who first gave us the solas (to be accurate he was working from seeds planted a few centuries earlier by folks like Claudius of Turin in the 9th century and Wycliffe in the 14th), not Calvin.

Okay....

The Westminster Confession was written until Calvin had been dead 100 years, and it was originally an Anglican document (although I doubt it would exist were it not for John Knox).

For the record, I am not obsessed with Calvin. Like many Arminians are.

The one thing on which we "Calvinists" all agree is that God alone saves,

Indeed, but there is so much more. May I ask how long you have been a Calvinist or, Monergist?

and He does so for reasons and purposes of His own by His own work(s)

Foe His good pleasure and glory.

and does not in any way regard anything of the sinfully dead and enslaved flesh to be of any import, relevance, or means of His salvation.

Amen

This is usually couched specifically in context to regeneration, which Cals/monergists believe is accomplished solely by the Holy Spirit prior to and as a means of salvation. Regeneration is not collaborative, or synergistic. If I may borrow a line from The White Horse Inn (I think Kim Riddlebarger said), the only thing we bring to our salvation is the sin from which we are being saved. Salvation is monergistic, not synergistic.


I am monergist.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that came from Edwards.

 

[Deleted member 5]

Regarding?

You asked:

Will not nuances on the subject be presented in Scripture in the context of all Scripture?

So I asked what your opinion is on the above.

 

[Carbon]

I just defend Calvinism in a way Calvinists aren't used to...

A Calvinist will say, 2+2=4...
I say, 1+2+1=4...

And they will say, "What in the world are you talking about Heritic?!"

Being a Calvinist I would say let's get it together brother!

 

[Arial]

Sorry for the mix-up.

As indicated, my post #377 was an addition to my post #375 to the Rev, it was not to you.

Regarding the issue of Covenant theology: it does not use "covenant" the way it is used in the OT, causing confusion with Scripture.

Hope this unscrambles everything that got scrambled.

I still would like to know in what way you say covenant theology does not use covenant the way it is used in the OT. Otherwise, hunky dory.

 

[Carbon]

You ought to hear what they say when I say, (-1)+5=4

They say, "Get behind me Satan!"

Or they .................................

 

[Eleanor]

You asked:

So I asked what your opinion is on the above.

See post #422.

 

[Carbon]

I learned something important in Marriage Counseling; IE "Talking in Absolutes"...

"You NEVER take out the trash!", or "You ALWAYS leave the seat up!"...

Never allowing for a Biblical Systematic Theology, is the Absolute of Solo Scriptura...

My avoiding some Posters, is like a husband with no car; staying in the Garage all the time...

Is this one of those (-1)+5=4 ers...?

Lol, just kidding bro.

 

[Deleted member 5]

See post #422.

Do you have a link?

 

[Eleanor]

I still would like to know in what way you say covenant theology does not use covenant the way it is used in the OT. Otherwise, hunky dory.

Edenic covenant.
There was no Biblical covenant in Eden.
That was law, not covenant.

Only seven covenants are presented in Scripture: Noah, two to Abraham, Sinai, Phinehas (regarding priesthood), Davidic, and New.

Covenant theology seems to confuse administrations (dispensations) with covenants.

 

[Eleanor]

Do you have a link?

Post #422 reads:

I guess I need nuances distinguished.

The nuances which I find profound are those that are an application from another part of Scripture or are in keeping with Scripture.

I think I've seen supposed nuances that were self-authorized, in fact, they go beyond nuance, they are presented as necessary conclusions.

 

[Deleted member 5]

Post #422 reads:

I guess I need nuances distinguished.

The nuances which I find profound are those that are an application from another part of Scripture or are in keeping with Scripture.

I think I've seen supposed nuances that were self-authorized, in fact, they go beyond nuance, they are presented as necessary conclusions.

Well, I'm not following what you're trying to convey compared to my post.

 

[Arial]

Edenic covenant.
There was no Biblical covenant in Eden.
That was law, not covenant.

Only seven covenants are presented in Scripture: Noah, two to Abraham, Sinai, Phinehas (regarding priesthood), Davidic, and New.

Covenant theology seems to confuse administrations (dispensations) with covenants.

I will need to go over this tomorrow. It is too involved for me to venture into at the moment. Other things to do. See you on the morrow.

 

[Arial]

The Westminster Confession was written until Calvin had been dead 100 years, and it was originally an Anglican document (although I doubt it would exist were it not for John Knox).

Interesting. I am in the middle of reading a book on the Scottish reformation which followed a bit behind that in other areas. You don't want to mess with those Scots (of which I am one, of the House of Bruce, and had relatives involved in the Reformation) when it comes to their freedom. They composed a confession that was shorter than the Westminster and was later fleshed out and refined into the Westminster.

They were fighting several wars at once political and religious as they sought both political freedom and religious freedom. Of course the two things were conjoined at the time. This video gives me chills. I will share it as a brief breather in the conversation.

 

[Eleanor]

Well, I'm not following what you're trying to convey compared to my post.

You referred to your bringing out nuances.
I was referring to nuance as based in Scripture rather than personal opinion.

 

[Deleted member 5]

You referred to your bringing out nuances.

These had to do with the Biblical position on preaching and teaching the word, and God's authority and ordaining of the method.

I was referring to nuance as based in Scripture rather than personal opinion.

I wasn't giving personal opinion in my post. It was Biblically based.

 

[makesends]

What about exegetical, expositional teaching/preaching? God endorses the method, does He not?

Indeed he does. In fact, it is through the weakness of our preaching that God's power is demonstrated.

If a person is trying to "in a human attempt" reconcile their thinking with Scripture apparently they have the cart before the horse. Or, at the least, your example comes across that way. I believe prayer, illumination of the Spirit, exegesis, hermeneutics &c are invaluable in conveying divine truth to others from Scripture. This is why we preach, to give the sense of the passage. Nehemiah 8:8 is one example of what I am speaking of. Luke 24:45 is also important. We can see Peter "giving the sense" of the Scriptures in Acts 2 &c.

Yes, it seems necessary, but it seems to me necessary as a result of the fact that we cannot understand divine truth in its fullness. A sort of humorous (to me) representation of this is when the Children of Israel did not want to hear directly from God. They couldn't handle the truth straight on.

I believe we should be careful in mitigating preaching, teaching, or conveying to others what the Scriptures mean. We need more than what they say, many know what they say. We need what they mean, and that comes through study, and those studies, exegeting, preaching, teachings end in conveying Divine Truth to others. Ephesians 4:11ff express this important truth.

I agree. We do need to be careful, and not foolish, in conveying truth. But what the Scriptures say IS what it means —it is WE who can't see it as such, and so need it explained. And that, by others who still fall short in understanding to the full.

Brian McClaren and Rob Bell have gone down a road concluding we cannot know what Scripture means. I recall the former ridiculing a preacher on radio to his wife by poking fun at him for coming across as if he knew what Scripture meant. The ironic thing is McClaren goes on to teach others what Scripture means (and I do not endorse anything he says.)

Yes, in that sense, I get your point. Other than that I am trying to draw out more nuances on this subject. Some lurkers may get the idea we are undermining the method God has granted to convey His truths via the preaching of the Gospel.

I tend to think that God has weak humans to preach to weak humans, weakly, because his truth will not otherwise be understood even weakly. If I tell my neighbor that what the Bible means by such and such a verse is that God is omnipotent, he may understand that better than to simply read the passage. That does not, however, mean that he understands what is necessarily implied by "omnipotent".

 

[Sereni-tea]

Edenic covenant.
There was no Biblical covenant in Eden.
That was law, not covenant.

Only seven covenants are presented in Scripture: Noah, two to Abraham, Sinai, Phinehas (regarding priesthood), Davidic, and New.

Covenant theology seems to confuse administrations (dispensations) with covenants.

I am curious, how do you see Eden as law, not covenant? Actually, I won't derail this thread, but post in the Theology section.

 

[Deleted member 5]

Indeed he does. In fact, it is through the weakness of our preaching that God's power is demonstrated.

Yes, it seems necessary, but it seems to me necessary as a result of the fact that we cannot understand divine truth in its fullness. A sort of humorous (to me) representation of this is when the Children of Israel did not want to hear directly from God. They couldn't handle the truth straight on.

I agree. We do need to be careful, and not foolish, in conveying truth. But what the Scriptures say IS what it means —it is WE who can't see it as such, and so need it explained. And that, by others who still fall short in understanding to the full.

I tend to think that God has weak humans to preach to weak humans, weakly, because his truth will not otherwise be understood even weakly. If I tell my neighbor that what the Bible means by such and such a verse is that God is omnipotent, he may understand that better than to simply read the passage. That does not, however, mean that he understands what is necessarily implied by "omnipotent".

Amen brother! Refreshing post, thank you.