Rubber on road. Why does it matter?

[Mikeuk]

Without entering into the rights and wrongs of a hotly contested area…
Lots of verses thrown either way.

Add in the fact some are neither Arminian or Calvinist , some disputing parts of both,


So I have a question after a background.

The life of most of us is:
Maybe you had religious upbringing, many of us didnt . except in lip Service Easter and Christmas kind of a way. At some point generally someone you meet , or know influences you , a view of the good news to which you think “ maybe there is something in it”. Maybe the seed was there , but you could not feel it.

A few twists and turns later for most of us ( the lucky ones get a straight line) and you are sufficiently convinced to take the first step of faith. Most view that as baptism ,for some a Jesus prayer.

Then we grow in knowledge and hopefullly a little sanctity.
We all sin despite trying not to, ask forgivenesswith contrition , and try not to sin that way again, but most still do. It’s a life long fight.
Most of us read , and try to discover more. Not just Bible but what others think it means
Most of us seeing a person in need , if we are able to help will do what we can.
Most of us do what we think scripture wants, for many that is a Eucharist too.
Then at the end we hope or expect salvation, having confessed as much as we can…
A few of us have lucky coincidences in our journey of faith, we think are the spirit acting


So now to the question.
The Arminian vs calvinist question is in essence flavours of..
Was it God acting not us, because we sunk to low to even start without Him.
Was it God acting through us once we accepted faith.
Was it God providing the means for the salvation, but the choices were ours to do or not do?
Was our path and outcome inevitable even though we think we had choice.
Was the outcome in doubt but God knew which way we would choose?

My question is how can we possibly know?
Because our journey has at least the illusion of free will and choice.
The people we meet that influence choice , maybe God did put there, but you cannot prove it!

So where does the rubber ever hit the road On this argument?
in the sense that an arminian will do things or make choices a Calvinist doesnt that helps the journey on the way? ( or vice versa)

Or is it all academic in as far as we can tell? God is so far beyond our understanding how can we know, what was really Free will?

The only place I can think it matters, is if you are too certain you are one of the elect , you might be less careful than otherwise.

So where does the Arminian vs Calvinist rubber hit the road as what you actually do?
Can you detect from your own life where one is more likely true?

genuine question! It seems all very academic.
So why do people fall out about it?

 

[Josheb]

Why does it matter?

So where does the Arminian vs Calvinist rubber hit the road as what you actually do?
Can you detect from your own life where one is more likely true?

genuine question! It seems all very academic.
So why do people fall out about it?

All great questions.

Let me start with the (pre-)supposition it is important to have integrity in thought, doctrine, and practice.

As a man thinketh, so he is. Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks (and the fingers type). What we think and how we think is what forms doctrine. Those doctrines, or teachings, then become the means and standard of practice. When we lack consistency between any of the two that is an indication of error, a lack of continuity and congruity.

When it comes to the matter of synergism verses monergism (broader terms that cover all soteriologies - even those other than Arm v Cal) the most frequent point of disagreement is the role of the sinner's fleshly faculties in the sinner's salvation. Synergists believe the sinner's fleshly faculties are necessarily integral to the sinner's salvation and God is dependently using those fleshly faculties of the sinner to save the sinner from sin. Anyone believing this MUST act accordingly, otherwise there is a lack of integrity between thought, word, and deed; thought, doctrine and practice. The synergist must live his life as if God is relying on the sinner's flesh - even after that sinner is redeemed and regenerate. The monergist, likewise, MUST conduct him/herself in a manner consistent with the believe God has done all that was entailed in his salvation and did not use anything of the sinful flesh in the sinner's salvation.

So we see it is not merely academic. Soteriology, and having it correctly understood, has very real potential importance.


As to why people fall out about it, that has very little if anything to do with conversion and more to do with sanctification. Just because we've been washed clean doesn't mean we act that way. If that were the case much of the epistolary would never have been written; there'd be no need for a single word of correction in the apostles' letters. For example, "a man's anger does not accomplish the righteousness of God," tells us that anger isn't from God. When we read it in a post we know what we're reading if of the flesh, and not something prompted or empowered by the Spirit. The same holds true of logical fallacy. Because God and His Spirit speak only truth and never speak or reason falsely or imperfectly, we know any and all logical fallacy is always and everywhere only a work of the flesh. We also know that anyone incapable or unwilling to acknowledge that fact is also, again, twice-over, posting from their flesh and not via the Holy Spirit.

One of the (usually) unstated goals of a forum is to help its members mature in Christ through dialogue.

Those refusing that purpose are thrice-over posting in the flesh.

Method is just as important as content! How we live our lives is just as important as what we say and the relative anonymity of cyberspace prompts people to say and do differently than they would face to face.

I'll provide an example that is not specifically soteriological in nature. Eschatology boards in any forum are typically much more diverse, much more diverse, and much more rancorous than their soteriological counterparts. Dispensationalist, for example, believe the world is literally going to hell in a hand basket any day now (or some time real soon, in the near future), God is going to remove the Christians from earth, and there is nothing the Church can do to change that plan. This means that there is no reason to take out a mortgage. There's no reason to save for our children's college. There is definitely no need to invest in retirement accounts because none of us are going to be around to benefit from any of those investments. Financially speaking, all of those options would be poor stewardship. The money would be better spent promoting the gospel and not long-term material provision or profit.

How many Dispensationalists do you know that actually live that way?

The entire unsaved world watches and listens as Dispensationalists warn of soon-pending apocalypse that never comes.

Therefore, doctrine is important. So, too, is getting doctrine correct. At a bare minimum we should have integrity and that integrity should bear a faith witness about Jesus, not a contrary or hypocritical one. This is just as true and important in-house among the body of Christ as it is externally to the outside world of the lost. Both the argument "You must choose life from your still-sinful flesh," and "You must choose life from a gifted faith and not of your still-sinful flesh," are positions in need of rational explanation to the world of the lost. That is the example set by Jesus and his predominantly Jewish audiences, as well as Paul's and his predominantly Gentile audiences. It is prima facie contrary to scripture to ignore those precedents.


Isaiah 1:18-20
"Come now, and let us reason together," Says the LORD, "Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool. "If you consent and obey, You will eat the best of the land; "But if you refuse and rebel, You will be devoured by the sword." Truly, the mouth of the LORD has spoken."


God invites us to reason. He invites us to reason with Him, and he expects us to reason among ourselves for godly purpose and outcome.


Lastly, internet discourse is somewhat a calling. Not all can do it. Those that can do it may not do it well and need the medium to improve their skills and walk outside of cyberspace. The goal being the standards set in Ephesians 4 (for example) and the attitude asserted in Philippians 2:3 or Col. 4:5 (again, just examples).

Hope that helps.

 

[Marilyn C]

Genuine question! It seems all very academic.
So why do people fall out about it?

The Holy Spirit was sent by Christ the Head to guide us into all truth. (John 16: 13) Most truths have been clarified over the centuries, (that were attacked, Acts 20: 29 & 30). As these truths were clarified there was much debate about them.

Arm & Cal is not a major area as it used to be. Eschatology is the main forefront of truth being clarified, today, that is why it is such a hot topic.

 

[Marilyn C]

Dispensationalist, for example, believe the world is literally going to hell in a hand basket any day now (or some time real soon, in the near future), God is going to remove the Christians from earth, and there is nothing the Church can do to change that plan. This means that there is no reason to take out a mortgage. There's no reason to save for our children's college. There is definitely no need to invest in retirement accounts because none of us are going to be around to benefit from any of those investments. Financially speaking, all of those options would be poor stewardship. The money would be better spent promoting the gospel and not long-term material provision or profit.

How many Dispensationalists do you know that actually live that way?

The entire unsaved world watches and listens as Dispensationalists warn of soon-pending apocalypse that never comes.

Therefore, doctrine is important. So, too, is getting doctrine correct.

Hi Josheb,

Where we are going, eschatology, is very important and is the final truth to bring the Body of Christ to maturity in Christ. (Eph. 4: 13) That is why it is a hot topic.

 

[Josheb]

Hi Josheb,

Where we are going, eschatology, is very important...

Depends on what you mean by "important." Up until the 19th century eschatology was considered a minor doctrine and very little was written about it. Let me reiterate that: for 19 centuries eschatology was considered a minor doctrine. Up to that point Christology and soteriology were the preeminent doctrines in Christian thought, doctrine, and practice and, eschatologically speaking, there are very few discrepancies among the oldest eschatologies. That all changed in the 1800s with the rise of the restoration movement and the Dispensationalist eschatologies. Dispensationalism openly, willfully moves ecclesiology and eschatology to the forefront. I can quote leading Dispensationalists teaching this if you like.

That being said, eschatology is important because the way a person believes the world will end can and should have a great deal of influence on how they live today. That is the problem I was trying to address when I used Dispensationalism as an example. There are huge inconsistencies in that eschatology.


BUT eschatology is neither the subject of this board, nor the topic of this thread. It was simply and solely an example used to address Mikeuk's inquiry. Nothing more. Do not expect my to digress further.

...and is the final truth to bring the Body of Christ to maturity in Christ. (Eph. 4: 13) That is why it is a hot topic.

Again, this thread is about why soteriology, not eschatology, matters.

 

[Marilyn C]

Depends on what you mean by "important." Up until the 19th century eschatology was considered a minor doctrine and very little was written about it. Let me reiterate that: for 19 centuries eschatology was considered a minor doctrine. Up to that point Christology and soteriology were the preeminent doctrines in Christian thought, doctrine, and practice and, eschatologically speaking, there are very few discrepancies among the oldest eschatologies. That all changed in the 1800s with the rise of the restoration movement and the Dispensationalist eschatologies. Dispensationalism openly, willfully moves ecclesiology and eschatology to the forefront. I can quote leading Dispensationalists teaching this if you like.

That being said, eschatology is important because the way a person believes the world will end can and should have a great deal of influence on how they live today. That is the problem I was trying to address when I used Dispensationalism as an example. There are huge inconsistencies in that eschatology.


BUT eschatology is neither the subject of this board, nor the topic of this thread. It was simply and solely an example used to address Mikeuk's inquiry. Nothing more. Do not expect my to digress further.

Again, this thread is about why soteriology, not eschatology, matters.

That`s fine. Just a point that it`s wonderful to believe in the Lord however that includes where He says we will go when we die.