Question

path_of_one

I'm more than willing to hear your explanation of Calvinism so as to better understand. I think it might be a great thing to start some topics for discussion (some of the topics we've touched on but are outside the boundaries of this thread) and just hear various people's (including your own) takes on the issues. I think it gets confusing to people if topics are started in the guise of a question when it is really more leaning toward discussion of set view points- it made me feel initially that you were evangelizing to other Christians in a way- trying to get everyone to be Calvinist. These latest posts have been much more open-ended and interactive. :)

I posted these calvinistic questions in the hopes to get an answer that will not only be different, but cause me to doubt what I believe (since I sometimes find these teachings tough to believe). Moreover, I actually posted it in the hopes that Christians will feel more burning love and apprication for their Savior. That part kinda got lost in all the argument. As for explaning calvinism though. Umm...I dont mind doing that, but we've taken up enough board space. You can email me and I'll explain it if you like.

Well, it isn't just that we are all conditioned to have certain worldviews that influence our religious experience. The doctrines and practices of organized religions are themselves partially a product of the larger culture and society. This doesn't mean they are wrong, but it's a good idea to figure out which pieces are truth and which are cultural baggage, both on an individual and broader level. And I entirely acknowledge that ALL beliefs/doctrines (both Calvinist and "free will") are influenced by culture/society.

It shouldnt be so, but instead should be basied or influenced by scripture. That should be the Christian's goal - to be transformed by the renewal of the mind and trasnformed into the image of Christ.

As I said, I don't give the importance you do to doctrine, but I don't think it's wrong to do so. I think some people respond well to doctrine and others are more experiential, and neither is wrong (indeed, I think both tendencies are important for the Christian community as a whole). I wouldn't say I'm governed or helped a lot by doctrine. I am governed a lot by my experience of the Spirit and my relationship with Christ. I'm pretty open-ended in belief, but I just cling as much as I can to the love of Christ and to His example.

According to the Bible, should we put the emphasis on correct doctrines, or experiential feelings?



 
path_of_one


Jesus... is the son of God, my Savior, my guide, my friend, my comfort, and my King.

How is Jesus your savior when you dont believe God requires a blood sacrifice? Also, what has Jesus saved you from?

I do not tend to separate the Father, Jesus, and the Spirit out in purpose or characteristics as much as many Christians. I'm a one-ist and typically think of God as the One.

Modalism was considered hersy by the early church Fathers because of the Bible's teaching of a eternally triune God who exist in the persons of three. It is a mystery, I admit, but it is what scripture teaches.

Christ is the eternal Word of God- His grace and love. Christ exists outside the boundaries of space and time, as God does. Christ stepped into space and time in the form of the man Jesus, being fully Christ/God and fully man. Christ accomplished a myriad of things. In unifying God and man, He embodied the miracle of our salvation through the grace and love of God.

That sounds wonderful! But, can you explain what you mean in lay terms, please. How did Christ unite man and God and why did we need Him?
I do not believe God demands blood sacrifice in payment of sin. At least, He did not demand it of my people (I'm not Jewish, so I can't speak for that).

Hebrews 9:9..."there is no remission of sins withiout the shedding of blood." How do you explain that?

I do not believe that God the Father is incapable of being in the presence of sin, either.

Heb. 1:13..."Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity." How do you explain that?

I do believe that God is utterly holy, and so it is a sacrifice beyond measure that He forgives our sins, loves us anyway, and brings us into His presence.

How do you justify that from scripture which says that the ONLY reason we have any ground for calling God our father, praying to Him, or Him loving us, for that matter, is because of Christ' sacrifice. Do you suppose there is something in your worthy enough for Christ' to suffer infinite wrath for? There is nothing good in me or anything that is worthy enough to persuade Christ to die for me. Yet He did. I am humbled by that fact and aprriciate it more than words can permit me to say/write.

This sacrifice alive in Christ has ever been and will ever be, and was made manifest on earth and embodied in the man Jesus- His life, His teachings, His actions, and His death. I do not hold any part of Jesus' life (i.e., His crucifixion) higher or more sacred than the rest. The fact that God so loved us that Christ came to us on earth is a tremendous sacrifice in itself, as He submitted Himself to the same temptations and suffering that people experience, thus showing God's ultimate love, mercy, and grace. In Christ is the miracle of God's sacrifice and gift of grace, which makes our salvation possible.

This question should raise some eyebrows and bring out pride: Do you suppose God loves you more than Himself and that the higest reason for dying for man's sins was His love for man or His own glory?

The Bible... is a collection of documents inspired by God. It is a record of a bunch of stuff, including cultural history (OT), poetry and songs, prophecy (which to me is not about telling the future), and letters. All of it was inspired by people's experiences of God.

Actually the Bible is inspired by God insomuch as it is "God breathed." God spoke to men as they wrote. It is not just inspried in the sense that men look at nature and paint.

I do not think it was entirely meant to be taken literally, and even the most staunch literalist agrees with me when they consider Song of Solomon or the parables.

Of course there are parts that are symbolic, etc., but in context of the story, it is to be taken litterally. Litterally, man are sinners and are in need of a Savior. Litterally, there is NO way to God but by Jesus. Litterally, man's goodness, at its zenith, before God are filty rags, etc. etc..

I do not think it is without errors in translation, and it has not been free from politics during the canonization process.

Oh, thats why you have to go by what you "feel" and "experience." Oh OK...I get it. Just to let you know though, there are more than 20,000 mistakes in the Bible transaltion. Over 98% of it has to do with typos, the rest has to do with words or phrases being omitted. That admited, however, the integraty is still the same and we know that from the manuscripts. The Bible has the most known manuscripts of any book in all of antiquity. It has over 24,000 copies and some of which date back to the 1st century. Those books then say the samething as those today. You can trust the Bible...if you want to, that is.

Also, the OT is difficult to interpret because it doesn't include all the Jewish commentaries that went along with it.

I thought you believed in God's sovereignty. Is God Almighty enough to have exactly what He wants us to know known? Or can man thwart His will of decree or purposed decision?

I think Christianity got mixed up quite a bit with Pagan religions early on in Rome's effort to spread the religion across Europe, and it lost a lot of its essential Jewish-ness. I haven't been entirely sure what to do about that on a personal level, but I'm aware that it's an issue, and I find a variety of traditional Christian beliefs that don't really make sense if you look at the scriptures and the context of Judaism.

Would you say you have been born again?

Also, as an aside, I do not place equal weight on all scripture. In the NT, I value the gospels and the actions and words of my Lord above all else, and though I find a lot of wisdom and beauty in Paul's letters, I attempt to form my beliefs very heavily on the gospels and what I can know about my Savior. I take Christ as my guide and teacher, and I think that while it is a great gift to have all the scriptures, the gospels (good news) would be sufficient on their own.

What is your understanding of the goodnews (Gospel)?

I think the Bible contains the Truth and I think anyone who seeks after God will find Him in it.

I agree!

 
God did a wonderful work in him.. Thats a man that shows the fruits of faith in love and gentleness. I hope that I can one day be that transformed by Christ.
 
We are called to "go out" and make disciples of already converted believers.

I'm sorry- I understand what you are saying, but I just disagree. I believe we are to do exactly what the scriptures say and go make disciples of all nations. In the early Christian church, there weren't any converted believers in those other nations, so discipleship must be about reaching out to everyone.

The gospel is an "offense" to the "natural man." Its not a "feel good" message to make someone feel better about themselves - its not tharapy. Instead, the gospel alone (without anyone trying to dress it up), is God's means by which He uses to save sinners.

I believe the gospel is for some offensive and for others beautiful. I've never found it offensive, so either I'm an unnatural human or there's something else going on there. I've found the gospel beautiful since as far back as I can remember hearing about it (maybe two or three years old).

I don't think the gospel is about therapy either, though it does make me feel good. I feel good that God loves me and sent Jesus for us. Maybe it makes other people feel crummy, but I'd say that is more a reflection on their own mind than the gospel.

I never said I dressed up the gospel, either. I said I respectfully waited until I was invited to speak about it, and I can say that this is much more effective with certain groups than the alternative of preaching without invite. I have never "dressed up" the gospel or my testimony. People ask me why I'm this way or that way or what is different about my life, and I say- I have Jesus Christ. Then I tell them how that affects my life (my testimony) and encourage them to read the gospels for themselves. I actually do not talk theology at all. I think people need to read the scriptures for themselves, not get my personalized, watered-down, opinionated, or less eloquent version. The scriptures speak for themselves. I just point to them.

His sheep hear the truth and repent and trust in their Savior. It is very important to preach without words insomuch as having your life be your testimony, but it is equally important to preach the gospel by witnessing. The Bible makes it clear that we must witness with words and not just with our lives.

Yep. See above.

In fact, it mentions that we ought to preach more with words than it does of speaking about preaching with our life. If they dont hear, how will they believe, you know?

If their ears are not open, how will they hear? We can, through our actions, push people into closing their ears. Or we can treat people with kindness, love, and respect that they rarely experience, which opens their ears and leads them to invite us to preach to them. Jesus taught those that came to listen, and told us to shake the dust from our cloaks from places that did not have interest in hearing. I follow this model. I love everyone and pray for everyone, but I preach to those interested in hearing and I wait until the Spirit moves me to preach or until I am asked to do so.


How do you explain the Bible's explantion of man's heart being wicked and mind being evil? Do you consider man inherently good?

No. As I said, I don't consider humanity to be inherently only good or only evil. I consider humanity to be quite wicked, but also have goodness.

This isn't a non-mainstream belief, by the way. I have plenty of those, but this is one that is pretty mainstream for many of the old large (non-Calvinist) Christian denominations.

But...where in scripture do you get this?

A discussion of the inner light is a topic that is too lengthy to put here, much as you are saying you don't want to give a full explanation/exposition on Calvinism. To be honest, I just don't have the time to write that much right now. I will start a thread in on Quakerism and the inner light soon. I've been curious about how other people would think about it anyway.

Scripture says that until we are born agian in Jesus, we are still children of Adam and thus children of wrath because we follow after our own lust and Satan. By the way, how do you define Satan?

I think I already did this in one of your other threads. If not, do search on Satan- we've had lots of conversations about this here and I think I've written at least a few posts on the topic. If you look at my profile, you can pull up past posts and skim through if you're interested in my beliefs.

I'm fine with discussing Satan, but I'm trying to keep this more or less on topic, so it'll have to be yet another topic. I have to juggle a lot in my schedule, so these topics will have to be spread out over time. :D


Can you show me scriptures for this too, please. I only see the opposite - namely that man is born in sin and come out of the womb going astray.

Again, I'll start a topic soon (when this one is over) on the inner light and Quaker beliefs. In the meantime, you might want to look into quaker.org for more information. Most of my beliefs are very much aligned with a combination of Quaker and Episcopalian, which both were outgrowths of the Celtic Christian movement in the early church.

Celtic Christianity, I'll fully admit, was considered heretical by Catholicism. I don't really care if I'm branded a heretic by any human-made institution. I'm sure you'll understand, only God's opinion on that matter really counts!



OK. Lets try to take this from a scriptural angle. How can a man who is dead in sin and cannot obey God's Laws (Romans 8:7), who cannot understand spiritual things - namely the gospel in this instance (1Cor. 2:14), and who's nature is enslave to sin (John 8:34), choose in and of his own strength to do something he cannot do and cannot understand - namely to follow God's law and repent and trust Christ?

There is the mystery! :) We don't do it on our own strength. That's what I've been trying to say. It's all a result of God's grace, but a result of the grace that is innate in us as creations made in God's image.

More to come on the inner light thread (I'll probably try to start that Fri/Sat unless you'd rather wait til after Christmas, since I'll be out for 12/24-25).

If it is not in man's nature to seek after God or love God, why will he, unlike every other creature, choose to do something that is not in his nature? Will he not be consistant with his nature? In any case, answer the question above.

Ah, but I do believe it is in humankind's nature to love God. I think I've said that. So it is not inconsistent behavior with our nature to me.

There are somethings you say that blows my mind insomuch that I agree and admit that I couldnt have said it any better - like what you said herem for example. I have to admit, I'm a bit confused. You seem to be very biblical on somethings, e.g., that the Law of God is written upon the hearts of men and they have no excuse before God, that Salvation is by Grace through faith, etc., yet there are some other things that seem very unorthodox and I'm wondering were in the Bible you get it from. Any how, its good talking with you.

I am quite orthodox on the things I believe to be correct in orthodoxy, in accordance to what I have been shown by the Spirit and/or read in the works of theologians and saints. I am quite unorthodox in the things that I have been shown to avoid by the Spirit.

I'm pretty orthodox by Quaker and Celtic Christian standards, and I'm even not too far off of Episcopalian beliefs. But none of those are really Calvinist, so I wouldn't be an orthodox Calvinist or anything that has arisen from Calvinism. The Druidry isn't orthodox, but then I never claim to be a mainstream, conservative, or fundamentalist Christian in the ways these terms are used currently.
 
Hey I started a new post...Lets talk there. Some of what you said here should be said there. Its called "predestination vs freewill." See u there.
 
I'm sorry, Silas, but I tried to post a long response and cyber-space ate it. I'm going to have to discuss these issues in smaller chunks. There is just too much there, and I'm pretty much exhausted physically at this point (I work full time, have three horses in training, a husband, and am writing a dissertation due in January). I just can't go back in and re-write the post tonight. Rest assured, I will discuss these matters further. A lot of the discussion here is not on the topic of predestination vs. free will, but I will try to keep up on that thread.

With my birthday Friday and the Christmas coming (along with two days of family and church), I may be a bit slow to respond until next week.

Interesting conversation, though. I find these exercises useful for putting together summaries of my faith, as I'm sure you find as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top