Calvinism and Christianity - incompatible?

I beg to differ that type of thinking is school yard thinking (win/lose) thinking, this one lot here is predestined and this other lot is not. Are you trying to tell us that the people who think this way don't believe they are the lot that is predestined? If you are I am sorry but I don't believe you.

In my opinion the Bible tells us loud and clear that ALL are justified by faith.

 

His point will probably be "yes, but only those who were predestined to have justifying & saving faith will have it".

I think Romans 8 is the crux of this whole debate. God first foreknew, then predestined those He would call. He did not predestine those He would know, but "first" knew the actions of those whom He would then predestine. This is Arminian Free Will.

 

Calvinists do not claim to know who was predestined and who wasn't. If I see a person on the street right now, do I know if he is elected or no? Of course not because I am not God! What Calvinists argue is how the elect come to Salvation: because our own volition or the will of God?

Edit: Should have said "because" and not "through."

 

What Catholic Christians through all ages in every church will answer with is: "both". "Either/or" distinctions don't work in theology at times. "Yes/and" is valid when needed.

 

If you wouldn't mind, care to expound on your view?

 

Imagine a person in antiquity, who only worships Christ, rejecting God The Father of the Old Testament. This person encounters two other people:

• a trinitarian Christian,
• and an Arian to whom Christ is an inferior creature and God the Father is the only true God in the world.

To that first person, a Christian would be viewed basically as a semi-Arian. His views enshrining God the Father are basically 'on the road' towards minimizing the importance of Christ, diluting Divinity with multiple Persons instead of just one, and essentially being a middle ground on the road to Arianism.

Another example: let's say there's a Roman Catholic, and he encounters two people:

• a sola fide Christian,
• and an Antinomian heretic.

To the Roman Catholic, a sola fide Christian is basically a semi-Antinomian. He is 'on the road' to Antinomianism, to thwart which heresy the RC embraces works-justification.

So I have great concerns with the use of semi-Pelagianism as a legitimate term, for having no definition. In my experience it has been used by Calvinists as a catch-all term for all those who while not Calvinists also couldn't be nailed for clearly Pelagian views. It is a word that doesn't have a definition, in modern usage.

For example here is how the Formula of Concord defines it: rejected is "the false dogma of the Semi-Pelagians, who teach that man by his own powers can commence his conversion, but can not fully accomplish it without the grace of the Holy Spirit."

I advocated no part of that position; and I suspect that you didn't mean that definition either. This is why I have grave concerns that the term today has basically no meaning.

To my mind the quotes all belong here, alongside your quotes of particular atonement. Both sets of quotes need to be looked at simultaneously. But as to your point of "all" having a context, that is true, but that context can never be used as a rhetorical lever to 'flip' and reverse the meaning of the term.

'White' too is a word that has a context. All words always have a context. But what does 'white' mean specifically, absence of every element of blackness? Nothing in daily life could fall under that definition. So we accept that 'white' contains some particles of blackness. Black is then an acceptable component to white, and thus, we can use 'black' when we use 'white', isn't that correct?

These are the verbal games we must avoid at all costs. Context can never reverse or flip a word's essential meaning. In other words even where the word "all" doesn't refer to every unit, it has to metonymically refer to the "majority", or the "dominant part". But even in such circumstances where the word acquires an extended meaning, it must have a grammatical "qualifier", where the qualified meaning is directly observant.

 

Romans is not the easiest of Pauls Epistles to read and understand even with the plethora of commentaries that are out there, the good commentaries will give both sides of an argument. There is enough differing views around Rom 8:29-30 to make me say yes/but or as Brother Consular has said yes/and.

 

My point is - it is a way of thinking that is not healthy for a God loving Christian person... and it is a way of thinking that I do not agree with...

 

There is as much room for that kind of presumption in synergism as in monergism, but it does not follow logically from either. We should all know better than to pass that kind of judgment.

 

Yes, I think that is exactly what "he" would say.

 

My apologies, sister. For some reason I thought Gordon was quoting Scottish Knight. Darned Calvinists are all over the place now...

 

LOL No, just me and Old Christendom right now

 

No worries. I'm actually flattered.

 

You may also have a sympathizer or two.

 

Excuse Mercy but I do have a right to my opinion and my opinion is that I believe it is (win/lose) or dualistic thinking. My whole point is is exactly that we as individuals or our theology should not be trying to pass judgement, that should be left wholly and solely to God.

 

^ This post. Not everyone who believes either synergism or monergism exhibits pride and haughtiness (Thank God for that! ). Both systems are believed because each tries to explain how people receive God's salvation. I lean towards Calvinism because it seems to be more Biblical and makes sense to me. I obviously believe that the others are wrong in some way or other. However, that doesn't mean they aren't fellow Christians or that they are filled with hubris.

Each of us struggles with each view. I struggled with each view and then began leaning towards Calvinist and monergism because it seemed to me to make more sense. I think that some of the virulence again Calvinists is sometimes due to a misunderstanding (because I used to be the same way although now I see it was because of misconceptions ). Either way, we should be kind and charitable to people who differ from our own view (them darn Arminians ).


Note: I was writing this before Gordon's comment above.

 

Gordon, could you please elaborate why it is a dualistic thinking?

 

Scripture passes all the judgment

 

Well, I'm kind to all sorts of people. But that doesn't mean I have to let Arminians have a free pass I was an Arminian Pentecostal for over 10 years. I was struggling with the idea of "foreknowledge" the whole time. If God foreknows something, how could He not be the ultimate cause of its coming to pass?

 

Just remember that the Holy Word of God says God foreknows, then predestines. If He predestined by foreknowing, the Holy Spirit would've inspired St. Paul to put it the other way round.

As an Arminian, I certainly don't want to let Calvinists have a free pass either!