A clear and consistent biblical response to Mr Gregg.

_tartanarmy
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 12:26 pm
Location: Australia

Post by _tartanarmy » Fri Apr 27, 2007 12:48 pm

To get offended over this, is to simply say, "I am offended that you disagree with me". Rather childish, don't you think?
Well, it would be childish to get upset when someone says something silly, but when they mock the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, I kinda take exception to that.

If I did not give some respect to Steve, I would not really get offended, as I would simply not take the man and some of his comments seriously, but as he seems to be a rather passionate follower of the Lord, I do take his comments seriously.

I am perhaps someone who takes that word "soteriology" quite seriously.
Do you take the "regenerating" work of God seriously?
Is it something to present in a cavalier way?

Anyway, I was addressing the "Calvinist" Devin...

Mark
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_Derek
Posts: 291
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:27 am
Location: Marietta GA

Post by _Derek » Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:24 pm

Hi there brother,

Perhaps you missing the part where I said "That's not to say it's not important". I would add very important. Not important enough to divide the body of Christ though. Incredibly brilliant and Godly men are on both sides of this issue.

To say that it doesn't "offend me" when someone disagrees with me on this subject, (or any other), in no way implies that I take the matter in a "cavalier" way. Not sure how you got that.

Anyhoo. Welcome to the forum anyway!

God bless,
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Derek

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses: but we will remember the name of the LORD our God.
Psalm 20:7

_tartanarmy
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 12:26 pm
Location: Australia

Post by _tartanarmy » Sat Apr 28, 2007 3:31 pm

Perhaps you missing the part where I said "That's not to say it's not important". I would add very important. Not important enough to divide the body of Christ though. Incredibly brilliant and Godly men are on both sides of this issue.
I am not missing anything you have said brother, I am really only addressing some things Steve said in his Calvinism series, and asking another Calvinist (Devin) if he was offended in any way by Steve's misrepresentations of what we Calvinists hold dear, particularly how the Holy Spirit takes out our heart of stone and gives us a heart of flesh. Gregg seemed to mock our belief in regeneration as do many other Arminians.

When Devin said about Gregg,
i really really love your approach and honesty
I was just wondering if he perhaps missed some of Gregg's teaching about Calvinism from his series. His approach at times is simply amazingly misrepresentative, from a man endeavouring to teach other Christians.
To say that it doesn't "offend me" when someone disagrees with me on this subject, (or any other), in no way implies that I take the matter in a "cavalier" way. Not sure how you got that.
Again, I am not referring to you being cavalier!
Anyhoo. Welcome to the forum anyway!

God bless,
Thanks for the welcome brother :)
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_Steve
Posts: 1564
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 12:07 am
Location: Santa Cruz, CA

Post by _Steve » Sat Apr 28, 2007 5:24 pm

Hi Mark (Tartanarmy),

Clearly, not all Christians are as ready to take offense as are others.

I, as a non-Calvinist, have not felt any inclination to whine, for instance, about Jame's mockery of me. I recognize that Christians have different opinions, and that many are very touchy about those differences. When James spoke of the "low point" of my lecture series (in the final lecture or two), he implied that what made this a particularly low point was that I stooped to "mocking" his view. When he played the tape, I could not hear the mockery. He pointed out that, at one moment, I laughed (which I guess is what James refers to as mockery) while reading a quotation from a certain Calvinist author.

The particular point that made me chuckle was the quote from an author,, who, endeavoring to absolve God of any responsibility for sin, explained that God was only the "efficient first cause" of sin, while man was the "efficient second cause"--thus, apparently, making Adam, not God, the "author of sin." No offense, but I still can not read this without amusement. If this "first cause/second cause" argument is the doctrine that you find so precious, and so offensive for me to "mock," then I will attempt to maintain my sobriety better when reading that particular quote in the future.

However, the "laughter" on the recording that he played was a momentary, stifled chuckle about an amusing point in Calvinist thinking. I do not wish to deny my opponents of the freedom to chuckle at what they find amusing--even if it is my views that tickle them. Good thing, too--because, after playing my clip, James spent most of the next five minutes in unrestrained, derisive laughter at my comments. Was he mocking?

His laughter didn't offend me. I am well accustomed to hearing sarcasm and mockery in the presentations of opponents of a certain ilk. What surprises me is that anything I said in my lectures would offend a mature Christian in any way, and that, if laughter is inappropriate, James would have, at the same moment that he criticized me for a "speck," felt no embarrassment in his indulging in a "beam" of the same. When making judgments, one ought to use the same measure all around.

By the way, the suggestion that I mocked "the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit" perplexes me. Arminians also believe in regeneration, and so would never mock belief in such. Can you identify the statements of mine about this subject that you are characterizing as mockery? I am not aware of doing so, though I certainly have expressed both astonishment, and, at times, amusement about some of the extrabiblical statements Calvinists make about the subject.

However, even if amusement be labeled "mockery," it is not the reality of regeneration that came under my criticism, but one human opinion about regerneration that I have challenged. Those who hold controversial views should be prepared to have them cross-examined without taking undue offense, and without characterizing reasoned criticism as "mockery."

The charge that I "misrepresent" Calvinist views is also perplexing to me. It is true that, at one point, I did not correctly represent the respective distinctives of the lapsarian controversy (is this what offends you?). However, on the main distinctives of Calvinism, I depended upon the Calvinist writers themselves, whom I have read, and whom I cited in some cases.

One may argue that I don't "understand" some of the specific assertions of the Calvinists. Perhaps I do not, but in most cases, it is not a problem of my not understanding them, but of my rejecting them as extrabiblical philosophical notions. If you are willing to accept such notions without demanding scriptural support for them, well enough for you. For my part, I do not regard myself to be bound by man's philosophical speculations, especially when the scriptures have spoken clearly enough.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve

_postpre
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 2:35 pm

Post by _postpre » Sat Apr 28, 2007 8:49 pm

Steve,

If you still plan on debating James, I recommend you taking a close look at the links that I posted above to Tim Warner's rebuttal of James. I think it could help.

I really appreciate the irenic tone in which you present your case. Stand your ground against James. He may claim that you do not understand Calvinism, but as Laurence Vance has stated it is merely "philosophical speculation" and not, IMO, the faith once delivered to the saints.

Brian
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_Rick_C
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 5:14 am
Location: West Central Ohio

Post by _Rick_C » Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:50 pm

This might be off-topic for this thread but I just have to chime in here!
Steve wrote:One may argue that I don't "understand" some of the specific assertions of the Calvinists. Perhaps I do not, but in most cases, it is not a problem of my not understanding them, but of my rejecting them as extrabiblical philosophical notions. If you are willing to accept such notions without demanding scriptural support for them, well enough for you. For my part, I do not regard myself to be bound by man's philosophical speculations, especially when the scriptures have spoken clearly enough.
Steve, I agree that the Bible is "Non-Calvinist." Its authors were Jewish and there's no way they could have held the views of guys 15 centuries after them!!! That would be literally impossible, as it is so obvious. I mean, if they had held to these views, they surely didn't elaborate on them!

I'm reminded of one of your lectures about the Trinity as an example of what I'm saying. As you said in a lecture; the Apostles, and even Jesus could have been "trinitarians" in the sense that they weren't strict Jewish monotheists, etc. But Jesus never said, that we know of: "I am the way, the truth, the life, and the Second Person of the Trinity, of the same -- not similar -- substance of the Father" (the latter part of this sentence is "post-biblical, philosophical, and Gentile" [and NOT Jewish!] as are Trinitarianism, Calvinism, and Arminianism. Similarly, the Bible does not say, with the Apostle John, e.g., that "Jesus...died for the sins of the whole world, meaning for the sins of all the people 'from' the world whom God 'sovereignly decreed' to elect from before the foundation of the world" (the last clause is "post-biblical, non-Jewish (Gentile), philosophical" and.......really really bad eisegesis!!! The words of the latter part of the sentence aren't even IN the Bible!

But back to my sidebar:
If it could be demonstrated that the Apostles were Neo-Platonists? Nope, that doesn't work as Neo-Platonism hadn't been invented yet!

Platonists? (from which Neo-Platonism stemmed)? The NT authors potentially could have been that. But, again, this doesn't work either, as history clearly demonstrates: Biblical authors were Jewish and held to a Jewish worldview...which wasn't "philosophical." (Btw, I have heard some (few) Calvinists actually teach that the Apostles were Platonists), lol, they really believe this!

My view is: The Bible authors, being Jewish and, therefore, "theological" in worldview; they couldn't have been Arminians or Calvinists (Platonic). They were what, and who, they were on the questions Calvinism and Arminianism raises; questions that were asked after the Apostles died...by Gentiles.

The Jews could embrace paradox and have no problems with it, while we Westerners, from biblical times up to now, have problems with it!

The debates centered around Augustianianism (stemming from Neo-Platonism, leading up to Calvinism) are post-biblical. Arminianism, in this sense, is "philosophical" and post-biblical just as Calvinism is. Since it was a reaction to Calvin's ideas, Arminianism doesn't accurately reprepresent the views of the Apostles. It may be if one had-to-choose between the two; Arminianism would be "closer" to the Jewish views of Bible writers. But who says I have to make any such choice? Calvinists might, Arminians could...but well, I'll just stick to the paradoxical, non-philosophical approach of the Apostles! I could call myself a "Non-Calvinist" for sure. And "Non-Arminain" (beyond a doubt) as well!

Not to throw the thread way off topic. But these are my basic ideas on all this stuff.

But Steve, I like how you use the Bible alone to refute Calvinism. You don't really go into the worldview of the Bible and/or NT writers themselves in your presentations but you clearly demonstrate that, and how, the "Calvinistic system" could not have been held by them! The text itself is a sufficient indicator of this (For example, the Bible says Jesus died "for the sins of the whole world" while Calvinists strangely re-arrange these words into something like "for the sins of the whole ELECT"...Huh? Isn't this sort of like really far from the English, leave alone the Greek)?

Anyway, I really like your approach though I'm also very interested in the details of the Jewish worldview of biblical times (which can be found in extra-biblical materials. Bible writers were "Non-Calvinists and Non-Arminians" beyond any doubt, imnsho)....Sorry if this went too far off-topic but I feel more Christians need to start looking at the actual worldview of the Bible's authors. Frankly, I don't understand why they don't. This would solve many, if not most or all, of the current "debates!"

Am I making any sense (to anyone)? Just curious....
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth

User avatar
_Homer
Posts: 639
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:43 pm
Location: Brownsville

Post by _Homer » Sat Apr 28, 2007 10:56 pm

Rick,

Have you been reading some of the many books on biblical social archaeology such as "The Handbook of Biblical Social values?

You said:
...I'm also very interested in the details of the Jewish worldview of biblical times (which can be found in extra-biblical materials.
What are some of the materials you refererred to?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
A Berean

User avatar
_Rick_C
Posts: 146
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 5:14 am
Location: West Central Ohio

Post by _Rick_C » Mon Apr 30, 2007 5:14 am

Hello Homer,

I have to get to work soon and I don't want to take this thread off-topic.
On the "Calvinist & Arminian Thought" thread you and I talked about this stuff some. I don't know if I need to start a new thread altogether or not....gtg to work for now though. Will reply on linked thread after work. Thanks!

I left a brief answer there to your question (I've studied the Mishnah and other Jewish writings).......am running late!

Later, after work... Homer, I left you a reply on the other thread, TC :)
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
“In Jesus Christ God ordained life for man, but death for himself” -- Karl Barth

_tartanarmy
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 12:26 pm
Location: Australia

Post by _tartanarmy » Tue May 01, 2007 12:48 am

Steve, there would be little value and time misspent going back and fro with you and what you said previously, but what would be nice, is a response to James Whites comments thus far.

I mean, interacting with his exegesis etc. That would be better for us, as we will only end up arguing about whether you or James is a big meanie etc!

So how about interacting with what James has said thus far.
Many will benefit from such an exchange.

Personally, I would love to see a full debate over several days, recorded on DVD for distribution to the Churches.

Mark
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_JD
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 12:52 am
Location: The New Jerusalem

Post by _JD » Tue May 01, 2007 12:35 pm

Five-day debate. Each day deals with the successive aspects of the T.U.L.I.P. Works for me.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!

Post Reply

Return to “Calvinism, Arminianism & Open Theism”