tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18950992.post4177846438540395549..comments2008-09-05T09:17:19.331-04:00Keith Schooleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06328169815024415532noreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18950992.post-65035381649201565592008-09-05T09:17:00.000-04:002008-09-05T09:17:00.000-04:00Hi anonymous. Welcome!<BR/><BR/>I appreciate the kind comparison to Spurgeon's tongue-in-cheek "Arminian Prayer. In <A HREF="http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0052.htm" REL="nofollow">the sermon from which it comes,</A> he argues that "An Arminian on his knees would pray desperately like a Calvinist," which seems odd to us Arminians, since we don't understand why Calvinists pray <I>at all</I>, considering that from their point of view, God has already determined what He will do by His own mysterious hidden secret counsel, and cannot be swayed by us.<BR/><BR/>I think the whole issue of what each of us thinks are the "logical consequences" of the other's point of view is fascinating.Keith Schooleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04078256877683382439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18950992.post-88037177724764999112008-09-05T08:51:00.000-04:002008-09-05T08:51:00.000-04:00Hi Kevin (Pizza Man),<BR/><BR/>I agree. I think that's what Paul was saying in <A HREF="http://www.biblegateway.com/bible?passage=Rom10:14" REL="nofollow">Romans 10:14</A>. I also believe that God, in His mercy, may employ means apart from what we know to reach otherwise unreached people, as He evidently did with Abraham. But you're right: nothing guarantees everyone an equal chance, and it's our responsibility to increase the chances of those whom He's put into our lives.Keith Schooleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04078256877683382439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18950992.post-42630919601507219792008-09-05T04:53:00.000-04:002008-09-05T04:53:00.000-04:00I realize that this comment is a bit late, but thank you for this blog. I've been a Christian for almost 3 years now and recently I've been looking at Calvinism and Arminianism. I'd say by default, I was Arminian. Now I am leaning towards the Calvinist side of the spectrum. This blog compares to Charles Spurgeon's "arminian prayer". Keep up the great work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18950992.post-44176222371554663552008-09-05T02:39:00.000-04:002008-09-05T02:39:00.000-04:00Hey Keith, This is off topic to your original post (which I enjoyed) You said to Jim in the comments that:<I><BR/><BR/>"I find prevenient grace to be an ill-defined concept. If it is taken to refer to all human beings from birth onward, then I can't buy it; ... It appears clear that the gospel itself carries within it the power to enable hearers to believe it. If you want to call that power of the gospel "prevenient grace," then I believe in prevenient grace.</I>"<BR/><BR/>I agree with you. It is the message of Jesus Christ that provides the awakening to enable the lost to believe. <BR/><BR/>This does go against what some Arminians have argued: that everyone has a chance to be saved. With this view everyone does not have a chance, or at least not an equal one. Those who don't hear the gospel have a severe disadvantage.<BR/><BR/>At the same time, this view doesn't trash the loving character of God, like Calvinism inevitably does. Some will perish because they have not heard the gospel, others because they have rejected it. No one will perish because God desired it.<BR/><BR/>This convicts me personally. I am convinced that some people will perish because I have not been faithful to preach the gospel when given the opportunity. That is a terrible thought.Pizza Manhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13472900037134045450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18950992.post-56995561998701949852008-08-30T09:27:00.000-04:002008-08-30T09:27:00.000-04:00Hi John. Welcome!<BR/><BR/>Thanks to the link to dozens of audio files. Do you have anything more specific that you think I may be missing? I'm not sure that simply recapping three years at a Reformed seminary is going to cut it.<BR/><BR/>If it helps, you may notice that my arguments here are not against Calvinism itself, but rather against the characterizations that Calvinist apologists tend to make of Arminians. The post is tongue-in-cheek, but it's also dead-on serious in a way: if becoming an Arminian would make you into the stereotype of an Arminian that Calvinists tend to argue against, then remaining a Calvinist is infinitely preferable.Keith Schooleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04078256877683382439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18950992.post-83285618607793558312008-08-29T22:49:00.000-04:002008-08-29T22:49:00.000-04:00Um .. perhaps a bit more information on that with which you disagree is needed:<BR/><BR/>http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/MP3-Audio--Multimedia/Introduction-to-Reformed-Theology-101/<BR/><BR/>Grow in grace, Mr. SchooleyJohnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03459454010161072745noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18950992.post-39849052874643565282008-08-05T09:11:00.000-04:002008-08-05T09:11:00.000-04:00Oops!<BR/><BR/>I was rereading the comments here, and realized that when I replied to ruberad <A HREF="http://www.schooleyfiles.com/2008/05/reasons-to-remain-calvinist.html#comment-2524368582295417106" REL="nofollow">here</A>, I had written, "I believe the latter." I should have written, "I believe the former," i.e., I believe that God can actually give His creatures some measure of autonomy and still remain sovereign. That should be clear from context, but I wanted to clear up any confusionKeith Schooleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04078256877683382439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18950992.post-79418388255748605202008-07-04T10:47:00.000-04:002008-07-04T10:47:00.000-04:00Hi Jim. Welcome!<BR/><BR/>Thanks for recognizing both the playful tone and the serious issues underneath.<BR/><BR/>I've written on divine election quite often on this blog; you can click on that label and see what else I have to say on the subject. Also, on my studies page, I have an introduction to the subject entitled <A HREF="http://studies.schooleyfiles.com/2008/02/positive-case-for-arminianism.html" REL="nofollow">"A Positive Case for Arminianism"</A> that covers a lot of the issues.<BR/><BR/>To the issues you raise, while theoretically I agree with the evangelistic emphasis of Arminianism as opposed to Calvinism, I've known Calvinists who were very evangelistically minded and Arminians who weren't. In both cases, we may say that they were being inconsistent with their principles, but if Calvinists argue that God blesses us with a part to play in the salvation of the elect, and they're motivated by that fact, then I'm inclined to take them at their word. Who am I to say what motivates other people?<BR/><BR/>With regard to the New Testament predestination passages, I think that if you study the passages in context and also study the context of the OT passages that are quoted, what you find is that the NT writers (primarily Paul) are taking the OT concept of election, in which God has elected the nation of Israel as a whole but individuals can reject the covenant, and applying that concept now to the new covenant community, which is now defined not by ethnicity and adherence to the Law, but by faith in Christ. It's not election of individuals to be regenerated and thereby trust in Christ; it's election of those who trust in Christ, and as a result, of all the individuals who are included by that criterion.<BR/><BR/>I find prevenient grace to be an ill-defined concept. If it is taken to refer to all human beings from birth onward, then I can't buy it; it would nullify all the inability statements in Scripture. But the problem was resolved for me by one of my Calvinist professors. While scripture indicates that none of us seek God or come to Him of our own accord, it never indicates that people are unable to respond to the gospel when they hear it. In fact, everything regarding preaching the gospel assumes the reverse. It appears clear that the gospel itself carries within it the power to enable hearers to believe it. If you want to call that power of the gospel "prevenient grace," then I believe in prevenient grace.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for dropping by. God bless!Keith Schooleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04078256877683382439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18950992.post-16423398319743283522008-07-03T22:24:00.000-04:002008-07-03T22:24:00.000-04:00Hi Keith, while I understand the tongue-in-cheek nature of this post, the points are very relevant to the actual discussion. I have been considering the exact same points lately and cannot resign myself to believe God would actually ordain evil. <BR/><BR/>I think it would be much easier to be a Calvinist as the need to evangelize would not be as great; for if they are elect then they will be saved no matter what. On the flip side an Arminian would obviously feel a much greater burden to reach the lost for Christ.<BR/><BR/>How do you understand predestination? Do you hold to prevenient grace? To me this is the core pillar of all Calvinistic doctrine.Jimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07281425856398968419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18950992.post-24915808653896599662008-06-30T20:12:00.000-04:002008-06-30T20:12:00.000-04:00Hi Keith,<BR/><BR/>Just to add to the "boasting" texts cited. Ephesians 2:8-9 works against Calvinists on their attempt at psychologizing the Arminian. It points towards works as being the temptation and foundation for boasting, while contrasting this from grace and faith.<BR/>Its poignant to note that the Calvinistic reasoning would make no sense as far as Paul's presumptions in that text are concerned. Great post.<BR/><BR/>Sungsungnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18950992.post-25243685822954171062008-06-27T21:30:00.000-04:002008-06-27T21:30:00.000-04:00Hi ruberad. Welcome!<BR/><BR/>It's not for me to decide who is a "good" Calvinist and who isn't. But not all Calvinists consider themselves bound by Westminster. (I suppose the ones who don't can comfort themselves by the fact that God evidently ordained that they <B>not</B> be bound by Westminster.)<BR/><BR/>There is a perfectly obvious difference between predetermination and foreknowledge. I've written about it more extensively <A HREF="http://www.schooleyfiles.com/2006/10/arminian-perspective-on-election-gods.html" REL="nofollow">here,</A> but in brief, it's the difference between whether God can actually give His creatures some measure of autonomy and still remain sovereign, or if it is necessary for Him to micromanage every individual event in order to remain in control.<BR/><BR/>I believe the latter. Of course, it's possible that I've been foreordained to do so. ;-)Keith Schooleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04078256877683382439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18950992.post-85046540856292535812008-06-27T14:47:00.000-04:002008-06-27T14:47:00.000-04:00And before anyone calls "deeds not creeds" on me for citing Westminster, note that the catechism is just a means of organizing scriptural truth -- each clause is backed up by chapter and verse.<BR/><BR/>Is 46:8-13ruberadhttp://ruberad.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18950992.post-77233976542466110692008-06-27T14:41:00.000-04:002008-06-27T14:41:00.000-04:00"<I>Some--not all--Calvinists believe that God's sovereignty necessitates an absolute determinism in which He predetermines every event that has occurred or will occur.</I>"<BR/><BR/>All good calvinists <B>should</B> believe this! <A HREF="http://confessionalouthouse.wordpress.com/cc/sc/#q7" REL="nofollow">WSC 7,8,11</A>:<BR/><BR/>Q. 7. What are the decrees of God?<BR/>A. The decrees of God are, his eternal purpose, according to the counsel of his will, whereby, <B>for his own glory, he hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass.</B><BR/><BR/>Q. 8. How doth God execute his decrees?<BR/>A. God executeth his decrees in the works of creation and providence.<BR/><BR/>Q. 11. What are God’s works of providence?<BR/>A. God’s works of providence are, his most holy, wise, and powerful preserving and governing <B>all his creatures, and all their actions.</B><BR/><BR/>Anyways, what is the difference between<BR/>(a) predetermining an event<BR/>(b) omnisciently foreseeing an event, being omnipotently able to change the event, and deliberately not changing the event?ruberadhttp://ruberad.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18950992.post-9744819542871885962008-06-27T12:36:00.000-04:002008-06-27T12:36:00.000-04:00You might be interested to know that my daughter took time out of her 4th birthday party celebration last week to attack the doctrine of limited atonement.<BR/>http://jimost.wordpress.com/2008/06/26/a-child-shall-lead-them/Albino Hayfordhttp://jimost.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18950992.post-6799488298736907432008-06-08T23:15:00.000-04:002008-06-08T23:15:00.000-04:00This is a really silly blog for such an important subject.<BR/><BR/>Keith, I don't want to attend your church!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18950992.post-3573805549508327602008-06-07T01:07:00.000-04:002008-06-07T01:07:00.000-04:00Thanks very much, J.C. Somehow, the alleged "logical result" of Arminianism looks ridiculous when brought out of the abstract and into the concrete, doesn't it?Keith Schooleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04078256877683382439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18950992.post-3598848491155479502008-06-06T17:41:00.000-04:002008-06-06T17:41:00.000-04:00Keith, that was awesome. I've had to use the first one myself on occasion, and I now consider this the standard reference work on the subject.J.C. Thibodauxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12884600822119690931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18950992.post-17731859239224057712008-06-06T08:34:00.000-04:002008-06-06T08:34:00.000-04:00Thanks, Dawn, for the comment and the link.Keith Schooleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04078256877683382439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18950992.post-80689773998961477452008-06-05T15:25:00.000-04:002008-06-05T15:25:00.000-04:00Too funny! I loved it! Thanks for posting that, it made my day!Dawnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10039136083216712279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18950992.post-68721827085575177402008-05-20T19:30:00.000-04:002008-05-20T19:30:00.000-04:00*edit*<BR/>I don't think that's even logically possible, because once they're boasting, they're *not* acting in accordance with faith.TrueHopehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08468797209411273315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18950992.post-78526694495788873692008-05-20T00:21:00.000-04:002008-05-20T00:21:00.000-04:00Hi TrueHope! Welcome.<BR/><BR/>"Do whatever it takes so that you gives God all the glory." I like that.<BR/><BR/>The whole issue of "boasting" is a little problematic for me. The New Testament seems mostly to be interested in precluding boasting toward God (<A HREF="http://biblegateway.com/bible?passage=Rom4:2;1Cor1:29" REL="nofollow">Rom. 4:2, 1 Cor. 1:29</A>) or boasting about one's alleged superiority over others, either in terms of social status or ability or ethnicity (<A HREF="http://biblegateway.com/bible?passage=Rom11:18;1Cor4:7" REL="nofollow">Rom 11:18, 1 Cor. 4:7</A>). There is never a hint that anyone would ever boast that they have faith--yet that is the charge frequently thrown at the Arminian.Keith Schooleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04078256877683382439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18950992.post-35209836002260528262008-05-19T23:59:00.000-04:002008-05-19T23:59:00.000-04:00Hi Robert. Welcome!<BR/><BR/>"Olive branch" was, of course, tongue-in-cheek, but then so was the entire post, which may just blunt the sword a little.<BR/><BR/>My post wasn't intended to be an attack on Calvinism itself, but rather on some of the rhetoric that is used in the debate. Essentially, the points I brought up are often used as the "logical consequences" of Arminianism, regardless of whether any real, historical Arminian has ever believed or felt that way. I merely brought these "logical consequences" into the real world to demonstrate how ridiculous they are.<BR/><BR/>It sounds as though you oppose these "night and day distinctions" as much as I do, and so in fact I think we have a point of agreement. I hope my little satire didn't offend you too much. God bless.Keith Schooleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04078256877683382439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18950992.post-42811762070911909802008-05-19T20:13:00.000-04:002008-05-19T20:13:00.000-04:00I don't understand how anyone can possibly boast about their faith, or be proud of their humility. I don't think that's even logically possible, because once they're boasting, they're acting in accordance with faith. Once they're proud, then they're no longer humble.<BR/><BR/>But then, if anyone is tempted to boast about their absence of boasting, please remain a Calvinist and don't become an Arminian. And on the flip side, if anyone is tempted to boast because being chosen makes them feel "special", please remain an Arminian and don't become a Calvinist.<BR/><BR/>Do whatever it takes so that you gives God all the glory.<BR/><BR/>Of course, it's best to understand that boasting is futile no matter how and to whom God chooses to show grace, and believe what you think the Bible says based on an honest exegesis of Scripture.TrueHopehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08468797209411273315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18950992.post-28479958767333564572008-05-19T18:11:00.000-04:002008-05-19T18:11:00.000-04:00Well if you call that an olive branch, I'd hate to see what your sword looks like.<BR/><BR/>Even though I'm a Calvinist who disagrees with Arminianism, I certainly don't think that Arminianism makes God, "weak, impotent, or powerless," that it totally negates his sovereignty, or that, "accepting a freely-given gift of salvation somehow would make you your own "co-savior."<BR/><BR/>In fact, I generally think it's those night-and-day distinctions that makes the debate so much more virulent than it needs to be. The distinctions between Arminianism and Calvinism are nuances, but they are important nuances, and I don't think it helps to paint with such a broad brush.<BR/><BR/>But perhaps enflaming disagreements was your wish, if so, sorry for stepping in your way.Robert Ivyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03230620801363091445noreply@blogger.com