I asked Tim to share verses that bothered him. When RK answered I didn't and figured I'd watch. I agree with RK more or less. Acts 10:34 is interpreted by 35 (and supported by the rest of the chapter and chapter 11). 34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: 35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. The big scandal of the chapter is salvation isn't for only Jews. So God's respect of persons in context has to do with one's national heritage. He doesn't respect only Jews. James 2 is about how we are treat others and in particular not to show respect for rich over the poor in our churches. My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. 2 For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; 3 And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool: 4 Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts? 5 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him? 6 But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats? 7 Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called? 8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: 9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. So, I don't think either passage in its context does what you are looking for it to do. Neither counters either unconditional election or limited atonement.
The Greek suggests "living in sin", i.e., and ongoing, habitual, constant practice instead of "committing a sin"
Just looking at James 2, if anything, doesn't the passage teach us not to be partial towards who walks through the front door of our church, yet at the same time it teaches God shows a sort of partiality? Look at 2:5. 5 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him? God chose the poor. Is that partiality?
I'm going to chime in on the Calvinism/Arminian discussion for just a second then back out. I was raised in the Methodist (now United Methodist) which has an Arminian background and got a BA in Biblical Studies from a private Christian college (now closed) that was largely Calvinist (I had roommates that were Hyper Calvinists). I know enough to say "A pox on both your houses. You're both right, or both wrong", depending on how you want to view things.
I think what you say could be true where on any given subject one side says "A" and the other says "B". But when one says "A" and the other says "non-A" both cannot be correct.
From a human point of view, you are correct. However, we serve an Infinite God with the power to do anything.
I'm not sure I agree. Omnipotent means he can do everything power can do. It doesn't mean he can do anything. He cannot sin. I don't think he can send anyone to both Heaven and Hell. I can think of lots of things that I think it would be hard to make a case to say God can do X. Can God create a four-sided triangle? Going down those lines is where debates like Calvinism and Arminianism eventually cannot be reconciled. If God can have "A" and "non-A" true at the same time and in the same sense then the devil could be God and God could be the devil. We would lose all ability to have objective knowledge of anything.
So, if this has turned into an full blown apologetics thread, lets recap. Total Depravity/Inability Mankind = hopelessly sinful. Unconditional Election Man being totally evil their salvation is completely dependent on God, and God chooses only who he wants to be saved. It doesn't matter how hard a person tries to receive salvation, it ain't happening unless they are one of the elect. Limited Atonement Jesus only died for the chosen. Irresistible Grace Even if you don't wanna be saved, if you are of the elect, it's gonna happen. Perseverance of the Saints The belief that since you didn't have anything to do with being chosen and ultimately saved, you're going to stay saved no matter what. Again, I don't disagree with the title of this point, just the reasoning thereof. So, Have I got the idea correct? If so, I'd like to cover each point if you don't mind...
Tim, I'm open to discuss. I'm not sure where you got your descriptions/definitions. Some are worse than others. They don't sound like the way any Reformed writers I've read would put them. They sound like they come from anti-Reformed writers or the systematic theology volume known as the internet. But we can tweak along the way.
More like my own brief descriptions my brother. Best to correct my view/opposite view so I can answer more intelligently...
I think that reading Calvin's Institutions and Arminius' writings... not necessarily the REmonstrances... gives a better picture than our internet theology. For instance, the nuances in Arminius' writings are not nearly as draconian or anti-thetical to the Institutions as are the REmonstrances.
I think some of the early (1800's) Sovereign Grace Baptist brethren and their writings would suffice for me better. Charles H. Spurgeon was just such a believer although, I wouldn't necessarily categorize him as a Sovereign Grace mentality sort of guy per se. Other writings would be from John Pendleton from the same era.
Yeah, but you if you are talking about what Calvin or Arminius said, then it seems to me better to go right to the horses' mouths, so to speak. For instance, the Remonstrances go a bit beyond what Arminius ever said while he was alive, and Beza's Greek text goes a bit beyond what even Calvin said. So, as in most things, the issues are in the details. Which kind of Calvinism/Reformed theology are we talking about? As set forth in which Creed/Confession/Council? Same for Arminianism? Whose version? For me, the best approach is go back to the original authors and see how they interpreted Scripture.
Well RK, I usually don't reference the doctrine until it effects my own particular brethren. But I guess the would limit my scope when discussing it with others who are protestant. I have however learned not even to bother to talk with catholics about any meaty subject like this. So then my references would be to go back to documents like the "Goat Yard Confession" of 1729 to see what the Baptists were thinking about the matter. As a for instance, such teachings didn't even show up amongst the Baptist brethren until we started dropping the ana from Anabaptist and started calling ourselves Baptists in the 1600's. It was around the first of the 18th century that John Calvins teachings started crawling into our congregations even though they had been around for 150/170 years predating 1700. That's why I mentioned the Sovereign Grace (Baptist) brethren in the first place when John Gill and a few others started introducing it into the church...
The church I go to is Reformed Baptist and we adhere to "The 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith."
Tim, I'm no expert on the history of the confessions. However, Googling it, Wikipedia, the infallible guide to all knowledge on the Internet, states that the 1689 is also called the Second London Baptist Confession. The first was in 1677 and entitled A confession of Faith put forth by the Elders and Brethren of many Congregations of Christians, Baptized upon Profession of their Faith in London and the Country. With an Appendies concerning Baptism. I can see why they'd like a simpler name for the second one. Bottom line is it it's very similar to the Westminster Confession of Faith which is used by conservative Presbyterians that are still safe today. Ours has minor modifications to things that Baptists view differently. When I work Sundays and can't make it to my home church which I'm a member of, I go to an Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) 1-1/2 miles from my work. I get off at 5pm and they have a 5pm service. I'm about as home there as I am at my home church because the differences are few and far between and neither church beats those drums a whole lot.
Ya think they would have given it a simpler name wouldn't you?. But have you ever talked with any of our Sovereign Grace brethren? Many of them also call themselves "briders" because they believe that they are the "few" called by God and they are the elect, The Bride. Matthew 22:14 For many are called, but few [are] chosen. And speaking historically, we spent so much time in the late 18th century to the middle 19th century fighting over predestination, which was a relatively new doctrine, as opposed to the "Whosoever Will" doctrine that was with the church even to the 1st century. It hampered our missionary work world wide. Almost brought it to a standstill. Wow, that's a long sentence!!! But that's neither here nor there, is it? The OP is Irresistible Grace, right??? 1st on the list is total depravity. Explain to me what I should believe about our un-redeemable nature if you will.