Jump to content


Photo

Doctrinal Belief


  • Please log in to reply
135 replies to this topic

#21 J.Carlos

J.Carlos

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • Location:Manila, Philippines
  • Gender:Male
  • I am a Layperson

  • I attend an Alliance church
  • Bayombong Evangelical Alliance Church

Posted 07 November 2010 - 08:45 AM

Do you believe in election? Also known as predestination?
Or, do you believe in free will when it comes to salvation?
~ Pastor Tex



In my stand yah, I believe in election/ predestination, this biblical and this what the bible says. Election/ predestination can be found on the Book of Romans and the other is on the Epistle like in 1 Peter and etc.

#22 Robert Sanford

Robert Sanford

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • I am a Layperson

  • I attend an Alliance church
  • North Springs Alliance

Posted 09 November 2010 - 07:32 AM

Calvinistic or Armenian? Election or predestination? Truth be told, I have not thought much about this debate since graduation from Nyack College. But, I see the “discussion” is just as impassioned as it was back in the day. I have to ask is it really as simple as we are right and they are wrong? Because if they are wrong, they have built their faith on “sand” as scripture says. The only logical conclusion of wrong is that they are not saved at all. So either one-half of so called Christendom is not really saved? Or they are saved but too dumb to know why? Really?

I remember Elio Cuccaro, saying where scripture is clear, we can be clear. Where scripture is merely suggestive, we can only be suggestive. The fact that this debate has gone on as long as it has tells me scripture is suggestive. Scripture reminds us that we see dimly. So here again, I would suggest taking an absolute position on this issue may not be appropriate. And, yes, I know there are absolutes. But, I am saying the longevity and intensity of the debate severely diminishes the likelihood that this is one of the absolutes. As Andy Stanley taught at the Willow Creek Leadership Summit, we need to stop trying to solve this side of Glory what we are not meant to solve.

#23 Denes House

Denes House

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 442 posts
  • Location:Gates, NY
  • Interests:I am married to the beauteous Karina, and have two excellent children, Timothy and Evelyn. I love science fiction, kayaking, fantasy, philosophy, theology, politics, movies, illustration, and computer graphics.
  • Gender:Male
  • I am a Pastor

  • I attend an Alliance church
  • Trinity Alliance Church

Posted 09 November 2010 - 09:53 AM

Calvinistic or Armenian? Election or predestination? Truth be told, I have not thought much about this debate since graduation from Nyack College. But, I see the “discussion” is just as impassioned as it was back in the day. I have to ask is it really as simple as we are right and they are wrong? Because if they are wrong, they have built their faith on “sand” as scripture says. The only logical conclusion of wrong is that they are not saved at all. So either one-half of so called Christendom is not really saved? Or they are saved but too dumb to know why? Really?


I'm sorry to say, I don't follow your leap from believing that someone is wrong on one of their beliefs to saying that they are not saved at all. We all likely believe things that will turn out to be incorrect, and the Scriptures never say that the road to salvation is having perfectly correct beliefs. I am an Arminian, but I would not say that my Calvinistic brothers and sisters are unsaved, or dumb. I see where they are coming from in their interpretation of Scripture, I appreciate the core value of God's sovereignty that they strive to protect, and I am grateful for their work in the Gospel. I believe that they are not taking the whole counsel of God into account, that there are passages they have not adequately dealt with, and that their emphasis on God's sovereignty has overwhelmed their acknowledgement of God's love. But that doesn't make them dumb or unsaved. It just makes them mistaken, if my assessment is correct. And if my assessment is incorrect, I am the one who is mistaken, and I am glad that God's judgment will not be based on my human ability to grasp the whole counsel of God, but on the saving power of Jesus Christ's death on the cross, applied to my life by God's grace and received through faith.
For those who are wondering, my name is spelled "Denes House," but it's pronounced "Throatwobbler Mangrove..."

Visit my weblog, online art gallery, and church's website!

#24 Joel Stoddert

Joel Stoddert

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 181 posts
  • Location:Waterbury, VT
  • Gender:Male
  • I am a Pastor

  • I attend an Alliance church
  • Green Mountain Community Alliance Church

Posted 11 November 2010 - 11:33 PM

Do you believe in election? Also known as predestination?
Or, do you believe in free will when it comes to salvation?
~ Pastor Tex

This question sincere believers will never have total unity on this side of heaven! I believe in election because the Bible clearly teaches it. But the Bible also speaks of responding to Jesus' invitation to "Follow me", encourages us to remain faithful to the end, etc., pointing to the idea that we have some choice in the matter, that although the Lord "chose us before the foundation of the world", we're not robots, forced to love Him. The Bible teaches both election and some degree of free will. How does that all work out? I don't know--but God does! Subjects like election make me appreciate our Catholic neighbors' concept of mystery: They admit that we'll never fully grasp some things no matter how much we study, pray and think on them, that they remain, to some degree, a mystery to us. My faithful Catholic friends have no problem with saying, "I don't know the answer, but God does." We evangelicals, on the other hand, tend to feel a need to have all the answers, or at least believe that its possible anyway. The Lord has all the answers, yes--and we'll never fully grasp some of them, like election!
  • Living water likes this

#25 Jay Turner

Jay Turner

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 295 posts
  • Location:Sioux Falls, SD
  • Gender:Male
  • I am a Layperson

  • I attend a non-Alliance church

Posted 12 November 2010 - 09:00 PM

If I were forced to pick one or the other, I would have to say I believe more in free will than in election, but in reality, I believe it is somewhere in between. I believe that there are times where God will tell one person one thing, then tell another person something that seems just the opposite. It is not a case where God is confused or that He is being dishonest in any way. Instead, He reveals to people what He needs for them to hear. Sometimes it is because that is what they need to hear, but other times it is because of the timing in His greater plan for His creation.

From what I have seen in scripture and from what I have seen God do in my own life, I have come to realize that He doesn't reveal everything all at once. Instead He build event upon event, precept upon precept. He is taking us on a journey and to keep us from straying too far or loosing interest, He leads us one step at a time.

Let me give you something to think about. In Matthew 24.36 it says, “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” This verse points out how there are things that the Father knows, but the Son does not. I don’t know to what extent this goes, but it does show the possibility where the underlying truths of predestination and free-will could work together.

#26 Denes House

Denes House

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 442 posts
  • Location:Gates, NY
  • Interests:I am married to the beauteous Karina, and have two excellent children, Timothy and Evelyn. I love science fiction, kayaking, fantasy, philosophy, theology, politics, movies, illustration, and computer graphics.
  • Gender:Male
  • I am a Pastor

  • I attend an Alliance church
  • Trinity Alliance Church

Posted 13 November 2010 - 06:17 AM

Jay, it's also possible that Matthew 24:36 indicates some knowledge the Son gave up in the incarnation, but regained in the resurrection, along with the Glory that He is due. We need to be careful, careful, careful with making suppositions in theology.
For those who are wondering, my name is spelled "Denes House," but it's pronounced "Throatwobbler Mangrove..."

Visit my weblog, online art gallery, and church's website!

#27 Jay Turner

Jay Turner

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 295 posts
  • Location:Sioux Falls, SD
  • Gender:Male
  • I am a Layperson

  • I attend a non-Alliance church

Posted 13 November 2010 - 09:04 AM

Jay, it's also possible that Matthew 24:36 indicates some knowledge the Son gave up in the incarnation, but regained in the resurrection, along with the Glory that He is due. We need to be careful, careful, careful with making suppositions in theology.


When you look at the context in which Matthew 24.36 is used, it is in terms of when the Son will return. This implies that there is a time between His resurrection and the second coming where He still does not know the time and hour in which it will happen. From what I read in scripture, it is possible that this information is something He gave up in incarnation, but it is also possible that there are some things that the Father knows that the son does not.

#28 Joel Stoddert

Joel Stoddert

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 181 posts
  • Location:Waterbury, VT
  • Gender:Male
  • I am a Pastor

  • I attend an Alliance church
  • Green Mountain Community Alliance Church

Posted 14 November 2010 - 10:14 PM

When you look at the context in which Matthew 24.36 is used, it is in terms of when the Son will return. This implies that there is a time between His resurrection and the second coming where He still does not know the time and hour in which it will happen. From what I read in scripture, it is possible that this information is something He gave up in incarnation, but it is also possible that there are some things that the Father knows that the son does not.

My wife, in studying Jewish marriage customs, also shed some light on Mt. 24:36. Apparently, after the engagement (which is more involved than in our culture--you're committed at that point), the tradition was for the husband to go and prepare a home for his bride, coming for her when it was ready. The interesting part is that the groom's father decides when the home is ready to receive the bride--not the groom. In addition, the wedding is held at the groom's parents' home, with the groom then taking the bride to the home he's prepared for them, now that his father considers his prep. work complete. These traditions really shed some light on passages about the church being the bride of Christ, His going to prepare a place for us (Jn. 14), the parable of the wise & foolish maidens (who were waiting with the bride for her groom to come for her--also part of the custom). It also helps interpret Mt. 24:36, since Jesus is telling us it's none of our business when He--the Bridegroom--will come back to take his Bride to be with Him--that's the Father's call. I agree with Denes that Jesus likely denied himself that specific date while in the flesh, but, as the all-knowing second Person of the Trinity, knows it now.

#29 Pastor Stephen Smarowsky

Pastor Stephen Smarowsky

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Location:Tarpon Springs, FL
  • Interests:Shooting, Reading, Fishing, Camping, Vacationing in new places, discipling other men, passionate for missional living.
  • Gender:Male
  • I am a Pastor

  • I attend an Alliance church
  • Trinity Alliance

Posted 15 November 2010 - 07:35 AM

Unconditional Election is a phrase that is used to summarize what the Bible teaches about the predestination—or the election—of people for salvation. It represents the second letter of the acronym TULIP, which is commonly used to enumerate the five points of Calvinism, also known as the Doctrines of Grace. Other terms for the same doctrine include “Unmerited Favor”, “Sovereign Election” or “Adopted by God.” All these terms are good names for this doctrine because each reveals some aspect of the doctrine of election. However, more important than the term we use to describe the doctrine is how accurately the doctrine summarizes what the Bible teaches about election and predestination.

The debate over unconditional election is not whether or not God elects or predestines people to salvation but upon what basis He elects them. Is that election based upon foreknowledge that those individuals will have faith in Christ, or is it based upon God’s sovereign choice to save them? As the word unconditional implies, this view believes that God’s election of people to salvation is done “with no conditions attached, either foreseen or otherwise.” God elects people to salvation by His own sovereign choice and not because of some future action they will perform or condition they will meet. Those who come to Christ become His children by His will, not by theirs. “They were not God's children by nature or because of any human desires. God himself was the one who made them his children” (John 1:13 CEV).

God, before the foundation of the world, chose to make certain individuals the objects of His unmerited favor or special grace (Mark 13:20; Ephesians 1:4-5; Revelation 13:8; Revelation 17:8). These individuals from every tribe, tongue and nation were chosen by God for adoption, not because of anything they would do but because of His sovereign will (Romans 9:11-13; Romans 9:16; Romans 10:20; 1 Corinthians 1:27-29; 2 Timothy 1:9). God could have chosen to save all men (He certainly has the power and authority to do so), and He could have chosen to save no one (He is under no obligation to save anyone). He instead chose to save some and leave others to the consequences of their sin (Exodus 33:19; Deuteronomy 7:6-7; Romans 9:10-24; Acts 13:48; 1 Peter 2:8).

There are many verses in both the Old and New Testaments that speak of election, and when one looks at all the Bible teaches about election and predestination it becomes obvious that God’s choice was not based on any foreseen act or response, but was based solely on God’s own good pleasure and sovereign will. Properly understood, God’s unconditional election is one link in the unbreakable chain of salvation seen in Romans 8:28-29: “For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.” All those who are predestined will be saved (John 6:39; Romans 8:30) because they are the ones that God the Father gives to Jesus Christ (John 6:37) who will raise them up on the last day (John 6:39; John 17:2). They are Christ’s sheep (John 10:1-30) who hear His voice and for whom He died (John 10:15) in order to give them eternal life and make them secure forever in the hand of God (John 10:26-30).

There are several common misconceptions about unconditional election. First it is important to understand that the doctrine does not teach that God’s choice is capricious or arbitrary. It is not random or made without reason. What it does teach is that the reason God elects someone to salvation is not because of something worthy God finds in that individual but because of His inscrutable, mysterious will. He makes the choice as to who will be saved for His own reasons, according to His own perfect will and for His own good pleasure (Ephesians 1:5). And while some object to the doctrine of election as being unfair, it is nevertheless based upon God’s will and it pleases God; therefore it must be good and perfectly just.

Another misconception is that unconditional election precludes and stifles evangelism, but the reality is just the opposite—it empowers and confirms it. When one correctly understands that God has not only elected certain individuals to salvation but also has ordained the means of salvation—the preaching of the Gospel (Romans 1:16; Romans 10:14-17)—it empowers the spreading of the Gospel message and the call to evangelism. We see this very thing in Paul’s writing to Timothy in the midst of deep persecution. “I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ…” (2 Timothy 2:10). A proper understanding of the doctrine of election encourages evangelism and guarantees its success. It overcomes the fear of failure when sharing the Gospel and empowers people to remain faithful to the message in times of great persecution. They know that the power lies in the Gospel message and in God’s sovereign election and not in their own feeble presentation. A biblical understanding of election helps one share the Gospel freely with all people, knowing that anyone of them could be Christ’s sheep whom He is calling into His fold (John 10:16). It is not up to us to determine if someone is elect or non-elect, and there is always a hope of salvation for anyone who will repent of their sins and believe in Christ. The Gospel message should be preached to all people in the knowledge that God will use it to draw His sheep to Himself.

Unconditional election also does not mean that there will be people in heaven who do not want to be there, nor will there be people in hell who wanted to be saved but could not be because they were not elect. Unconditional election properly recognizes that, apart from God’s supernatural work in the life of a sinner, men will always choose to reject God and rebel against Him (see the article on Total Depravity for more information on this subject). What unconditional election does correctly recognize is that God intervenes in the lives of the elect and works in their lives through the Holy Spirit so that they willingly respond in faith to Him. Because they are “His sheep…they hear his voice and follow Him” (John 10:1-30). As for the non-elect, God is still gracious to them, but because of their sin they are not thankful for that grace, nor do they acknowledge Him as God (Romans 1:18-20). Consequently, they receive the just punishment due them. Those whom God elects are beneficiaries of His sovereign grace and mercy, and those whom He does not elect receive the justice they have earned. While the elect receive God’s perfect grace, the non-elect receive God’s perfect justice.

Those who argue against unconditional election often use verses like 1 Timothy 2:4 and John 3:16. How can we reconcile election with a verse like I Timothy 2:4 that says that God “desires all me to be saved” or John 3:16 that says God “so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life”? The answer lies in correctly understanding the will of God and the love of God. God’s passive will needs to be understood in contrast to His decreed will (those things He foreordains to happen). The passive will of God includes the things He might desire in a sense but does not foreordain or bring to pass. Certainly if God is sovereign and all powerful, as the Bible declares Him to be, then He could bring about the salvation of all men if that was His decreed or pre-determined will. Reconciling this verse and others with the many that teach election is an unconditional choice of God is no more difficult that recognizing that there are things God might desire but does not decree to happen. It could be said that God does not desire men to sin but as part of his predetermined plan He allows them to sin. So while there is a real sense in which God does not take pleasure in the destruction of the wicked and desires that all be saved, His pre-determined plan allows for the fact that some will go to hell.

In a similar way, concerning John 3:16 and God’s love, the difference lies in God’s general love for all creation and all humanity versus His specific love for His children, the elect. The difference is that God’s love for His elect is an intensive love that has Him actually doing something about their lost condition instead of simply sitting by wishing that they would in turn love Him, a picture so often conjured up by those who believe themselves to be in control of their own eternal destiny. In a generic sense, God desires all to be saved and He loves all of humanity, but that is completely different from the specific love He has for His elect and His desire and provision for their salvation.

When one examines what the Bible teaches about election and predestination, it becomes clear that the doctrine of unconditional election does accurately represent what the Bible teaches on this important subject. While this—or any of the other Doctrines of Grace—can stand on their own merit, their importance becomes even clearer when they are considered together systematically with all the Bible teaches about salvation. They essentially serve as building blocks with each one furnishing a necessary part of a biblical understanding of salvation. Total depravity defines man’s need for salvation and reveals his hopelessness when left to his own resources. It leaves man with the question “Who can be saved?” The answer lies in an understanding of unconditional election—God’s sovereign choice to save people despite their depravity and based solely on His redeeming for Himself people from every tribe, tongue and nation. This He accomplishes by predestining them “to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will” (Ephesians 1:5). A proper understanding of this doctrine should not result in questioning the justice of God, but instead in marveling at His great mercy. The question we really should ask is not why God chooses only some to salvation but why He would choose any at all.

#30 Denes House

Denes House

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 442 posts
  • Location:Gates, NY
  • Interests:I am married to the beauteous Karina, and have two excellent children, Timothy and Evelyn. I love science fiction, kayaking, fantasy, philosophy, theology, politics, movies, illustration, and computer graphics.
  • Gender:Male
  • I am a Pastor

  • I attend an Alliance church
  • Trinity Alliance Church

Posted 15 November 2010 - 08:00 AM

Well written summary of this doctrine. While I disagree with your conclusions, I appreciate the skill and passion you brought to this post, and your zeal for the Lord. Welcome to the e-Community. I hope that you'll join in on some of the already-existing conversations, as well as posting your own topics and thoughts.
For those who are wondering, my name is spelled "Denes House," but it's pronounced "Throatwobbler Mangrove..."

Visit my weblog, online art gallery, and church's website!

#31 RuthAnn Nicholls

RuthAnn Nicholls

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 290 posts
  • Location:Pennsylvania
  • Gender:Female
  • I am a Layperson

  • I attend an Alliance church
  • Upper St Clair Alliance Church

Posted 17 November 2010 - 08:09 PM

One of the troubling things to me is that many who are 5 petal TULIP believers also believe that God does not love the world. They believe God only loves the elect. Is this common in Calvinism?

I want to live my life so that every morning
when I wake up Satan says, "Oh, no! She's awake!


#32 Mark Wood

Mark Wood

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 85 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • I am a Missionary

  • I attend an Alliance church
  • Nikdovnihan

Posted 17 November 2010 - 08:32 PM

One of the troubling things to me is that many who are 5 petal TULIP believers also believe that God does not love the world. They believe God only loves the elect. Is this common in Calvinism?


RuthAnn,
Its not a stance I have come across. It is important to remember that with in any given position there is a range stances on it. While there may be some who state the position you referred to strongly others do not. D.A Carson's position may not be the same as say, R.C. Sproul's even though they would both advocate their position as being essentially reformed.
Personally while there is much we can know on both sides there is also much that cannot be know and must be resigned to God's divine sovereignty. I like what someone said (can't remember) that divine sovereignty and human responsibility are like two sides of a mountain that go up into the clouds. We know that they meet we just don't know exactly where or how.

#33 Joel Stoddert

Joel Stoddert

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 181 posts
  • Location:Waterbury, VT
  • Gender:Male
  • I am a Pastor

  • I attend an Alliance church
  • Green Mountain Community Alliance Church

Posted 17 November 2010 - 11:30 PM

Seems to me the predestination/election conundrum is created by our attempts to impose our (artificial) notion of time on the discussion.

We see the river of time from the perspective of a leaf caught in the current. God sees the river of time as if viewing it from Space. What we see as past, present and future (where we have been, where we are, and where we are going), God sees as all at once. Gods present tense includes the past, present and future simultaneously. Simply put, God is not bound in time as we are. He was quite serious when he described himself as the "I AM" (present tense).

My take is that if we look at the predestination issue from GODs perspective, we could argue that we are both elected AND have free will.... The conundrum doesn't exist.

Well said, Dan!

#34 HmoobKuv

HmoobKuv

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • I am a Layperson

  • I attend an Alliance church
  • Yuba-Sutter Hmong Alliance Church

Posted 23 November 2010 - 06:43 PM

Calvinism - Pastor Stephen Smarowsky thank you for your post. It is true that we limit the love of God and power of God's salvation if we don't accept that there is election. With election, even unborn babies go to heaven because God can elected them. Hence the love shown in John 3:16 is not diminished but magnified.. that's right... even those who never had a chance to choose God can go to heaven; sorry Arminians. Whoever still preaches that all babies go to hell because we are all sinners from our mother's wombs should take a look at election and see if it fits with the nature of our loving God. True, we are all sinners from our mothers wombs, but that doesn't mean God can't elect the unborn for heaven. I embrace election, it is within God's nature.

But, there's always a but. I won't go as far to say that God predestined some to go to hell. Can someone correct me if I'm wrong here? You can just point out something I can read too, that'd be helpful. Was Judas predestined for hell? I'll do some more studying I guess. Ah... sounds like fun. Haha.

And yea, I'm not Calvinist. I have a lot of Arminian beliefs too. I have to sort them out. Let's not limit this to either absolute Arminian or absolute Calvinism. What if it's parts of each? I wouldn't know, but I will. Haha. Thanks all for the great posts.

#35 Jay Turner

Jay Turner

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 295 posts
  • Location:Sioux Falls, SD
  • Gender:Male
  • I am a Layperson

  • I attend a non-Alliance church

Posted 24 November 2010 - 01:54 AM

When it comes to the Open View (Arminian) theology, it is all about free will and the ability to either actively choose or reject God, His will and His way. Just think of the Parable of the Talents. Each of the servants were given talents by their master. The thing that made them good or wicked was whether they were faithful with what they were given. Since the first two servants were good stewards of their talents, they were given more and praised for their faithfulness. The third one, on the other hand, was declared wicked because he just buried his talent and wasn't faithful with what he was given.

When you look at babies or people born mentally handicapped and not able to comprehend the basic understanding of choosing or rejecting God, though they may die without officially accepting Christ, haven't they been faithful with what they have been given?

I don't think there are a lot of OV theists that don't see the possibility of there being a middle ground between Calvinism and Arminianism in the free will debate. More than anything it is the election part that they have a problem with. God, being the god that He portrays Himself as in the Bible, would not give us the image of having the free will to either accept Him or reject Him, if we never truly had that ability. If God has His chosen and they are predestined to go to Heaven, then would we truly have free will?

#36 HmoobKuv

HmoobKuv

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • I am a Layperson

  • I attend an Alliance church
  • Yuba-Sutter Hmong Alliance Church

Posted 24 November 2010 - 03:18 PM

Yea, the reason I can't call myself a Calvinist is because I see freewill in the Bible. Parable of the Talents is a good one to illustrate freewill. And there are others too.

Even Lucifer in Heaven had freewill to rebel against God. God doesn't create robots and direct them.

So I'm going to do a lot of studying this Thanksgiving break and will report back what I find. I was studying Mormonism, but I guess I'll do this first. I'm surprised C&MA doesn't have this position sorted out yet? Or does it? Going to call a former District Vice-President in our Hmong District and see what he says about our position on this. If I have to call our newly elected District President in Denver, I will. My church is small so these secondary issues never get brought up. Everyone on this forum makes me feel compelled to do a study on this.

#37 Jay Turner

Jay Turner

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 295 posts
  • Location:Sioux Falls, SD
  • Gender:Male
  • I am a Layperson

  • I attend a non-Alliance church

Posted 24 November 2010 - 04:25 PM

I am not an expert on this, but my understanding of the C&MA is that they intentionally choose not to make official rulings on things like the free-will debate. When you look at their history, they started out as a multi-denominational missionary organization. Since their focus was on bringing believers together, regardless of their denomination, to fulfill the Great Commission, they chose not to rule on a lot of the secondary doctrine to accommodate the varying beliefs. It seems that this stance is a scriptural one when you look at 1 Corinthians 3.4. it encourages believers to come together in unity even if a lot of their beliefs, theology and doctrines don't line up. That helps to place the focus back on our relationship with God, not on our doctrine.

#38 HmoobKuv

HmoobKuv

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 9 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • I am a Layperson

  • I attend an Alliance church
  • Yuba-Sutter Hmong Alliance Church

Posted 24 November 2010 - 05:18 PM

I am not an expert on this, but my understanding of the C&MA is that they intentionally choose not to make official rulings on things like the free-will debate. When you look at their history, they started out as a multi-denominational missionary organization. Since their focus was on bringing believers together, regardless of their denomination, to fulfill the Great Commission, they chose not to rule on a lot of the secondary doctrine to accommodate the varying beliefs. It seems that this stance is a scriptural one when you look at 1 Corinthians 3.4. it encourages believers to come together in unity even if a lot of their beliefs, theology and doctrines don't line up. That helps to place the focus back on our relationship with God, not on our doctrine.


Interesting. That would make sense being part of C&MA for these years. And yes, we do not discuss a lot of the secondary issues; but we always focus on the Great Commission. Every year. Every annual general meeting. Haha. Talk about setting old goals.

My study so far is getting interesting.

Thanks to Jay, I edited my old post to show "C&MA". Had "CMA" in there. Thanks for the correcting of that mistake.

#39 RuthAnn Nicholls

RuthAnn Nicholls

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 290 posts
  • Location:Pennsylvania
  • Gender:Female
  • I am a Layperson

  • I attend an Alliance church
  • Upper St Clair Alliance Church

Posted 25 November 2010 - 06:01 PM

When it comes to the Open View (Arminian) theology, it is all about free will and the ability to either actively choose or reject God, His will and His way. Just think of the Parable of the Talents. Each of the servants were given talents by their master. The thing that made them good or wicked was whether they were faithful with what they were given. Since the first two servants were good stewards of their talents, they were given more and praised for their faithfulness. The third one, on the other hand, was declared wicked because he just buried his talent and wasn't faithful with what he was given.

When you look at babies or people born mentally handicapped and not able to comprehend the basic understanding of choosing or rejecting God, though they may die without officially accepting Christ, haven't they been faithful with what they have been given?

I don't think there are a lot of OV theists that don't see the possibility of there being a middle ground between Calvinism and Arminianism in the free will debate. More than anything it is the election part that they have a problem with. God, being the god that He portrays Himself as in the Bible, would not give us the image of having the free will to either accept Him or reject Him, if we never truly had that ability. If God has His chosen and they are predestined to go to Heaven, then would we truly have free will?


I bolded your middle paragraph.

That, if it is correct, is a very comforting idea. It makes sense based on scripture.

I lean very much Arminian.
I think.

I want to live my life so that every morning
when I wake up Satan says, "Oh, no! She's awake!


#40 Denes House

Denes House

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 442 posts
  • Location:Gates, NY
  • Interests:I am married to the beauteous Karina, and have two excellent children, Timothy and Evelyn. I love science fiction, kayaking, fantasy, philosophy, theology, politics, movies, illustration, and computer graphics.
  • Gender:Male
  • I am a Pastor

  • I attend an Alliance church
  • Trinity Alliance Church

Posted 28 November 2010 - 05:59 AM

For what it's worth, as an Arminian, I reject the Open View theology, and believe that equating the two does Arminianism an injustice. The Open View says that God does not know the future - that it is "open" to Him, as well as to humanity, and that He is relegated to responding to events intelligently, rather than that God superintends events to a foreordained conclusion. This is clearly against the plain and consistent testimony of Scripture, thus the Open View is heretical, and I reject it. Calvinists will often say that Openism is just Arminian theology brought to its logical conclusion - I respectfully disagree. That's just as uncharitable as saying that Islam is Calvinism brought to its logical conclusion.

I would also rather not characterize Arminianism as being primarily about Free Will. With Roger Olson (Arminian Theology, IVP) I would characterize the Arminianism/Calvinism divide as being over which of God's attributes we consider to be primary. Calvinists primarily see God as sovereign. Above all, He is sovereign, even in how He exercises His love. Arminians see God primarily as loving. Above all, God is love, even in how He exercises His sovereignty. For Arminians, free will enters the picture because of God's love. I don't defend Arminianism because I want to believe I have free will, as if my will was more important than Biblical truth. Rather, I defend Arminianism because I believe that God's love requires a willing object, rather than a puppet, to love. Both Arminians and Calvinists believe God is sovereign. Both Calvinists and Arminians believe that God is loving. But we each emphasize a different attribute as being primary, the attribute that defines how all the others are seen.

Jay's post #38 is correct - the C&MA does not take a stand on this question, but believes that it is a secondary matter, in which there is Christian liberty, a position that I am grateful for, and admire in the C&MA. These things are fun to debate, but getting them "right" doesn't ultimately determine our salvation. Jesus does, and again, I'm grateful for that, as well.
  • Living water likes this
For those who are wondering, my name is spelled "Denes House," but it's pronounced "Throatwobbler Mangrove..."

Visit my weblog, online art gallery, and church's website!