Team GotQuestions Blog

a Blog for Sharing Stories, Tips & Encouragement

Theology Discussion – Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism

January 4th, 2015

I have always rejected a rigid Calvinist approach to salvation because it conflicts with all the Scriptures that place emphasis on personal responsibility, both in preaching the Gospel and in receiving it. But similarly, I have always rejected a rigid Arminian approach to salvation because it limits or reduces God’s omniscience. To give it a label, I guess this puts me in the Molinist camp of taking a position somewhere in the middle (described pretty well in the article below if you are interested in reading it). It is for this reason that I am always uncomfortable when salvation is tightly canned and packaged in strongly Calvinist or Arminian terms. Being saved is ultimately very simple. Understanding all of its ramifications is ultimately very difficult.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molinism

Molinism – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Molinism, named after 16th Century Jesuit theologian Luis de Molina, is a religious doctrine which attempts to reconcile the providence of God with human free will. William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga are some of its best known advocates today, though other important Molinists include Alfred Fred…
EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG
Like · ·
  • Seen by 43
    Jeff Laird likes this.
  • Corpuz Valdemor Avellaneda Ramil I’m a Calvinist. i just emphasize human responsibility in my evangelistic message.
    Yesterday at 5:53am · Like · 3
  • Stuart Mattfield I got sideways during my ordination board with a room of staunch 5-pointers over the issue regarding election. I laughed later because I have always held God’s sovereignty as the priority, but never seeing it as mutually exclusive to man’s free will. John 6:44 places the priority on God’s sovereignty in the process of election, and that doesn’t appear to be at all reliant on or in reaction to man’s decisions. That does not absolve man of their responsibility for sin or participation in this process. I think this is why guys like Feinberg look at Plantinga’s theodicy (Free Will Defense) and say that it may solve the problem logically but not practically.
    Yesterday at 7:11am · Like
  • Corpuz Valdemor Avellaneda Ramil The doctrine of election is not for beginners in the faith. It takes much failures to keep up with God’s standards before one can appreciate election.
    Yesterday at 7:14am · Like
  • Ed Romero Brother Steve, Calvinism doesn’t conflict with human responsibility rather, it holds humans responsible to follow God. The scriptures also teach that man is corrupt through and through and is unable to do so on his own. So, God gives the ability to do so to His chosen people. The human responsibility doesn’t go away
    Yesterday at 7:42am · Edited · Like · 3
  • Tim White I hate labels, particularly those labels. I can get so caught up with figuring where I lie between the labels that i fail to do my responsibilities. Perhaps I was predestined to be that way?
    Yesterday at 8:36am · Like · 5
  • Ed Romero Yeah, labels can be harmful. They can also be helpful for the sake of shorthand. For example, it’s good to be able to quickly distinguish between Mormonism and Evangelicalism, though both call themselves “Christian”
    Yesterday at 8:40am · Like · 3
  • Tim White IF all Evangelicals are saved and obedient to God, yes. However, if one clings to the Evangelical title as justification, oops.
    Yesterday at 8:47am · Like · 3
  • Ed Chait The highest view of God’s sovereignty is that in His economy, human free will and predestination are completely concurrent and compatible.
    Yesterday at 9:23am · Like · 4
  • Robert Lowry Holy moley Steve, after all that, I don’t know if I’m an Arminianist, a Calvinist, a Molinist, or some other kind of …ist. But one thing I do know. I’m saved by the grace of God and the blood of Jesus Christ.
    Yesterday at 9:56am · Like · 2
  • Ed Romero Another thing I know is that if God had not chosen me first, I never would have chosen Him.
    Yesterday at 9:57am · Like · 6
  • Gina Cook I second that Ed Romero. “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.” John 6:44. “You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask the Father in My name He may give you.” John 15:16.

    We won’t fully understand it this side of heaven how God is totally in control and in charge of our faith in Him while we are still commanded to believe in Him. It’s like Jesus being fully Man, even a helpless babe at one point, and yet being fully God. With God anything is possible and not confined to what we are able to comprehend.
    Yesterday at 10:49am · Like · 5
  • Ed Romero At the same time, we can exaggerate the mystery. It is totally understandable how a sovereign God could orchestrate everything in a way that He’s doing everything He wants to do, even as man is doing exactly what he wants to do
    Yesterday at 11:12am · Like · 2
  • Ed Chait It’s understandable if we don’t try to conform Him to something we can understand, or something like that.
    Yesterday at 11:50am · Like · 1
  • Ed Chait Why would we want God to be like us?
    Yesterday at 11:51am · Like · 1
  • Tom Gindorf Jr. Molinism is nothing more than Arminianism repackaged. Either God is 100% Sovereign in salvation, or He is not at all. Is man held culpable for that which he is incapable of achieving?! Of course! Try the Law of Moses! How is that just!?? Easy, we never deserved anything from God other than His wrath in the first place. Romans 3:10ff
    Yesterday at 11:54am · Edited · Like
  • Ed Chait The Israelites had freedom of choice when they agreed to obey all of God’s commandments.
    Yesterday at 11:57am · Like
  • Tom Gindorf Jr. Ed are you saying the Law was optional!? Death reigned from Adam to Moses anyway, but are you really saying that God had a plan B!? That sounds a fair bit like Open Theism!
    Yesterday at 12:01pm · Edited · Like
  • Tim White Tom, either God chose for me not to be a Calvanist or I chose myself. I believe in the sovereignty of God, but God, in His greater-than-understandable wisdom, does so without allowing our free will.
    Yesterday at 12:01pm · Like
  • Ed Chait No, I’m not at all saying that God has Plan B. I’m just saying that God does not violate our free will when He makes covenants with us.
    Yesterday at 12:04pm · Like
  • Ed Chait OK, my head hurts, I’m going out to get a burger and fries.
    Yesterday at 12:05pm · Like · 2
  • Ed Chait it was predestined.
    Yesterday at 12:05pm · Like · 2
  • Tom Gindorf Jr. God in His sovereignity both allows and decrees. But either way, if it happens, it’s managed. God allows sin in His sovereignty the same way He allowed evil in the form of a serpent in the garden to tempt Adam and Eve. He decrees salvation; as without His decree none will seek Him (Romans 3:10). Yet, erring on the side of saying that man is free to choose salvation “all things being equal” is to say that God only knows of our choice and endorses it. It is entirely in contradiction to the nature of man without God’s regeneration.
    Yesterday at 12:09pm · Edited · Like · 2
  • Ed Chait “No, I love Arminian’s too. But I choose to love Arminians. I was predestined to love Calvinists.” Shea Houdmann
    Yesterday at 3:11pm · Edited · Like · 1
  • Tim White Man is free to choose salvation but not inclined until the Spirit creates the desire by defeating his self-sufficiency.
    Yesterday at 12:09pm · Like · 1
  • Tom Gindorf Jr. Tim, are you endorsing the concept of Prevenient Grace? The idea that God opens a door through a spiritual sensitivity caused by God’s Spirit to which a man may either accept of decline? Are you saying that the apostle Paul, while he was yet Saul, could have said “no” when confronted on the Damascus road?? He certainly didn’t think so, “But when God, who had set me apart even from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, was pleased 16 to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, (Gal 1:15-16)
    Yesterday at 12:13pm · Like
  • Tim White Ed Chait, I went for the chili burger with cheetos.
    Yesterday at 12:34pm · Like · 2
  • Tim White Tom Gindorf Jr., he himself says “might” and the “flesh and blood” he is referring to others (see verse 12). It is in defense of his apostleship. Also, to deny your allegation, I have made it a practice not to endorse something I cannot spell or pronounce.
    Yesterday at 12:37pm · Like · 1
  • Tom Gindorf Jr. Tim, it was a question not an accusation. The word “might” is “ina” meaning “in order that” not in the sense of “maybe.” He is defending his apostleship, but with the sovereign selection of God from his mother’s womb. That’s the point! By the way, I defined what prevenient grace is, so are you saying that the apostle Paul, while he was yet Saul, could have said no to the Lord?
    Yesterday at 12:50pm · Like
  • Ed Chait What’s really amazing is that God can accomplish His Plan despite us.
    Yesterday at 12:56pm · Like · 3
  • Justin Tilghman Steve, I studied this guy in my Systematic Theology course in seminary and found that I was more of a moderate like him as well, haha.

    I heard it put best with this illustration: On this side of Heaven, the gate absolutely says “Whosoever will may come,” but once I cross the gate into the Heavenly city and look back, the back of the gate says “All who come are chosen.”

    “Election is the family secret of the children of God.” – J. I. Packer
    Yesterday at 12:57pm · Like · 1
  • Tom Gindorf Jr. Ed, I think for me that is what drives this issue more than anything else. I know and confess that if God had not saved me from the enmity that I had with Him, I would never would have come to Him. He regenerated me while I was yet a sinner and of course I willfully responded *because I was made alive*! Ephesians 2:1-10; Romans 5:6; 4:5
    Yesterday at 1:02pm · Like · 2
  • Ed Chait I hate labels also, but I’ve vacillated between the Arminian-Calvinist spectrum, I like the label “compatibilist”. because I believe compatibilism is Biblical.
    Yesterday at 1:05pm · Edited · Like · 1
  • Ed Romero Compatibilism is Calvinism
    Yesterday at 1:20pm · Like · 2
  • Tom Gindorf Jr. I believe the problem is applying human logic to a God whose “ways are not our ways and thoughts are not our thoughts.” Therefore, we must bow to the authority of Scripture and see that: 1. Whatever God decrees comes to pass (Isaiah 46:10) 2. No one can interfere with God’s decree (Isaiah 43:13) 3. If it happens, God has decreed it either through allowance or direct decree (Psalm 115:1-3; Lamentations 3:37; Psalm 103:19). 4. Man is incapable of coming to salvation unless God regenerates Him (John 6:44) 5. All that are regenerated WILL come to the Father (John 7:37) 6. Any who do not come to the Father are yet held responsible for their rejection of Christ(Romans 2:12-16)………………………………..The problem comes when we feel we have to make an excuse for God that those who are not regenerated CAN”T come to the Father…we refuse to let the matter be resolved with the answer to that exact problem that Paul answers in Romans 9:19-21….which is “God can do whatever He wants with those He created.” Issue settled.
    Yesterday at 1:29pm · Like · 2
  • William Brenner But I can’t associate myself with Molinism and it’s Jesuit roots.
    23 hrs · Like · 1
  • Steve Ray Webb Thanks everyone for your comments. I have had an interest in this topic for many years, which has led me to read a lot of theology on it combined with examining it in light of mainstream church doctrines. It is unambiguously clear to me that we can support pretty much whatever position we prefer in the spectrum of Arminian to Calvinist theology by carefully selecting supporting scriptures (the logical fallacy of ‘cherry picking’). It is not unusual in my experience to hear someone quote a couple scriptures in support of a particular position and confidently pronounce their position as unassailable while conveniently ignoring scriptures that seem to indicate otherwise. When I do my best to blind myself to all human-derived doctrine and theology, and just read scripture, I read paradoxical statements on salvation. I can’t avoid concluding that in some manner there is ultimately no conflict between human free will and God’s sovereignty, but that manner is not clear, and is perhaps beyond our present capacity to understand. I choose to take a middle ground and leave this mystery to God. Meanwhile this puts me in a better position to be a peacemaker between theological camps that are too often at war with each other, doing harm to our greater cause.
    22 hrs · Like · 3
  • Laurel J. Davis For whatever it’s worth, I personally don’t feel obligated to take on labels, unless you want to call me a biblicist.
    20 hrs · Like · 2
  • Tom Gindorf Jr. One thing I continue to see is a misuse of Scripture, especially 2 Peter 3:9 and 1 Timothy 2:4
    20 hrs · Edited · Like · 1
  • Jed Kramer Tom, to what misuse do you refer? … and 1 Timothy 2:6 “…who gave himself as a ransom for all people.” While all of creation is God’s, and he is able to do as he pleases, the scriptures you reference portray a God who wishes that every person would respond to his beckoning. If this is a misuse of those verses, I’d like to understand how so. What I see in these verses is that God’s desire for us does not trump his desire to allow us to willingly come to him. As with a man courting a woman, he does not grab her and take her. He woes her. I don’t understand your use of ‘regeneration’ in regard to John 6:44 and 7:37. I see both as open offers by God to ALL.
    19 hrs · Like
  • Jed Kramer Tom, reading your post above, I apparently advocate prevenient grace as I answered ‘yes’ to each following question. I get confused by the issue of a “plan B”. So, the thought is that God must force some to come to him in order to avoid a plan B? And, if God did not force anyone to follow him, he would be giving up too much control? Does God fear failure so much that he must force us to ‘love’ him? This is not love, and it does not ring true. Grabbing a few kids by the collar at the playground and dragging them kicking and screaming to a picnic table does not result in the “I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.” image I get from Revelation 3:20. And, it certainly would not entice any of the other kids at the playground to join us. If, however, I joined in with the kids themselves. played with them. laughed with them. And, invited them for a snack at the picnic table, some would say, “no.” But there would be far more kids eating with me than in the first scenario … and enjoyably at that. I wouldn’t need a plan B. As an educator I know kids pretty well. I’m certain that I could persuade at least a few kids to join me. God, knowing infinitely more than I do about what makes us tick does not need a plan B to be assured that some will respond while giving each of us that choice. He makes an invitation, and that invitation is to all. I won’t deny that he pursues some more aggressively than others. But, salvation is forced upon no one.
    19 hrs · Edited · Like
  • Tom Gindorf Jr. Jed, if 1 Timothy 2:6 refers to “all” as in each and every person that has ever lived, you are promoting universalism. But it doesn’t. Whether you are speaking of 1 Timothy 2:6; 1 Timothy 2:4; or 2 Peter 3:9…each occurence of pantos is without the definite article. If pas (pantos) was in the predicate position with the article *then* you could mean “entire”. As it stands, each occurance without the article has a summarizing significance. In 1 Timothy 2:6 it means “mankind”. In 1 Timothy 2:4 it means in relation to “class” as the context dictates in verses 1-3. In 2 Peter 3:9 it refers to the audience “you” being Christians. If one takes every instance of “all” or “world” and makes it to mean entire or whole without exclusion then John 3:17 would make John 3:16 fulfilled, the “whosoever” then being the entire world. The “world” cannot mean each and every one in 16 and not mean the same in 17. If “world” meant each and every one in both 16 and 17 then verse 18 would be unnecessary and contradictory. Obviously John 3:16 means “mankind” and not each and every person ever. As to the use of the term “regenerate,” I mean that God replaces a heart of stone with a heart of flesh monergistically. Once He does so, we will respond willfully and gladly. The Arminiam or Semi-Pelagian argument would say that we were drowning in the ocean and God threw us a rope and we grapped hold and He pulled us to safety. The Biblical argument is that we were dead on the bottom of the ocean floor and Christ dove in and rescued us, brought us up on the shore and brought us back to life. Dead men don’t “choose” God any more than dead men standup upon their own volition and decide to be alive again. (Ephesians 2:1)
    19 hrs · Edited · Like
  • Tom Gindorf Jr. Jed, you have some false assumptions about the nature of man. Since there is none righteous and none who seeks for God (Romans 3:10ff) and all outside of God’s mercy are children of wrath and living according to the prince of the power of the air (Ephesians 2:2-3)…there are none who *would* come to God unless God gives them eyes to see and ears to hear (Romans 11:8). All (and I mean each and every one) were at enmity with God and outside of His effective grace until He applied His electing purpose and manifested His saving grace through regeneration. All mankind hated God and were rightly under His wrath deserving of hell. God has to act solely to make any alive to respond. It is unfair to say that God forced Himself on us as He was saving us from our rebellion. Had God not acted, we would be left in our sin.
    19 hrs · Edited · Like
  • Jed Kramer Tom, I appreciate your explanation. While I don’t intend to argue a point for too long that minds greater than ours were divided on, I’d like to explore it a little further if you’re so inclined. I see no contradiction in John 3:15-18. Jesus’ payment was made available to any person who believes. Verse 18 is perfectly consistent with the other verses within the free gift that must be received line of thinking. I see the difference in your analogy between the ability of a person to respond to God or not. But, what verses suggest we did not respond to God? That we were dead on the ocean floor? The verses that come to mind saying we were once dead, but are now alive depict separation from God vs connection with God. I promise to genuinely try to consider each from your perspective. I’m not on a mission to prove a point.
    19 hrs · Like
  • Jed Kramer When did God apply his electing purpose and saving grace through regeneration? Beginning with Christ’s death and resurrection, then upon select individuals ever since?
    19 hrs · Like
  • Jed Kramer Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. … I don’t assume that anyone is righteous, meaning in right standing with God based on their own goodness apart from God. It does not take righteousness to respond to God’s manifestation of himself. It is after we do take notice of God’s revelation of himself to us that we may enter into relationship with him, and by our faith in Him, we are made righteous.
    19 hrs · Edited · Like
  • Tom Gindorf Jr. Jed, I too see no contradiction in John 3:15-18, and as you said, “Jesus’ payment was made available to any person who believes.” However, the whosoever will is going to be the elect. The point of saying “whosoever will” is not to say “whoever might” but “whoever is going to.” Salvation is a free gift, but so free that not even our faith was innate to our natural state. God gives both the faith and salvation that results. Let me demonstrate. First, Scripture clearly defines the position and state of man outside of salvation in Romans 3:10-18, “10 as it is written, “There is none righteous, not even one; 11 There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God; 12 All have turned aside, together they have become useless; There is none who does good, There is not even one.” 13 “Their throat is an open grave, With their tongues they keep deceiving,” “The poison of asps is under their lips”; 14 “Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness”; 15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood, 16 Destruction and misery are in their paths, 17 And the path of peace have they not known.” 18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.” This is our natural state which is in complete opposition to God. In addition, Ephesians 2:1 says that we were dead in our trespasses and sin. Dead defined by Ephesians 2:2-3, “Which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.” Having no good in us and living as a child of wrath made us unwilling and incapable of responding to God. For us to respond to God, we would have to be made alive. We see that reality in verses like Romans 5:10, “For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.” This is applied to us when the actual regeneration takes place in time. For example even though Paul had been set apart for God’s saving purposes since his mother’s womb (Galatians 1:15); He still had a saving experience on the Damascus road (Acts 9). Christ Jesus secured on the cross what the elect even before the cross were being caused to believe (Hebrews 11; cf. Romans 9:32). They were not saved by works either, but by faith in the Messiah although they did not know the time or person (1 Peter 1:11). Faith and grace are both the gift of God as we see in Ephesians 2:8,9 (2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 3:1-5; 1 Corinthians 1:17-31; Romans 9:16). You are incorrect when you say that it does not take righteousness to have faith. Saving faith is not mere belief (James 2:19) and is spiritually appraised (Hebrews 11:1). Saving faith is the hope found in the gospel (Romans 8:24), the gospel that we are alien to because of our unwillingness to seek for God (Romans 3:11). Only the righteous live by faith (Habakkuk 2:4; Romans 1:17; Galatians 3:11; Hebrews 10:38). That is the fundamental error. No one has faith without first being regenerated by God. For more resources I suggest looking up www.monergism.com
    18 hrs · Like
  • Steve Ray Webb My one-year of New Testament Greek was not near enough for me to become a Greek scholar but it was enough to convince me that there is no such thing as sacrosanct grammatical rules in Greek or in any other language (reinforced by my language classes in Spanish, Russian and Bahasan). Certain rules may be the norm but that doesn’t mean that writers follow them, as is apparent in most any book you will read in any language. On top of that, rules change with time. There is no such thing as a ‘correct unbreakable standard.’ When it comes to writing, the lunatics are running the asylum. Writers use language to communicate regardless of any rules they may or may not be following. The Bible did not come with a grammar guide with a dictate that all New Testament authors would strictly follow those rules. My point here is that when any argument devolves down to hinging on fine points of grammatical usage (as often happens in doctrinal arguments) it progressively loses credibility in my estimation.
    18 hrs · Like
  • Tim White I am out of this. I will wait for the movie.
    18 hrs · Like · 1
  • Tom Gindorf Jr. Steve, it is highly unfortunate that you feel that way and I recommend to your edification “Evangelical Hermeneutics” by Robert L. Thomas before espousing your current viewpoint further. It is true that rules are used indiscriminately, but it is also true that a little Greek knowledge is just that, little. To throw out a defense ad hominem is a grosser error.
    18 hrs · Like
  • Jeff Laird I’m stepping in as a completely uninvited and possibly unwelcome referee and declaring the conversation immediately over, as not one possible comment further is going to be productive. Bell rung, game over. Take it from a considerably experienced apologist, the talk just hit it’s shelf life. Please make mine the last word, lest we make this a problem.
    18 hrs · Like · 3
  • Jed Kramer For the record, I rely on Strong’s for my Greek & Hebrew. I agree with Paul that we were in rough shape before God turned us around … and we’re not a pretty picture even now. We’re a work in progress. But, that condition of sin does not preclude our ability to sense God and respond. Those verses say that we don’t seek God. They do not say that only a few are capable of being aware of God and responding to him. But, can we focus for now on Romans 1:20? Why would Paul say that any person is ‘without excuse’ in regard to knowing God. If a person is regenerated, they are guaranteed to know God leaving no need for an excuse. If a person is not regenerated, it is impossible for them to know God, leaving them without the need for an excuse. This verse seems problematic unless we are actually accountable to God for responding to his call or rejecting it. And, the same goes for Revelation 3:20. The image of Jesus knocking on the door of our hearts does not seem like a forced regeneration. It very much implies our need to respond. I read “any man” as anyone and everyone has been given the chance and the ability to respond to Jesus. I suppose you might interpret it as “any man (who has been elected)” … but that seems to be reading a prior viewpoint into the verse. What are your thoughts on those two verses?
    18 hrs · Like
  • Jeff Laird Or, take it to private messages. Your theo-philosophical bouncer is cracking his knuckles.
    18 hrs · Like
  • Jed Kramer Jeff, I was completing my statement when you posted, so I didn’t see your post before I submitted mine. I’m fine to just drop it. I actually prayed moments ago that God would reveal something new about himself and his plan to each of us and/or let us know when to drop it. You just may have been an answer to prayer.
    18 hrs · Edited · Like · 1
  • Tom Gindorf Jr. Yes, Jeff it is unwelcome. No offense, but it is conversation like this which maintains doctrinal purity and urges thinking. No need to be the hall monitor as the semblance of peace is not more important then the pursuit of truth.
    18 hrs · Like
  • Jeff Laird Tom, I stepped in because you claimed an ad hominem where there was none and came dangerously close to issuing one of your own. Division is not worth nitpicking at this point, so act in grace and let it go. Further arguing is going to be counterproductive and reflect poorly on all of us.
    18 hrs · Like · 1
  • Jed Kramer I’m all about the pursuit of truth & have very thick skin within discussion/debate. I take very little personally. Even so, I feel that Jeff’s request was prompted by the Holy Spirit to which I will submit.
    18 hrs · Like
  • Tom Gindorf Jr. Jed, Does Romans 3:11 not clearly say that we do not seek God? None are capable to see God as they ought, not a few. Unless God in His eternal choice opens their eyes. Romans 1:20 does indeed damn mankind as all mankind recognizes that their is a God, but what all of mankind will do is to supress God in unrighteousness until which time God changes that course. Our accountability does not depend on our capability which is why Paul explains in Romans 9 that the answer to the question, “How does God find fault for who can resist His will?” is, “Don”t talk back to God.” Revelation 3:20 is written to the church and not to the unsaved.
    17 hrs · Like
  • Tom Gindorf Jr. Jeff, the ad hominem was claiming that the Greek exegesis was spurious and done so without any evidence. Ad hominem can relate to the credibility of statements. You excalated the issue in my mind and then relegated the important issues being discussed to “expired.” I would be glad to discuss further in private, but I also believe that those who are merely viewing might be learning a great deal.
    17 hrs · Edited · Like
  • Laurel J. Davis Tom, help me understand this truth pursuit of yours about a topic that’s been debated for centuries and therefore is unlikely to be resolved in this thread?
    17 hrs · Like · 2
  • Tom Gindorf Jr. Laurel, thank you. A lot has been debated for centuries, including baptismal regeneration, sola fide, and other incredibly important doctrines. This in and of itself does not relegate these issues to “unknowable.” Someone does have it more right and our glorious God is worth searching and knowing and has given us everything according to life and godliness in His inerrant Word to do so. Of course it is unlikely to be resolved in a thread, but what is said here may fill in the blank for some. We can never assume that any of us have considered everything to be considered in any argument or issue and discussion always provides greater opportunity to pursue the truth. Being a Berean requires diligence and it requires us to put aside the silly notion that we can relegate issues to the sideline because they have been discussed before or have tension related. I think many should read the letters between Luther and Erasmus to get a feel for this reality. In the end, it is not my pride or tension level that outweighs the need to pursue truth that I might know my God better. It’s a very small trade off actually and the pursuit of truth will never be devoid of challenge or those who “just want to get along.” I believe that this very topic has everything to do with how we view God in His eternal attributes and how we view His saving work and the praise that we give regarding what that work actually was. I appreciate the question a lot.
    17 hrs · Like · 2
  • Tom Gindorf Jr. Laurel, here is an example of how this exact topic leads me to greater worship of God. From Thomas Brooks (1608-1680), “”The LORD saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time!” Genesis 6:5. There is the seed of all sins, of the vilest and worst of sins–in the best of men! Did God leave us to act according to our sinful natures–we would all be incarnate devils, and this world would be an absolute Hell! “He has rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins!” Colossians 1:13.”” Understanding the nature of man exalts the love of God as He loved us while we were not merely estranged from Him partly, but railing against Him in enmity. He loved me while I hated Him and would not seek Him. In love He gave me eyes to see and a heart to respond and gladly I did, but gladly I could do no other as what God closes stays close and what God opens will open indeed! Praise God for His all sufficient grace!
    17 hrs · Like · 1

Team GotQuestions Blog

a Blog for Sharing Stories, Tips & Encouragement