Gumby:
That would be the Arminian position, and IMHO when folks feel they have "fallen from grace" as that system indicates from it's theology, they tend to go completely off the rails or beat themselves up REALLY badly.
For a while I worked through some of their theological positions, too (without knowing I was doing it, as I was reading the Bible alone, throughout my doctrinal transitions), but found it extremely dissatisfying.
For a single example. If someone "comes to Christ" and joins the family, how is it possible for a loving Father (allegedly with perfect love) to turn His back on that child? I don't think it is (but maybe I'm just being too humanistic ).
Thanks for posting that. I don't think you've shared it before.
DDog:
I have to confess that when this thread started I didn't take it too seriously. I have engaged in far too many, and it was at the end of a crop of text-slinging threads that Hooberus had created.
It was only after I came back from a break in posting that I had another look (as it had lasted the course, and some interesting comments were coming out). This last week I've personally found it really interesting, mainly from the point of engaging my mind to express my position and hear how others reason on these things. I'm indebted to you, too, for that
I was just yanking your chain with the Hyper-Calvinist comment, btw That really is at the extreme end of Christianity and is usually rabid fundamentaist combined with a non-evangelical approach.
As far as Infralapsarianism and Supralapsarianism I see good and bad on both sides, so lets leave the doors open for now.
I agree.
One thing I will say, it seems to me that Supralapsarians focus on the Elect, while the Infras focus on man in general.
I disagree - LOL - I see it the other way around.
IMHO The Infras concentrate on the Elect but the Supras, whilst do that too, pay more than necessary attention to the reprobate.
That's just my opinion, though
I see this as referring to God's common grace being extended to " vessels of wrath"
IMHO this is one point that distinguishes you from Hyper-Calvinists. Their doctrine tends to erode the idea of "common grace" (yes, Gumby, she's extended to the reprobate ) as the reprobate are merely "vessels of wrath" debarred from the kingdom.
It says the "vessels of mercy", ... "he prepared beforehand". in Christ.
That would be the Elect, all right. That statement isn't in contest.
I'll be very clear why I think the terminology is important on this point ("predestined" vs "passed over").
It's down to a very practical point about the preaching of the gospel, be it silent or otherwise.
If you view your audience as "potentially predestined to reprobation" vs "potentially "passed over" but maybe not(!)", I think it has a big effect on how your "heart goes out". I know I'm speaking of a fine nuance here, but I do think it vitally important. Maybe it's just a personal thing.
William Grimshaw stated that he was "a Calvinist on his knees and an Arminian on his feet, and he tried to strike a balance between the two". I think that's a good balance, when demonstrating the free offer of the gospel, don't you?
John Stott comments, with admiration, on Charles Simeon's emphasis on the truth not being "at one extreme or the opposite extreme, or in a confused admixture.(but rather) at both extremes even if you cannot reconcile these extremes". I kinda like that, as a means of effecting "charity" (Nb. Gumby, she's a bedfellow of Grace).
More to come regarding the meta-context of Romans, from a LittleToeian perspective...
