who is right?

[ModernPuritan?]

two guys sit down at a table, both with the same exact KJV Bible.

they both claim to be honest, God fearing Christians. Both claim to try to let God illuminate scripture and seek to avoid simply "going with the crowd" yet here is the fun part

the first guy points to his verses, and proves every point of his hyper dispensationalistic, arminian theology.

the second guy points to his verses and proves every point of his amilinial Calvinistic theology.

both have made attempts to reconcile the "difficult" verses with their respective theology.

so tell me who is right? Saying God is, would be a true statement, but still dodging the question. of course God is, but both cant be right, both present an entirely different Gospel. God well lead someone into the truth? both sides claim GOd did lead them into truth

remember folk- God didnt give us an essay on quantum physics. He gave us "Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth"
--
or- same scenario except with in the reformed community- EP vs NON EP, etc?

 

[brandonadams]

The one that most faithfully represents all of Scripture

 

[wturri78]

The one that most faithfully represents all of Scripture

And who decides which of them has most faithfully represented all of Scripture?

This is where Catholic/EO advocates would step in and say they have the magisterial authority to put our minds at ease--except for the fact that they both have apostolic succession and both claim to be the one true church founded by Christ, leaving the exact same question--who decides which of them, if either, is right? They'll take this question about differing interpretations of Scripture and say "aha! you need us to answer that!" That leads many of the "Journey Home" converts back to Rome, which is sad because the same point can be raised over differing interpretations of their traditions and doctrines. So we need an infallible magisterium to interpret the infallible interpretations of the infallible magisterium...viciously circular. In the end, the individual still must decide whom to trust.

This will be an interesting thread to follow...where's that subscription button?

 

[Blueridge Believer]

Which system glorifies God and makes Him sovereign over all things and which one gives man the power? Any system that takes away the sovereignty of God and gives man control is not of the truth. Any theology that makes God subservient to man is of Satan.

 

[TaylorOtwell]

One thing to maybe keep in consideration is who our Lord was talking to when he said:

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. -- John 14:26

This could have more specific application to the Apostles, since some of them were to go on to write Scripture by the inspiration of the Spirit. While I think the Lord will keep his people from gross error, it seems he has left some things to our study and searching of the Scriptures. This should encourage us to more diligence in searching the Bible.

I think James gave you a good response. God is not weak, he is the sovereign King of the universe.

 

[Presbyterian Deacon]

Neither one is right. There is error in both systems.

Now, if a third man who was calvinist, classic pre-mill was at the table, we'd know who was right.

 

[sotzo]

A few thoughts:

1. I'm going to assume the "which one is right?" relates back to your example of the 2 men sitting down a the table to discuss their views in that they treat each other as brothers in Christ. In other words, each of the men recognizes the other as a believer and each is wrestling with Scripture and admitting they are both under the authority of Scripture, willing to be corrected.

2. I would then test the content of the discussion against Titus 3:9, 10 to make sure what we are discussing is really of value. "Real value" according to the context of Titus' warning are those things that cause us to "engage in good deeds...these things are good and profitable for men". There are many points between the Arminian and Calvinist that can be discussed and the 2 believers should recognize that some of those things may be factious...for example, certain debates about the ordo salutis lead to nothing more than contests of semantic prowess...we should shun such discussion altogether for it holds no value.

3. If the point(s) in question can be determined to be of value and both men are humble, willing to be corrected by the Scripture, then the discussion can proceed.
With respect to this, I would question your statement that saying "God is right" is dodging the question. Acknowledging this is the foundation of both humility and the willingness to be corrected by Scripture...that is, that both recognize that they may need to have their minds changed by being more conformed to God's mind.

4. With that backdrop, the brothers should fully disclose and justify their hermeneutic of the Bible as a whole. Each points out the others' deficiencies in argument / justification for the actual arguments being defended, especially to make sure it is faithful with the hermeneutic to which each subscribes. If one's defended point is not faithful to his hermeneutic disclosed, then he recognizes that and either brings it into conformity with the hermeneutic or sees the need for a new hemeneutic.

5. Finally, to the broader issue of the question of how we get to the truth...if both men interact per the above approach of humility and are willing to be corrected, then if God so pleases to bring unity between them and Him on that point, then He will. The goal, however, should not be the reconciliation of every point of tension in Scripture as this is impossible. We should be able to live in tension in Christ which is nothing more than viewing the Scriptures through the distinction of Him being God and me being man.

I know the above is more "process" oriented than actually providing thoughts on how we resolve disagreements on Scripture. But if the Arminian and Calvinist are discussing in the spirit of: 1) recognizing one another as believers, 2) humble, willing to be corrected by the Scripture, and 3) willing to recognize that not every tension can be resolved...then alot of unity can indeed result and many tensions actually resolved.

Hope this helps and isn't seen as evading your OP.

 

[larryjf]

You'd have to me more specific about which parts of their theology they are deriving from Scripture and what the Scripture references are.

However, in general the Calvinist would be right.

 

[ModernPuritan?]

You'd have to me more specific about which parts of their theology they are deriving from Scripture and what the Scripture references are.

However, in general the Calvinist would be right.

well, its more about the whole theological construct vs one part.

 

[larryjf]

Then i will presume you are only speaking of free-will versus God's sovereignty. But this might not be a fair comparison as Calvinists believe in free-will to an extent, they just think that we freely choose sin when we're not regenerated.

 

[ModernPuritan?]

A few thoughts:

1. I'm going to assume the "which one is right?" relates back to your example of the 2 men sitting down a the table to discuss their views in that they treat each other as brothers in Christ. In other words, each of the men recognizes the other as a believer and each is wrestling with Scripture and admitting they are both under the authority of Scripture, willing to be corrected.

2. I would then test the content of the discussion against Titus 3:9, 10 to make sure what we are discussing is really of value. "Real value" according to the context of Titus' warning are those things that cause us to "engage in good deeds...these things are good and profitable for men". There are many points between the Arminian and Calvinist that can be discussed and the 2 believers should recognize that some of those things may be factious...for example, certain debates about the ordo salutis lead to nothing more than contests of semantic prowess...we should shun such discussion altogether for it holds no value.

3. If the point(s) in question can be determined to be of value and both men are humble, willing to be corrected by the Scripture, then the discussion can proceed.
With respect to this, I would question your statement that saying "God is right" is dodging the question. Acknowledging this is the foundation of both humility and the willingness to be corrected by Scripture...that is, that both recognize that they may need to have their minds changed by being more conformed to God's mind.

4. With that backdrop, the brothers should fully disclose and justify their hermeneutic of the Bible as a whole. Each points out the others' deficiencies in argument / justification for the actual arguments being defended, especially to make sure it is faithful with the hermeneutic to which each subscribes. If one's defended point is not faithful to his hermeneutic disclosed, then he recognizes that and either brings it into conformity with the hermeneutic or sees the need for a new hemeneutic.

5. Finally, to the broader issue of the question of how we get to the truth...if both men interact per the above approach of humility and are willing to be corrected, then if God so pleases to bring unity between them and Him on that point, then He will. The goal, however, should not be the reconciliation of every point of tension in Scripture as this is impossible. We should be able to live in tension in Christ which is nothing more than viewing the Scriptures through the distinction of Him being God and me being man.

I know the above is more "process" oriented than actually providing thoughts on how we resolve disagreements on Scripture. But if the Arminian and Calvinist are discussing in the spirit of: 1) recognizing one another as believers, 2) humble, willing to be corrected by the Scripture, and 3) willing to recognize that not every tension can be resolved...then alot of unity can indeed result and many tensions actually resolved.

Hope this helps and isn't seen as evading your OP.

o1), I realize that both the men, can simply be victim of their parents- i.e they havent really studied it at all.. like (no offense) someone who would of grown up in your typical southern baptist home/church

but can someone be a fully studied arminian and be a beilever- knowing what he beileves, etc? (I ask because I know of a few who say no)

3) God is right- would be when they simply aggree that both sides have some valid, theologically correct points (free will is right, but so is limited attonement)

but in the scenario- they both claim to seek 3-5.

 

[ModernPuritan?]

The one that most faithfully represents all of Scripture

And who decides which of them has most faithfully represented all of Scripture?

This is where Catholic/EO advocates would step in and say they have the magisterial authority to put our minds at ease--except for the fact that they both have apostolic succession and both claim to be the one true church founded by Christ, leaving the exact same question--who decides which of them, if either, is right? They'll take this question about differing interpretations of Scripture and say "aha! you need us to answer that!" That leads many of the "Journey Home" converts back to Rome, which is sad because the same point can be raised over differing interpretations of their traditions and doctrines. So we need an infallible magisterium to interpret the infallible interpretations of the infallible magisterium...viciously circular. In the end, the individual still must decide whom to trust.

This will be an interesting thread to follow...where's that subscription button?

very intresting that you bring that up but could you provide a scenario or 2 of "differing tradiditons and doctrines"?

 

[ModernPuritan?]

Then i will presume you are only speaking of free-will versus God's sovereignty. But this might not be a fair comparison as Calvinists believe in free-will to an extent, they just think that we freely choose sin when we're not regenerated.

the whole Calvin vs arminian is an example

it could be strictly with in the calvinist camp on

EP vs non EP
Holy days vs non holy days
RPW vs NPW
Amil vs premil
Paedo vs Creedo

 

[Iconoclast]

18For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.

19For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

All believer's are to continue to grow in grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is many times the case that new converts lacking a trusted guide, often times are found in churches that are not as faithful to the scriptures as they could be.
This leads to a more natural,carnal understanding many times. The person might see some truth, Yet lacking a more comprehensive biblical understanding he will begin to build on a weak foundation. The more he builds on a wrong foundation, pride often accompanies this "new found knowledge".
God resists the proud.

13Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom.

14But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.

15This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.

16For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.

17But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.

18And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.

and again from James

5Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?

6But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.

Confessional churches are a safeguard and in any given localassembly.
The members should be more or less in agreement on these things,given all of the one another passages that we are to help disciple those young in the faith.
We differ in here-PB/ yet those differences do not out weigh the fellowship we can have with like -minded brethren
If our heart motives are right we can seek to perfect that which is lacking in fellow believer's.

 

[Romans922]

This is in the philosophy category, and I don't know philosophy well but I would say there are 3 possibilities of who is correct.

To say one proves means one shows that he is correct.

So...

1) The example is faulty because of contradiction, for both cannot be right at the same time (having two different conclusions).
2) One truly did prove it, and the other did not (meaning one possibly could be correct; only one can be correct possibly).
3) Neither is correct, and something else is true.

 

[raekwon]

Whoever yells the loudest.

 

[ModernPuritan?]

yells the loudest-

 

[sotzo]

o1), I realize that both the men, can simply be victim of their parents- i.e they havent really studied it at all.. like (no offense) someone who would of grown up in your typical southern baptist home/church

but can someone be a fully studied arminian and be a beilever- knowing what he beileves, etc? (I ask because I know of a few who say no)

Yes, some say "no" to a fully studied Arminian being a believer...and I would ask on what basis would that person says a full blown Arminian cannot be a true believer? Then I would test that even that basis against Scripture. So what would that basis be?

3) God is right- would be when they simply aggree that both sides have some valid, theologically correct points (free will is right, but so is limited attonement) but in the scenario- they both claim to seek 3-5.

Yes, they both claim to seek truth....but faith seeking true understanding is different from faith claiming to be founded on an absolute qualitative and quantitative understanding of the truth.

I agree with Larry's posts as well on perhaps needing a good example of what point would be in dispute so we can discuss how things would play out.

 

[davidsuggs]

I have to say, this is not the problem for the majority of the time. I have a certain degree of respect of those Arminians who look at Scripture and just cannot figure out how us Calvinists still believe this stuff. I think they are wrongheaded and misguided, but I have to give them some respect for basing their objections on the reading of the Bible.

The other group I have no respect for whatsoever. Those who just cannot accept Calvinism or become "four-pointers" simply because it does not seem "fair" to them. We all have this innate sense of fairness because we were made in the image of God, but it is perverted by the fall. You can see little hints of this in the homosexual movement, "We just want equal treatment." I think the same thing is true with the majority of Arminians.

I would be willing to discuss things with members of the first group. Debating the second group is something like, to quote Ray Comfort, "Arguing with The-Sun-Is-Not-Hot Club on whether or not the sun is hot."

 

[KMK]

The church is the pillar and ground of the truth and the church has already declared Arminianism to be heresy.

 

[Davidius]

The church is the pillar and ground of the truth and the church has already declared Arminianism to be heresy.

That sounds like something my Catholic friends have told me.

 

[Presbyterian Deacon]

The church is the pillar and ground of the truth and the church has already declared Arminianism to be heresy.

KMK-- I agree whole-heartedly with your statement, but let me play "devil's advocate" for a second. How do you respond to this rebuttal?


But, the "Arminian church" has declared Calvinism to heresy too. So, that really doesn't prove anything.

 

[wturri78]

very intresting that you bring that up but could you provide a scenario or 2 of "differing tradiditons and doctrines"?

One example would be the role of Scripture as the basis for doctrine in the RCC--the so-called "partim-partim" question of whether God's revelation is partly in Tradition and partly in Scripture, or whether it's all in Scripture and the Tradition illuminates and formulates it. Some RCC apologists today push the view that all we need for doctrine is contained in Scripture, and no "raw materials" were handed down "on the side." Others still clearly say that certain truths were handed down as unwritten traditions and are the basis for doctrine whether or not you can back them up with Scripture. Both still present themselves today among conservative RCC folks...all agree that you must submit to the magisterial teaching, yet that teaching seems to allow for both interpretations.

Another point would be the extremely exclusive language of the RCC prior to Vatican II (no salvation outside of communion with the bishop of Rome) vs. the changes made at that council ("the Muslims together with us worship and adore the one merciful God" etc.). Most of the Catholics I have talked to take that to the point of universalism, "believe in God and do nice things and you'll go to heaven." Others find ways to interpret it such that you still really have to be in communion with Rome, and see this as describing only unusual circumstances in which one could be saved in spite of one's ignorance. Still others (rarely) basically reject this entirely, still don't accept Protestants as "separated brethren" and yet remain in communion with the Pope...while a rare few go that extra distance and declare the pope to be an "anti-pope" and think the Catholic leadership has gone apostate (and how exactly does that differ fundamentally from what Luther thought?).

Obviously, doctrine being misapplied by some does not disprove the doctrine itself, but things sure do get confusing when you have differing camps all saying that the other guy is the one misapplying the doctrine! Not so different from Protestants, perhaps?

At any rate, all can cite the same Catechism, councils, etc. and justify their respective interpretations of Catholic teaching. It seems to me they haven't solved the problem of differing interpretations of Scripture--they've just abstracted it by a level. It seems that one could go on almost ad infinitum.