"Soft" Calvinism
Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2011 8:27 pm
Hello I enjoyed this article and it was well written. I have and had many questions concerning election and the origination of a lot of the definitions some give to scriptural terms like predestination (unconditional) etc. I could ramble about a lot of things but to narrow my thoughts down for right now I will paraphrase a general understanding of some Soft-Calvinists and then ask how would you compare this article's insight ,specifically about the Romans 9:22-23, to this general Calvinist understanding of what does it entail when they explain God preparing some vessels for destruction.
Through some personal studying and personal encounters with some friends that are 5 point Calvinists, I have learned that the Calvinist argument that was provided in the article, ("A Calvinistic Argument: Admittedly dreadful, God has chosen, designed, and prepared certain people for destruction. Their only purpose is to serve as objects of God's wrath...") may be considered from their point of view as hyper or high Calvinism. Reason being is because of their understanding on this specific topic. They believe that after Adam sinned all mankind inherited the sinful nature and of course are in sin because we do sin. They then say that since all are under sin, God, through His sovereign purpose chose some out of the bad bunch to save and just overlooked, or left the others to stay in their state of non-atoned sinfulness, therefore naturally reaping the wages of death.
Okay, under this similar but significantly different explanation, how would this article respond to it? I ask because the article, in my opinion, responded in a scriptural accurate manner towards the "hyper" Calvinist's understanding that God created/designed, certain people (vessels) to be made for Godly purposeful destruction, therefore in away making it seem as if God is responsible for their sins. I'm not sure how to apply the article, at least parts of it, to the understanding of the "Soft" Calvinist. The way they word it makes it seem as if God didn't make or design sin to enter into mankind but because He knew it would happen this was God's planned reaction.
Thanks for the article and ministry. Hope it makes sense to you and hope to hear from you soon.
Through some personal studying and personal encounters with some friends that are 5 point Calvinists, I have learned that the Calvinist argument that was provided in the article, ("A Calvinistic Argument: Admittedly dreadful, God has chosen, designed, and prepared certain people for destruction. Their only purpose is to serve as objects of God's wrath...") may be considered from their point of view as hyper or high Calvinism. Reason being is because of their understanding on this specific topic. They believe that after Adam sinned all mankind inherited the sinful nature and of course are in sin because we do sin. They then say that since all are under sin, God, through His sovereign purpose chose some out of the bad bunch to save and just overlooked, or left the others to stay in their state of non-atoned sinfulness, therefore naturally reaping the wages of death.
Okay, under this similar but significantly different explanation, how would this article respond to it? I ask because the article, in my opinion, responded in a scriptural accurate manner towards the "hyper" Calvinist's understanding that God created/designed, certain people (vessels) to be made for Godly purposeful destruction, therefore in away making it seem as if God is responsible for their sins. I'm not sure how to apply the article, at least parts of it, to the understanding of the "Soft" Calvinist. The way they word it makes it seem as if God didn't make or design sin to enter into mankind but because He knew it would happen this was God's planned reaction.
Thanks for the article and ministry. Hope it makes sense to you and hope to hear from you soon.