We had a discussion about the order of salvation in CG today, which I didn't contribute much. I'm beginning to wonder if I'm taking a wise strategy in keeping my thoughts at bay just because I hate conflicts. I am banking on the agree-to-disagree position but it does not seem to be working as I am beginning to feel ostracized.
I like what Roger Olson said. I know I've been quoting him a lot lately, because he is the only person who has a blog that I can refer to to keep sane in the onslaught of Calvinistic theology recently. He said,"God is sovereign and can work outside our theological boxes which are necessary but not prisons for God’s grace." It's just that I find the Calvinists' definition of the sovereignty of God ironically a tad too limited for them to understand where Arminians are coming from. So I have chosen to shut up.
With the reality that I'm outnumbered, I felt I'm being put on the outside, or maybe I've put myself outside. The thing is I don't find it conducive to bring anything up for discussion. Being the only one in the company of many makes it hard to be heard. So again, I have chosen to shut up.
But is it a right move?
Anyway the quote above is from a article Olson wrote about regeneration, a very interesting article after the session I attended in CG today.
Obviously, the definition of regeneration and being born again is different and thus like I have said before, we are two ships that will never meet in our voyage in sea.
pearlie
I tink I wud agree with u, it's better to shut up if u can't handle them. Overall, it seems they are not listening and not trying to understand where u r cuming from. this doesn't sound a very constructive talk. So let them barkla. Been reading on the subject again, reading roger Olson material. Honestly, I dun really like his style that he doesn't do much exegesis. It's more arguing from logic. Anyway, m still on the process. I haf cum to a point where Calvin is on God with exceptions and classical arminian is on human with exceptions. So they are pretty close:)
ReplyDeleteI have mentioned why Olson would not go the exegesis approach but have you read Norman Geisler's Chosen but Free? He goes the exegesis path. Read it and let me know what your thoughts are.
ReplyDeleteThanks. Will look at Geisler too. :)
ReplyDeleteO yah...just help you to understand the Calvinists brothers and sisters in Christs. Calvinists would always view Arminianism a Pelagian. Even if it's 1% Pelagian, it is still Pelagian. So that's why Calvinists can be fire up over this issue. It's difficult to prove that Arminianism has 0% pelagian. So, looks like you may face a difficult time from them. It would be interesting to see whether Pantai First Baptist would allow Arminian to be in a leadership position. ;)
ReplyDeleteWe are 0% Pelagian, period. No offense but if you don't let us to define who we are ourselves, then there is no reason to even talk because you will not be addressing us anyway. You will be debating with your own self, since you take your own definition which is in opposition of who we are. And that would be pointless.
ReplyDeleteAnyway Pantai Baptist Church has taken a neutral position as I was informed. Not declaring either Calvinist or Arminian, and there,are leaders in the Arminian stand.
ReplyDeleteOk...ok....better read classical Arminianism properly then...thanks. I dun understand why Marvin wong preach about Calvinism and misunderstood Arminianism. It's quite contradicting that misled many Calvinists to think Arminians are some form of pelagian in the congregation. That also misled to think the Calvinists got it right.
ReplyDelete