At this stage in my life I have moved from a Calvinistic system (I didnt’ call it that) through an Arminian system (didn’t call it that either), back to a Calvinistic position (I still didn’t call it that though I knew I wasn’t Arminian which I didn’t call it that either) towards something else that I don’t know what to call but I know it’s not Calvinistic and some may even say it’s Arminian though I don’t know for sure at this point. I wanted to state with broad strokes what I think about TULIPPS (7 Point Calvinism) in particular without citing the verses (for now since they’re often the same verses that both Calvinists and Arminians cite but usually embedded in their broader context) while positively stating what I believe at this point of my development (I use the acronym DAFFODIL). This might make me a Big Hairy Tick but at this point this is what I think is generally closer to the teaching of Scripture. I will state the Calvinist position first, the Arminian position second and then my own position. I’ll reserve the WHY or the HOW for any discussion that might flow from this. I will also link to discussion threads where I’ve dealt with these issues as well.
Patton wasn’t using the following so much as an argument but as a retelling of his own theological journey. What’s interesting about the story is that it offered several reasons of how people Know what they Know. I mean, Unconditional Election wasn’t proved point by point for Michael (at least not according to that post) but it was illustrated in a very compelling manner. Likewise, at twelve his mind was influenced by a specific interpretation by his mother, so psychologically speaking you can see where something like that would become important.
But I did want to post a counter illustration because the one Boice used (in Michael’s post) wound up being one of those stories that preachers (and professors) love to use that doesn’t prove anything. It’s an appeal to emotion by using unbalanced data and an unserviceable hypothetical.
Here’s my version based heavily on Boice’s:
Interesting to note that a man who understands the Gospel like no other is one who is especially concerned with the salvation of Israelites. He has not abrogated them to some category of "vessels of wrath" nor has he tossed his hands up as "not chosen before the foundation of the world." Indeed, even in Acts where he wipes the dust off his feet he makes repeated efforts to win them for Christ and here he earnestly prays for them and bears witness of them.
Let me start an investigation of the third movement of Paul’s defense by directing attention to Russ’ series on Calvanism. There are many discussions that may arise based on very old arguments that I don’t want to spend (too much) time discussing. Not that the discussions shouldn’t be—but rather it detracts from my purpose of going through the book of Romans. Calvinists and Arminians would both agree that their respective stance is a systematic doctrine. These camps do not establish their doctrine solely on the grounds of these three chapters of the Bible so I will not limit my overview of these chapters to those doctrines either.
Everything the serpent has said proved true. Adam and Eve’s eyes were opened (Gen 3:7). They did become like God—seemingly independent. Thing is, everything he said also had a twist: they could see their nakedness and hid. They knew good and evil and were culpable. The serpent also said they wouldn’t die—and they didn’t die! Precedence would have us look at what exactly death means in the text and did it happen to Adam.