What biblical passage do you find most problematic for your view on election?

[KingsGambit]

I'm always curious what people view as the strongest arguments for the other side. For example, as an Arminian, I find 1 John 2:19 to be the most difficult verse to contend with, and to be honest, I've never seen an Arminian explanation of it that I find truly satisfying. I.H. Marshall doesn't mention it in his classic defense of conditional security, Kept By The Power of God, and in his commentary on the Epistles of John, he doesn't attempt to "explain it away" at all.

[Catholicity]

Well i dunno. I'm more of a molinist/classical theist, and I haven't really given too much consideration to argue for or against viewpoints. But...there's an old joke about Baptists put 3 in a room to discuss one verse you'll end up with 5 churches.

[KingsGambit]

Well i dunno. I'm more of a molinist/classical theist, and I haven't really given too much consideration to argue for or against viewpoints. But...there's an old joke about Baptists put 3 in a room to discuss one verse you'll end up with 5 churches.

I'm not really all that dogmatic about it for the most part. At this point in time, I'm content to see the mechanisms as something we couldn't possibly understand and aren't meant to.

[RBerman]

As a Calvinist, I find the universalist flavor of Col 1:20 and 1 John 2:2 to require more explaining than many verses do. Not that it can't be done, but I can certainly see how a first reading could lead someone to conclusions I consider incorrect.

[Bill the Cat]

As a Molinist, I'd have to say that John 6:44 is the most difficult for me to explain.

[phat8594]

To be honest, I tend to have problems with proof texts in general - as they tend to be a pretext to 'prove' whatever a person wants. I think if we are honest, most 'proof' texts seems to be a problem until context of the book is brought in. I have a hard time believing that the authors were giving dissertations on soteriology as we sometimes want to make it seem.


and...

Anyone ever wonder if the church spent as much time evangelizing as it did arguing about calvinism, there would be a lot more people in the church? Or is that just an arminian way of thinking?

[KingsGambit]

To be honest, I tend to have problems with proof texts in general - as they tend to be a pretext to 'prove' whatever a person wants. I think if we are honest, most 'proof' texts seems to be a problem until context of the book is brought in. I have a hard time believing that the authors were giving dissertations on soteriology as we sometimes want to make it seem.


and...

Anyone ever wonder if the church spent as much time evangelizing as it did arguing about calvinism, there would be a lot more people in the church? Or is that just an arminian way of thinking?

As for the first point: I'd agree, which is why we have these differing views in the first place. As for the second, well, not touching that one

[RBerman]

To be honest, I tend to have problems with proof texts in general - as they tend to be a pretext to 'prove' whatever a person wants. I think if we are honest, most 'proof' texts seems to be a problem until context of the book is brought in. I have a hard time believing that the authors were giving dissertations on soteriology as we sometimes want to make it seem.

and...Anyone ever wonder if the church spent as much time evangelizing as it did arguing about calvinism, there would be a lot more people in the church? Or is that just an arminian way of thinking?

Welcome back! I agree that context solves a lot of these apparent proof-textual problems. As to the latter, I don't see the Church spending a lot of time arguing about Calvinism. Most Arminians in my community have never actually talked about Calvinism to a Calvinist, and their view is simply a thirdhand caricature. But yes, on fora such as this board, I do think it's a good idea not to continually debate the same questions with the same people once it's been established that neither person is convinced by the other.

[GoBahnsen]

.

[GoBahnsen]

.

[KingsGambit]

Yeah, I'm not a fan of philosophical arguments at all. I'm not an Arminian because of my view of God; it's what I legitimately see in Scripture (though not without tensions).

I've been dialoguing with some universalists in a Facebook group, and philosophy is pretty much all they have. And the Romans 9 passage you mention is really the best response.

[TheNoviceCometh]

Well, I am still working out my view between Molinism, Arminianism and Calvinism. I love the Molinist point of view, I just have not yet seen adequate scriptural evidence of it's truth. So I would at the moment probably describe myself as a non-calvinist, since I believe there are major problems with a couple of the major points, especially limited atonement and unconditional election. Thus, Romans 9-11 have been problem passages for me in the past. However, I am looking forward to discussing more in these forums to hone in on my own view, as well as seeing what other people believe.

[KingsGambit]

I think Molinism is essentially impossible to prove or disprove because the Bible says nothing about it at all. I do think the popular "nobody who isn't evangelized would have ever accepted the gospel anyway" version is refuted by Luke 10:13.

[Just Some Dude]

I'm not really all that dogmatic about it for the most part. At this point in time, I'm content to see the mechanisms as something we couldn't possibly understand and aren't meant to.

Kind of the position I've taken up. Was a Molinist, but I can see very strong texts for all arguments, so I just tend to say that the precise mechanism is beyond human understanding.

[Cerealman]

I'm always curious what people view as the strongest arguments for the other side. For example, as an Arminian, I find 1 John 2:19 to be the most difficult verse to contend with, and to be honest, I've never seen an Arminian explanation of it that I find truly satisfying. I.H. Marshall doesn't mention it in his classic defense of conditional security, Kept By The Power of God, and in his commentary on the Epistles of John, he doesn't attempt to "explain it away" at all.

I could never pick a side between calvinist or arminian so my answer is whatever happens,happens.