Calvinism vs Arminian is a worldview debate

Pedrito

Newbie
May 4, 2015
165
25
✟8,230.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
In Post #15 on Page 1 Royal Priest stated that the prayer “Please God, don't let my loved ones perish in Hell” (which he attributed to “Arminians”) actually reflected a Calvinist worldview:
When a Christian who adheres to the Arminian worldview prays, their prayers often reflect the Calvinist worldview.
In Post #78 on Page 4 I pointed out:
Actually, that sort of prayer does not reflect a Calvinist worldview at all.

A Calvinist does not know whom God has fore-chosen for salvation. Therefore, a Calvinist praying such a prayer could well be praying against God's will, and probably is.
I wonder what God might think of that?
To which in Post #81 on Page 5 twin1954 stated:
The Arminian prays in order to twist God's arm and get Him to do something that He may not have done unless they twist His arm.

The Calvinist prays simply resting in the promises of God. We seek for Him to call out His elect and do what He promised that He would do. The Calvinist doesn't try to twist God's arm they pray as did David in 2Sam. 7:18-29
Well, that is the opposite of what Royal Priest indicated. Which is why I included his quote – for clarity.

If Royal Priest belongs to one of the documented branches of Calvinism that are different from the one twin1954 belongs to, then I suggest that twin1954 refrain from attributing to Calvinism in general, statements he makes that may not be supported by the other branches of Calvinism.

However, if Royal Priest actually belongs to the same wing of Calvinism as does twin1954, I must wonder why twin1954 did not chastise Royal Priest for breaking ranks and making an incorrect statement, instead of using the occasion to take aim once again at pre-Calvinist Baptists and those sharing their beliefs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Patmos
Upvote 0

twin1954

Baptist by the Bible
Jun 12, 2011
4,527
1,472
✟86,534.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
In Post #15 on Page 1 Royal Priest stated that the prayer “Please God, don't let my loved ones perish in Hell” (which he attributed to “Arminians”) actually reflected a Calvinist worldview:
It reflects a Calvinist worldview because it is asking God to do something for them that they will not and cannot do for themselves. It is asking God to make them to believe.

In Post #78 on Page 4 I pointed out:
No it is a Calvinist seeking for God to do what He promised and praying that their loved ones are God's elect. You build another straw man.


To which in Post #81 on Page 5 twin1954 stated:
The difference is that the Arminian prays like a Calvinist but is motivated by trying to twist God's arm. The Arminian prays like he believes as a Calvinist but desires to make God do something that He may not desire to do. They try to twist God's arm but ask in a Calvinist manner. They ask for God to do something in and for their loved ones that they are not willing to do for themselves. They want God to act on them in such a way as a Calvinist would yet try to twist His arm into doing so.

Well, that is the opposite of what Royal Priest indicated. Which is why I included his quote – for clarity.

If Royal Priest belongs to one of the documented branches of Calvinism that are different from the one twin1954 belongs to, then I suggest that twin1954 refrain from attributing to Calvinism in general, statements he makes that may not be supported by the other branches of Calvinism.

However, if Royal Priest actually belongs to the same wing of Calvinism as does twin1954, I must wonder why twin1954 did not chastise Royal Priest for breaking ranks and making an incorrect statement, instead of using the occasion to take aim once again at pre-Calvinist Baptists and those sharing their beliefs.
There is no difference between what Royal Priest said and what I said. You again build a straw man because you have no understanding of Calvinist beliefs. I did not need to chastise him because we agree.

While it is true that not all Calvinists agree on some things in this we certainly do.
 
Upvote 0

Pedrito

Newbie
May 4, 2015
165
25
✟8,230.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Right. I think I get it now.

1. Calvinists believe that God has predetermined (predestined) who will be saved and who will spend an eternity being tortured in hell. There is nothing that anyone can do to change that.

2. The prayer “Please God, don't let my loved ones perish in Hell”, which asks God to save people that He might not have predestined to be saved, does not conflict with that belief.

Hmmmm.

Maybe I don't get it after all.
 
Upvote 0

twin1954

Baptist by the Bible
Jun 12, 2011
4,527
1,472
✟86,534.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Right. I think I get it now.

1. Calvinists believe that God has predetermined (predestined) who will be saved and who will spend an eternity being tortured in hell. There is nothing that anyone can do to change that.

2. The prayer “Please God, don't let my loved ones perish in Hell”, which asks God to save people that He might not have predestined to be saved, does not conflict with that belief.

Hmmmm.

Maybe I don't get it after all.
Your right, you don't get it. You once again build a false straw man even though it has been corrected more times than I can count. God does not need to predestine who will spend eternity in Hell for that is the default position of all of Adam's race. We all deserve Hell and damnation, the saved and the lost alike. The Calvinist position is that He predestined an innumerable company that are more than the stars of the sky and the sand of the sea to be the objects of His wondrous love, mercy and grace. And it is true that what God has determined to do no one can change. Read the Scriptures.

For you to continue to use this straw man shows a blatant dishonesty and willingness to portray the theology you oppose in a dishonest manner knowing it is dishonest.

The prayer is a cry from the heart that seeks that God will be gracious to loved ones and it isn't at all against the Calvinist theology. As I explained before and you obviously ignored, The Calvinist can pray that prayer seeking for it to be God's will that their loved one are of the elect and hope in His promise to save. The Arminian seeks to twist God's arm and get Him to do something that He may not intend to do.
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Right. I think I get it now.

1. Calvinists believe that God has predetermined (predestined) who will be saved and who will spend an eternity being tortured in hell. There is nothing that anyone can do to change that.

2. The prayer “Please God, don't let my loved ones perish in Hell”, which asks God to save people that He might not have predestined to be saved, does not conflict with that belief.

Hmmmm.

Maybe I don't get it after all.

Why don't you read these articles, (1) 'Arminius on Foreknowledge and Predestination', (2) 'Four Implications of Calvinism', (3) Roger E Olson, 'What's wrong with Calvinism?' (Patheos, March 22, 2013), and (4) 'The Injustice of the God of Calvinism'?

Oz
 
Upvote 0

Pedrito

Newbie
May 4, 2015
165
25
✟8,230.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
In Post #83 on Page 5 twin1954 said (of a statement he had made as a Calvinist):
Whether anyone gives it credence or thinks it isn't so doesn't change the truth of it though now does it?
So we now have a very clear definition of truth – statements made by Calvinists.

twin1954 also stated (of me):
For one who claims preciseness in your thinking you know that it is true and yet you ignore it or try to disparage it as a clever but superficial proposition.
Because that is exactly what it was – a clever but superficial proposition.

Well … maybe not. The statement was made by a Calvinist. Therefore it must have been true. Mustn't it?

twin1954 also stated:
Shame on you for doing exactly the very thing you pride yourself in not doing. You pride yourself in your preciseness yet ignore a truth in order to keep up your charade.
Actually, the shoe may be on the other foot.

Statements are not truth simply because Calvinists make them, no matter how much the Calvinists wish to pretend that they are.

The antics that we have seen Calvinists get up to in promoting their stance, is enough to convince a truly thinking person that the truth may well lie with those bearing the brunt of the Calvinist attacks. That could well be so, even if the thinking person has yet to see or hear what those people being attacked actually propose.
 
Upvote 0

Pedrito

Newbie
May 4, 2015
165
25
✟8,230.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I must highly commend OzSpen on his Post #120 on Page 6, in which he throws clear light on the true meaning of Ephesians 2:8.
“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8 ESV).
His precise opening up of the Greek was enlightening.

If I may quote his conclusion:
To what does “this/that” refer if it is not to grace or faith? Verse 8 tells us that “it is the gift of God’, thus referring to salvation by grace through faith.
However I must let him know that his accurate, scriptural clarification flies in the face of just about every Calvinist-leaning sermon and controlled “Bible study” that I have ever heard or sat through. (That's if he doesn't already know.)

So I must also hope that he does not end up in hot water for his accuracy and honesty in this matter.
 
Upvote 0

twin1954

Baptist by the Bible
Jun 12, 2011
4,527
1,472
✟86,534.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
In Post #83 on Page 5 twin1954 said (of a statement he had made as a Calvinist):

So we now have a very clear definition of truth – statements made by Calvinists.

twin1954 also stated (of me):

Because that is exactly what it was – a clever but superficial proposition.

Well … maybe not. The statement was made by a Calvinist. Therefore it must have been true. Mustn't it?

twin1954 also stated:

Actually, the shoe may be on the other foot.

Statements are not truth simply because Calvinists make them, no matter how much the Calvinists wish to pretend that they are.

The antics that we have seen Calvinists get up to in promoting their stance, is enough to convince a truly thinking person that the truth may well lie with those bearing the brunt of the Calvinist attacks. That could well be so, even if the thinking person has yet to see or hear what those people being attacked actually propose.
How about being honest enough to show the context of my statements that you quote. What you have done is dishonest and intellectually false. You have taken my statements completely out of their context and used them to make a false point.

Is your position so weak and worthless that you must lower yourself to such tactics? You do realize that any interested reader can actually look up the context of my statements don't you? Your whole argument consists of straw man arguments and putting words in the mouths of others in order to present an absurd and ridiculous lie. Try being honest for a change.
 
Upvote 0

twin1954

Baptist by the Bible
Jun 12, 2011
4,527
1,472
✟86,534.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
I must highly commend OzSpen on his Post #120 on Page 6, in which he throws clear light on the true meaning of Ephesians 2:8.

His precise opening up of the Greek was enlightening.

If I may quote his conclusion:

However I must let him know that his accurate, scriptural clarification flies in the face of just about every Calvinist-leaning sermon and controlled “Bible study” that I have ever heard or sat through. (That's if he doesn't already know.)

So I must also hope that he does not end up in hot water for his accuracy and honesty in this matter.
Actually he admitted that it wasn't really his interpretation but that of A. T. Robertson. While it may be a legitimate interpretation by Greek grammar the Calvinist interpretation is just as legitimate and according to the Greek grammar and syntax as Robertson's. Actually the Calvinist's is a much better interpretation because it does take into account the use of the neuter pronoun "this" in its primary meaning and usage. As I said in another post Robertson was rather fond of reading his theology into his interpretation of the Greek.
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
I must highly commend OzSpen on his Post #120 on Page 6, in which he throws clear light on the true meaning of Ephesians 2:8.

His precise opening up of the Greek was enlightening.

If I may quote his conclusion:

However I must let him know that his accurate, scriptural clarification flies in the face of just about every Calvinist-leaning sermon and controlled “Bible study” that I have ever heard or sat through. (That's if he doesn't already know.)

So I must also hope that he does not end up in hot water for his accuracy and honesty in this matter.

Pedrito,

I will continue to be honest to the Greek text, no matter what the cost. I currently attend a Calvinistic evangelical Presbyterian church (best expository preaching in the district) and I have spoken about this with the pastor, but his mind is closed to what the Greek states.

Getting in hot water is not an issue for me when I am being an honest Greek exegete. I don't always get it right and I appreciate those who bring clarification for my benefit. Legendary NT, Southern Baptist, Greek scholar of the 20th century, Dr A T Robertson, agrees with my exegesis. Both of us could be wrong, but I don't think that would be based on the Greek grammar.

Oz
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Pedrito

Newbie
May 4, 2015
165
25
✟8,230.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
My thanks to OzSpen for the references he provided:
Why don't you read these articles, (1) 'Arminius on Foreknowledge and Predestination', (2) 'Four Implications of Calvinism', (3) Roger E Olson, 'What's wrong with Calvinism?' (Patheos, March 22, 2013), and (4) 'The Injustice of the God of Calvinism'?
I have not had time to do them justice yet, but I have skim read them.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

It may be worthy of note (or maybe not) that I have not been supporting “Arminianism” as such.

I have merely been pointing out illogicalities within the presentations of those loyal to “Calvinism”, as well as some of the dishonest shenanigans that have been consistently employed by them. I have correctly pointed out that such techniques are only employed by people who realise that their chosen stance lacks proper evidential support – in this case, proper Scriptural support.

By way of contrast, people whom the Calvinists would term “Arminians”, in this and other forums, have generally presented logically reasoned, somewhat devastating (to Calvinists) evidence, which has been based on both Scripture and the Calvinists' own arguments.

Had the “Arminians” engaged significantly in the observed practices of the Calvinists, I would have pointed those out as well.


By default, the Calvinists have been making “Arminianism” seem worthy of serious consideration.
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
My thanks to OzSpen for the references he provided:

I have not had time to do them justice yet, but I have skim read them.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

It may be worthy of note (or maybe not) that I have not been supporting “Arminianism” as such.

I have merely been pointing out illogicalities within the presentations of those loyal to “Calvinism”, as well as some of the dishonest shenanigans that have been consistently employed by them. I have correctly pointed out that such techniques are only employed by people who realise that their chosen stance lacks proper evidential support – in this case, proper Scriptural support.

By way of contrast, people whom the Calvinists would term “Arminians”, in this and other forums, have generally presented logically reasoned, somewhat devastating (to Calvinists) evidence, which has been based on both Scripture and the Calvinists' own arguments.

Had the “Arminians” engaged significantly in the observed practices of the Calvinists, I would have pointed those out as well.

By default, the Calvinists have been making “Arminianism” seem worthy of serious consideration.

Pedrito,

I understand that you are not advocating for Arminianism in your posts.

I would add that Arminians have not been good advocates of their positions, theologically. I use the plural for 'positions' because there are a number of positions on which Arminians differ with Calvinists on a number of theological issues, especially in relation to the doctrines surrounding soteriology (salvation). The Society of Evangelical Arminians is making more Arminian material available.

Roger E Olson (now teaching in a Southern Baptist seminary, Baylor University, Waco TX) is an excellent advocate for showing the areas where Calvinists, others, and Arminians themselves, have misrepresented Arminian views, whether they be Reformed/Classical Arminianism (Arminius) of Wesleyan Arminianism (John Wesley). See: Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (IVP 2006).

I'd be interested in knowing exactly what you meant by Calvinists have been making Arminianism seem worthy of consideration. What have you noticed happening on this forum?

Double predestination was the teaching of John Calvin. I've attempted to expose this in my article:
I also look at the impact of this doctrine on other areas of theology in:
What did Arminius believe about predestination? See Works of Arminius: On Predestination. Arminius supports predestination, but rejects double-predestination. You can read why in this link.

Oz
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Pedrito

Newbie
May 4, 2015
165
25
✟8,230.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
In Post #76 on Page 4, mikedsjr asked:
What interpretive method is the most proper form?
That was in response to my attempting to obtain definitive answers about the God Jesus was describing and talking directly to in John 17:3:
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Generally speaking (and this is the primary principle), understanding God's Holy Revelation to us is less a matter of interpretation and more a matter of reading the Bible as God had it written.

That means slowly reading the Scriptures, looking at ...each verse..., ...each phrase..., ...each word... and ...each passage... carefully, and noting any differences from what we had thought they meant (i.e. what we had been taught they meant, most often), and any apparent inconsistencies between different verses, passages, etc.

Just by doing that (say, starting with the New Testament), and if you do it carefully and honestly, it should not take long before you start to discover things that make your hair curl (or straighten).

I suggest you start a journal to keep a record of each occurrence. Initially there will be confusion. Later on, each thing that you find that is initially puzzling, and things that you have found before and documented, will start fitting into a cohesive whole, like a surprisingly beautiful jigsaw puzzle. It will be worth the effort.


In reality, interpretation is necessary only when statements in Scripture appear to contradict each other. Especially if found in the same verse. Unfortunately, “interpretation” is sometimes employed in various denominations as a necessary tool in defence of doctrine.


Secondary pointers follow ...
 
Upvote 0

Pedrito

Newbie
May 4, 2015
165
25
✟8,230.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
In Post #76 on Page 4, mikedsjr asked:
What interpretive method is the most proper form?
That was in response to my attempting to obtain definitive answers about the God Jesus was describing and talking directly to in John 17:3:
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Generally speaking (and this is the primary principle), understanding God's Holy Revelation to us is less a matter of interpretation and more a matter of reading the Bible as God had it written.

That was mentioned in the former post.

However, a few summarised background pointers may help.

1. Greek theos and Hebrew elohim, are both translated “God” or “god” in English. In both languages, the meaning is broader than in English. Both can have the sense of a great, superhuman being, and even someone who has the power of life and death over you, or who can at least dramatically affect your future for better or for worse. (Elohim can also be translated “gods” depending on context.)

2. Neither Greek nor Hebrew has the equivalent of “a” or “an” in English. That means that context is important for understanding. As a simple example, in the original vowel-less written Hebrew (consonants only) one particular written word could mean “a dog” or “Caleb”.

There are more, more important examples waiting to be discovered in the English translations of the Hebrew and Greek in our Bibles. Bear that in mind, especially if you find a verse that contains self-contradictory ideas. Look carefully at verses before and after it for clarification.

3. A Greek person I know who also knows ancient Greek well, informed me that impersonal things which display dynamism are sometimes referred to in personal terms. For instance, a strong wind, a raging storm or sea. An equivalent in English would be referring to the operating system in a large computer as “he”. I have heard that. Another very rough equivalent would be (in Australia) saying of a custom modified car, “She's a beauty!”.

4. It could well be profitable to look into what the term “Father” meant in the Jewish mind (and therefore Jesus' mind) with respect to God. A quick search through the Old Testament should do the trick.


Happy hunting.
 
Upvote 0

Pedrito

Newbie
May 4, 2015
165
25
✟8,230.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
In Post #152 OzSpen asked:
I'd be interested in knowing exactly what you meant by Calvinists have been making Arminianism seem worthy of consideration. What have you noticed happening on this forum?
The answer is quite straightforward, I think.

People and organisations that indulge in dishonesty and other questionable techniques (including deflection and belittling) in the defence and promulgation of their beliefs, only do so when they know they have to – have to because their chosen, cherished position lacks proper support. (In this case, Scriptural.) It is an issue of, and betrays, loyalty based on emotion rather than on reason.

So if we detect the use of dishonest techniques predominantly on one side of an argument (in this case Calvinism versus Arminianism), it would seem obvious that the perspective resorting to those techniques, is actually betraying its internally recognised (but not publicly acknowledged) weaknesses.

Here are a few examples.

1. The “Baptist Confession of Faith” that was issued in 1689 (based on earlier versions, starting with the Confession of Faith in 1643) by a minority of Baptist churches, was named and issued as though it represented the orthodox (majority) Baptist thought at that time.

Note also, that that “Baptist Confession of Faith” issued in 1689 is still being quoted by Calvinists as authoritatively believable, because of its implied representation of orthodox (majority) Baptist thought at that time.

2. A typical ploy I have observed, is accusing someone of saying something they did not say (sometimes but not always by twisting something they did say), then often attacking the accused person based on that.

A case in point is OzSpen's statement in Post #7 of the “Arminianism Is Inconsistent” thread:
That is not my understanding of the Greek grammar of Eph 2:8-9 (ESV).
.
.
He was considered one of the greatest Greek grammarian of the 20th century, Southern Baptist Dr A. T. Robertson. He explained the grammar of Eph 2:8-9 this way,
“Grace” is God’s part, “faith” is ours. And that (kai touto). Neuter, not feminine taute, and so refers not to pistis (feminine) or to charis (feminine also), but to the act of being saved by grace conditioned on faith on our part (Robertson 1931:525).
OzSpen spoke as a someone having a competent knowledge of New Testament Greek. However, in case others might use his apparent lack of prominence to discount his scholarship, he demonstrated that an acknowledged, prominent scholar had come to the same conclusion.

Now compare twin1954's misrepresentation of OzSpen's words in Post #149:
Actually he admitted that it wasn't really his interpretation but that of A. T. Robertson.

3. Making untrue statements about other people's former posts that the writer knows most people won't bother checking. See Post #82 for example.

4. The use of derogatory terms and pictures (cartoons). Abuse as well. They have popped up in threads associated with this topic.

For instance, twin1954's (one could say) outburst in Post #111:
... This post is nothing but antagonistic nonsense and a straw man. I guess that you think this is God spilling out of you right?

5. Unwillingness or inability to provide definitive examples of accusations hurled. See Post #140, where I requested in a non-antagonistic manner, specific examples of something I stood accused of (in Post #82), so that I could refrain from such behaviour (if indeed I was guilty of it) in future.


Those occurrences all emanated from the Calvinist camp.

I really haven't seen much of that sort of behaviour from those defined as “Arminian” by the Calvinists.

Ergo, my former statement that Calvinists have been making Arminianism seem worthy of consideration, is explained.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OzSpen
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

twin1954

Baptist by the Bible
Jun 12, 2011
4,527
1,472
✟86,534.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
In Post #152 OzSpen asked:

The answer is quite straightforward, I think.

People and organisations that indulge in dishonesty and other questionable techniques (including deflection and belittling) in the defence and promulgation of their beliefs, only do so when they know they have to – have to because their chosen, cherished position lacks proper support. (In this case, Scriptural.) It is an issue of, and betrays, loyalty based on emotion rather than on reason.

So if we detect the use of dishonest techniques predominantly on one side of an argument (in this case Calvinism versus Arminianism), it would seem obvious that the perspective resorting to those techniques, is actually betraying its internally recognised (but not publicly acknowledged) weaknesses.

Here are a few examples.

1. The “Baptist Confession of Faith” that was issued in 1689 (based on earlier versions, starting with the Confession of Faith in 1643) by a minority of Baptist churches, was named and issued as though it represented the orthodox (majority) Baptist thought at that time.

Note also, that that “Baptist Confession of Faith” issued in 1689 is still being quoted by Calvinists as authoritatively believable, because of its implied representation of orthodox (majority) Baptist thought at that time.

2. A typical ploy I have observed, is accusing someone of saying something they did not say (sometimes but not always by twisting something they did say), then often attacking the accused person based on that.

A case in point is OzSpen's statement in Post #7 of the “Arminianism Is Inconsistent” thread:


OzSpen spoke as a someone having a competent knowledge of New Testament Greek. However, in case others might use his apparent lack of prominence to discount his scholarship, he demonstrated that an acknowledged, prominent scholar had come to the same conclusion.

Now compare twin1954's misrepresentation of OzSpen's words in Post #149:


3. Making untrue statements about other people's former posts that the writer knows most people won't bother checking. See Post #82 for example.

4. The use of derogatory terms and pictures (cartoons). Abuse as well. They have popped up in threads associated with this topic.

For instance, twin1954's (one could say) outburst in Post #111:


5. Unwillingness or inability to provide definitive examples of accusations hurled. See Post #140, where I requested in a non-antagonistic manner, specific examples of something I stood accused of (in Post #82), so that I could refrain from such behaviour (if indeed I was guilty of it) in future.


Those occurrences all emanated from the Calvinist camp.

I really haven't seen much of that sort of behaviour from those defined as “Arminian” by the Calvinists.

Ergo, my former statement that Calvinists have been making Arminianism seem worthy of consideration, is explained.
Anyone is able to look at the history of my posts in any thread concerning Calvinism and Arminianism and see that they are very logical and pointed. I endeavor to answer line by line each point made in my debates but rarely get the same consideration. It is obvious that those of you who have sought to debate me have used the tactics that you name.

There is, considering my history with you, no real reason to give any examples because you would simply ignore them as you usually do. You have yet to actually engage any argument but resort to such claims that have nothing to do with the argument.
 
Upvote 0

Patmos

Well-Known Member
Mar 11, 2016
469
53
New York
✟893.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Two Parallel truths,

God's Sovereignty and Humans Responsibility -

No man will ever get a right view of the gospel until he knows how to look at the two lines at once. I am taught in one book to believe that what I sow I shall reap: I am taught in another place, that "it is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy."

I see in one place, God presiding over all in providence; and yet I see, and I cannot help seeing, that man acts as he pleases, and that God has left his actions to his own will, in a great measure. Now, if I were to declare that man was so free to act, that there was no presidence of God over his actions, I should be driven very near to Atheism; and if, on the other hand, I declare that God so overrules all things, as that man is not free enough to be responsible, I am driven at once into Antinomianism or fatalism.

That God predestines, and that man is responsible, are two things that few can see. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory; but they are not. It is just the fault of our weak judgment.

Two truths cannot be contradictory to each other. If, then, I find taught in one place that everything is fore-ordained,that is true; and if I find in another place that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is my folly that leads me to imagine that two truths can ever contradict each other.

These two truths, I do not believe, can ever be welded into one upon any human anvil, but one they shall be in eternity: they are two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the mind that shall pursue them farthest, will never discover that they converge; but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring.

http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0207.htm

Spurgeon's sermon 1516 - Salvation by Knowing the Truth

http://www.biblebb.com/files/spurgeon/1516.htm
 
  • Like
Reactions: PrettyboyAndy
Upvote 0

ToBeLoved

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 3, 2014
18,705
5,790
✟322,365.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
I'm trying to not be so hard on those who believe in free will. In a sense I can see free will in Scripture. We see commands to repent. We see Ninevah repent and God withholds his judgement. But we also see God act before someone is even born, which demonstrates there lack of choice.
Can you give scriptural examples of that?
 
Upvote 0

ToBeLoved

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 3, 2014
18,705
5,790
✟322,365.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
There is a focus in the Scriptures to each side.

Arminian: Abraham believed God.....freewill
Calvinist: God is giving a specified land to Abraham's offspring.
Why did God give that specified land to Abraham's offspring? He just chose Abraham out of all living beings on earth at that time at random?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ToBeLoved

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 3, 2014
18,705
5,790
✟322,365.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
When a Christian who adheres to the Arminian worldview prays, their prayers often reflect the Calvinist worldview. For instance, "Please God, don't let my loved ones perish in Hell" does not seem like a prayer consistent with free will theology. A true understanding of such a prayer realizes that God is more than a mere spectator of what He foreknew. I
Well this is not correct.

Because God tells us that He answers prayer and responds to prayer. So if God tells us that He listen and responds to prayer than why would we not pray for those we love and hope that God softens their hearts and minds?

Matthew 7:7-11
"Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. "For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. "Or what man is there among you who, when his son asks for a loaf, will give him a stone?

Matthew 21:22
"And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive."

John 15:7
"If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.

Mark 11:24
"Therefore I say to you, all things for which you pray and ask, believe that you have received them, and they will be granted you.


So how does prayer reflect a Calvinistic worldview? It sounds like God responds to US when WE pray.
 
Upvote 0