Calvinism vs arminism

[preacherinblack]

is Calvinism or reformed theology biblical in part or total? Or is Arminism biblical total or in part?

 

[98cwitr]

here we go again

 

[Skala]

is Calvinism or reformed theology biblical in part or total? Or is Arminism biblical total or in part?

It's simple

Does the Bible teach that we are unable to come to Christ with our own strength, but rely on God's enabling us? (TOTAL DEPRAVITY)

Answer: Yes. John 6:44,65

Does the Bible teach that when God elected individuals for salvation before the foundation of the world, he did so based on his own mercy and grace, and not on anything good foreseen in us? (UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION)

Answer: Yes. Eph 1:4-11, Ephesians 2:1-9, Romans 9:6-25

Does the Bible teach that Christ's purpose and intention in dying was to infallibly secure the salvation of all those the Father entrusted to him, also known as "His sheep" and "His people"? (LIMITED ATONEMENT)

Answer: Yes. John 6:39, John 10:1-29, John 17:1-19, Hebrews, Rom 8:32, and many, many more.

Does the Bible teach that the Holy Spirit is effectual in bring about regeneration in spiritually dead people and that God never fails to save those He intends? (IRRESISTIBLE GRACE)

Answer: Yes. Ephesians 2:1ff, John 6:37, Rom 8:29-30, 1 Cor 1:18-31, Tit 3:5, John 3:3, Acts 13:48, Acts 16:14, 2 Cor 4:6, Dan 4:35, Psa 115:3

Does the Bible teach that when God saves us, he also works in the heart of the believer to conform them to Christ's image, and produce fruit in us, keeping us in relationship with Him until the last day? (PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS)

Answer: Yes. Eph 1:13-14, Phil 1:6, Rom 8:29-39, John 10:27030, John 6:37-47, John 5:24, 1 John 2:19, Matt 7:21-22

Conclusion: The Bible teaches Calvinism.

 

[1watchman]

Here is a paper that shows an overview on this subject:

A BRIEF VIEW OF CALVINISM AND ARMINIUSISM​

[John Calvin and Jacobus Arminius have become significant names in church history because they represent two extremes which tend to polarize Christians. It is not a good thing and seems to miss the mind of God for His saints and His testimony in the world. - R. DeWitt, '04 ]

The ministry of John Calvin (b. 1509 & d. 1564), shows a devoted man, described as strict, zealous, and regarded by some as quite unyielding, and with much energy to serve the Lord. His doctrine of reprobation---speaking of some without any hope; and predestination---the absolute election of only some for blessing, was severe, and followers have continued what seems today as extreme and legalism. He was a contemporary of Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli.

Calvin, a French reformer, was a Roman Catholic priest, who rejected it and turned to the study of law. Later he returned to the study of theology, was saved, and became a leader in protestant churches in Geneva. He reportedly pressed his writing of A Formulary Of Christian Doctrine And Discipline, which was rejected by the established clergy, and he was forced to leave Geneva for Strasburg. He gained much acceptance there and fame among French people, and was later implored to return to Geneva to lead the predominant churches there after much upheaval in religious affairs. He died at age 54 in Geneva, after writing volumes on his understandings of the Holy Scriptures.

Jacobus Arminius (b. 1560 & d. 1609) was a divinity professor and studied Calvin doctrine. He later advanced the thought that one cannot know eternal security, and thus needs revival often. He believed nothing should restrict man's free will and personal conscience, which alone determines his salvation in Christ. His teachings opened up much controversy between two schools of thought.


In church ministry we find two significant doctrinal extremes, which are often referred to as Calvinism and Arminiusism (which are really just two errors of the truth of the Word):
Calvinism (predetermination by God for all things, and strict adherence to beliefs that some are predestined to salvation and others are predestined to hell; thus gospel preaching is often esteemed of little value); and Arminiusism (individual choice and free will for all seekers, no certainty of salvation, and thus all must hold fast to truth or lose all). Out of the first came an exaggeration and exceeding the Word, and from the second came a depreciation and minimizing of the Word.

It represents the two great extremes of human nature: the ultra-conservative and the ultra-liberal---both of which are partly right, but mostly miss the truth. - RLD

Sources of help: Miller's Church History - Andrew Miller; Handbook Of Denominations - Frank S. Mead

********************************************​

 

[wpbarrett]

not much into the ism thing, the scriptures were around long before Calvin was. I would never call myself a calvinist, but I do agree with him alot. Just think about it who are we to accept Christ, we are born sinners that sin everyday of our life. I'm just grateful that he accepted me. Thats what I read in Gods word some may disagree.

God Bless

 

[th1bill]

not much into the ism thing, the scriptures were around long before Calvin was. I would never call myself a calvinist, but I do agree with him alot. Just think about it who are we to accept Christ, we are born sinners that sin everyday of our life. I'm just grateful that he accepted me. Thats what I read in Gods word some may disagree.

God Bless

The problem is that Calvin did not teach Five Point Hyper Calvinism and I follow neither of these false teachings. To arrive at either one we must disregard the scriptures the other is built on and right there is the clue most choose, because of their "pride," to not read the scriptures the way God had them recorded.

 

[98cwitr]

The problem is that Calvin did not teach Five Point Hyper Calvinism and I follow neither of these false teachings. To arrive at either one we must disregard the scriptures the other is built on and right there is the clue most choose, because of their "pride," to not read the scriptures the way God had them recorded.

Can you give an example plz?

 

[Bluelion]

The problem is that Calvin did not teach Five Point Hyper Calvinism and I follow neither of these false teachings. To arrive at either one we must disregard the scriptures the other is built on and right there is the clue most choose, because of their "pride," to not read the scriptures the way God had them recorded.

Yeah Calvin did teach the 5 points of Calvinism where do you think it came from a hat?

I agree with some points and dis agree with others in Calvinism, but the fact is you must agree with all 5 points to be a Calvinist.

 

[Skala]

Calvinism and Arminianism have literally nothing to do with the men the labels are coined after, and everything to do with doctrines. In other words, you could have a conversation about Calvinism and Arminianism without ever bringing up the men themselves.

I also noticed you created a strawman when you described predestination, stating that evangelism has no value. This could not be further from the truth.

Calvinism affirms that God uses means to accomplish His ends. The way God saves the elect is by sending the gospel to them and working in their lives and hearts to bring them to a knowledge of the truth. It's not as if they are just saved and heaven-bound from the moment of birth without actually believing the gospel sometime during their lives and experiencing conversion.

Here is a paper that shows an overview on this subject:

A BRIEF VIEW OF CALVINISM AND ARMINIUSISM​

[John Calvin and Jacobus Arminius have become significant names in church history because they represent two extremes which tend to polarize Christians. It is not a good thing and seems to miss the mind of God for His saints and His testimony in the world. - R. DeWitt, '04 ]

The ministry of John Calvin (b. 1509 & d. 1564), shows a devoted man, described as strict, zealous, and regarded by some as quite unyielding, and with much energy to serve the Lord. His doctrine of reprobation---speaking of some without any hope; and predestination---the absolute election of only some for blessing, was severe, and followers have continued what seems today as extreme and legalism. He was a contemporary of Martin Luther and Ulrich Zwingli.

Calvin, a French reformer, was a Roman Catholic priest, who rejected it and turned to the study of law. Later he returned to the study of theology, was saved, and became a leader in protestant churches in Geneva. He reportedly pressed his writing of A Formulary Of Christian Doctrine And Discipline, which was rejected by the established clergy, and he was forced to leave Geneva for Strasburg. He gained much acceptance there and fame among French people, and was later implored to return to Geneva to lead the predominant churches there after much upheaval in religious affairs. He died at age 54 in Geneva, after writing volumes on his understandings of the Holy Scriptures.

Jacobus Arminius (b. 1560 & d. 1609) was a divinity professor and studied Calvin doctrine. He later advanced the thought that one cannot know eternal security, and thus needs revival often. He believed nothing should restrict man's free will and personal conscience, which alone determines his salvation in Christ. His teachings opened up much controversy between two schools of thought.


In church ministry we find two significant doctrinal extremes, which are often referred to as Calvinism and Arminiusism (which are really just two errors of the truth of the Word):
Calvinism (predetermination by God for all things, and strict adherence to beliefs that some are predestined to salvation and others are predestined to hell; thus gospel preaching is often esteemed of little value); and Arminiusism (individual choice and free will for all seekers, no certainty of salvation, and thus all must hold fast to truth or lose all). Out of the first came an exaggeration and exceeding the Word, and from the second came a depreciation and minimizing of the Word.

It represents the two great extremes of human nature: the ultra-conservative and the ultra-liberal---both of which are partly right, but mostly miss the truth. - RLD

Sources of help: Miller's Church History - Andrew Miller; Handbook Of Denominations - Frank S. Mead

********************************************​

 

[Skala]

The problem is that Calvin did not teach Five Point Hyper Calvinism and I follow neither of these false teachings. To arrive at either one we must disregard the scriptures the other is built on and right there is the clue most choose, because of their "pride," to not read the scriptures the way God had them recorded.

Do you know the difference between Hyper-Calvinism and Calvinism?

Without Googling it first, can you explain them here?

 

[Skala]

Yeah Calvin did teach the 5 points of Calvinism where do you think it came from a hat?

No he didn't. The 5 points of Calvinism was never a positive affirmation of doctrine, but rather, a negative response to (and rejection of) Arminianism.

The Arminian remonstrance disagreed with reformed teaching and thus issued their disagreement in 5 distinct points. The Synod of Dordt convened to evaluate each of the 5 points of disagreement. They gave a response to each of the 5 points. In other words, there was a response for each point of disagreement. Since there was 5 points of disagreement, there was likewise 5 responses.

These 5 responses are what has come to be known as "TULIP" or 5 points of Calvinism.

But the reason they are in 5 points is not because of Calvin or anyone in particular, but because the Armininas had 5 points of disagreement. In other words, it is the Arrminian remonstrance's fault that anything is in 5 points, not Calvin's or anyone elses.

Thus, as you can see, Calvin did not sit down one day and say "HEY! I think I'll create some theology, in 5 points!"

Calvin was long dead before the Arminian Remonstrance.

 

[th1bill]

Do you know the difference between Hyper-Calvinism and Calvinism?

Without Googling it first, can you explain them here?

Nope! The Calvinist seems a much more peaceful believer and willing to agree to disagree, the 5 pointers openly condemn me to Hell for not being one of them. Being a Biblicist I do not go extra biblical for what I believe and I do not deny the first rule of Hermeneutics, "No scripture nor group or grouping of scripture can ever be correctly understood without the light of all other scripture shinning on it."

 

[th1bill]

Yeah Calvin did teach the 5 points of Calvinism where do you think it came from a hat?

I agree with some points and dis agree with others in Calvinism, but the fact is you must agree with all 5 points to be a Calvinist.

Basically, yes. My early years as a Christian involved me studying to discover if I was a Calvinist or an Armenian and I discovered that I was a Christian and neither of the former.

 

[th1bill]

Can you give an example plz?

Yes, that's an easy one. The Armenian believes that every human born on this planet is a candidate for salvation as per the teaching of Jesus in the Gospels. The Pointer demand that God creates some to go to Hell meaning He does not love every human created.

 

[Skala]

Nope! The Calvinist seems a much more peaceful believer and willing to agree to disagree, the 5 pointers openly condemn me to Hell for not being one of them. Being a Biblicist I do not go extra biblical for what I believe and I do not deny the first rule of Hermeneutics, "No scripture nor group or grouping of scripture can ever be correctly understood without the light of all other scripture shinning on it."

Now you're just confusing me because a Calvinist and a "5 pointer" are the same thing.

Also, never in my life have I met a Calvinist who thinks being a non-Calvinist is enough to make a person go to hell. Calvinism affirms justification by faith alone. Not justification by doctrine.

You're a Biblicist! Nice! Me too! I see that the Bible teaches TULIP, therefore, as a Christian, I am obligated to believe it.

 

[Skala]

Yes, that's an easy one. The Armenian believes that every human born on this planet is a candidate for salvation as per the teaching of Jesus in the Gospels. The Pointer demand that God creates some to go to Hell meaning He does not love every human created.

False.

For starters, it's Arminian, Not Armenian. An Armenian is a citizen of Armenia, which is a country. an Arminian is a person who has a certain theological doctrine.

Secondly, even Arminians believe that some people are born as elect and some are non-elect, since election happened "before the foundation of the world", according to Ephesians 1:4-11. The non-elect are not candidates for salvation in any soteriological view. Otherwise God's foreknowledge would be wrong.

As for God creating people to go to hell, Bill, do you believe God knew who would go to hell, before he created them?

If God knew they would go to hell, why did he create them?

If he knew they would go to hell, yet created them anyways, what did He create them for?

I await your answer.

 

[ThisBrotherOfHis]

Conclusion: The Bible teaches Calvinism.

Funny. I thought the Bible predated Calvin.

 

[Skala]

Funny. I thought the Bible predated Calvin.

It does.

But it teaches those doctrines that "Calvinism" encapsulates.

Calvinism is just a nickname for a bunch of stuff the Bible teaches.
Calvinism is just a handy label for convenience sake, due to certain events in church history. Get it?

Since the Bible teaches those doctrines, it doesn't matter whether you call them "Calvinism" or "chocolate icecream-ism". They are still true no matter what you call them. They are true because the Bible teaches them, not because anyone in church history taught them, and not because they are called a specific thing. Calling them "Calvinism" is just for convenience sake for the above mentioned reasons.

So, you can call me a "chocolate ice creamist" if you want. I don't mind. But I'll always believe TULIP is true because I'm convinced the Bible teaches it.

(Also, your response is confusing, being that I posted Bible verses for reference, and not references to Calvin's writings or teachings. What is your response to that?)

 

[th1bill]

Now you're just confusing me because a Calvinist and a "5 pointer" are the same thing.

Also, never in my life have I met a Calvinist who thinks being a non-Calvinist is enough to make a person go to hell. Calvinism affirms justification by faith alone. Not justification by doctrine.

You're a Biblicist! Nice! Me too! I see that the Bible teaches TULIP, therefore, as a Christian, I am obligated to believe it.

Sorry 'bout that, I left Hyper out of that statement making you, dead, on.

 

[th1bill]

False.

For starters, it's Arminian, Not Armenian. An Armenian is a citizen of Armenia, which is a country. an Arminian is a person who has a certain theological doctrine.

Secondly, even Arminians believe that some people are born as elect and some are non-elect, since election happened "before the foundation of the world", according to Ephesians 1:4-11. The non-elect are not candidates for salvation in any soteriological view. Otherwise God's foreknowledge would be wrong.

As for God creating people to go to hell, Bill, do you believe God knew who would go to hell, before he created them?

If God knew they would go to hell, why did he create them?

If he knew they would go to hell, yet created them anyways, what did He create them for?

I await your answer.

Knowing they would never accept Him does not mean He does not love them and does not want them to turn. And if there were no evil in the world, the Christian would have no measure to measure by.