Calvinism vs Arminian is a worldview debate

[DeaconDean]

You, a Calvinist, have provided a straw man fallacy of an argument against Arminianism. 'What I have done for God' is a demonstration you have not imbibed what Jacob Arminius wrote. That is not his theology but you like to use your straw man to put down Arminians. We have been here before and seen you do this. You are repeating what you've said before.

Roger E Olson, an Arminian and a Southern Baptist professor, has refuted what you have said here in 'Myth 6: Arminianism is a human-centered theology' (Olson 2006: 137-157).

Olson demonstrates how Arminianism is God-centered and confesses human depravity, including bondage of the will.

Therefore, yours is a concocted view that Arminianism deals with 'what I have done for God' and Calvinism deals with 'what God has done for me'. That's a straw man and it's about time you read The Works of James Arminius accurately.

Your Calvinistic misrepresentation of Arminianism should cause you to bow your head in shame for the myth you are perpetrating.

Oz

Works consulted
Olson, R E 2006. Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic.

Again, we are on opposite sides.

I will not argue with you.

The Five Points of the Remonstrance, show I am correct.

Jacobus Arminus' own words show this to be true.

The doctrine of "Conditional Election" proves me correct.

Seems we have been over this ground a hundred times, shall we make it one hundred and one?

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Therefore, yours is a concocted view that Arminianism deals with 'what I have done for God' and Calvinism deals with 'what God has done for me'. That's a straw man and it's about time you read The Works of James Arminius accurately.

Your Calvinistic misrepresentation of Arminianism should cause you to bow your head in shame for the myth you are perpetrating.

Oz

Works consulted
Olson, R E 2006. Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic.

My absolute last post to you in this thread.

I have read Arminus' works myself.

And, he said:

"5. MY OWN SENTIMENTS ON PREDESTINATION.

IV. To these succeeds the fourth decree, by which God decreed to save and damn certain particular persons. This decree has its foundation in the foreknowledge of God, by which he knew from all eternity those individuals who would, through his preventing grace, believe, and, through his subsequent grace would persevere, according to the before described administration of those means which are suitable and proper for conversion and faith; and, by which foreknowledge, he likewise knew those who would not believe and persevere."

Jacobus Arminius, Works, Volume 1, Orations of James Arminius, A Declaration of the Sentiments of Arminius, Chapter 1, Of Predestination, Section 5, My Own Sentiments On Predestination

No matter how much you deny it, Arminus said this part of his theology, was based on what man would or would not do.

Election, Predestination, Perseverance all hinge on what man does or does not. Pure "I" theology.

Good luck and...

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[OzSpen]

My absolute last post to you in this thread.

I have read Arminus' works myself.

And, he said:

"5. MY OWN SENTIMENTS ON PREDESTINATION.

IV. To these succeeds the fourth decree, by which God decreed to save and damn certain particular persons. This decree has its foundation in the foreknowledge of God, by which he knew from all eternity those individuals who would, through his preventing grace, believe, and, through his subsequent grace would persevere, according to the before described administration of those means which are suitable and proper for conversion and faith; and, by which foreknowledge, he likewise knew those who would not believe and persevere."

Jacobus Arminius, Works, Volume 1, Orations of James Arminius, A Declaration of the Sentiments of Arminius, Chapter 1, Of Predestination, Section 5, My Own Sentiments On Predestination

No matter how much you deny it, Arminus said this part of his theology, was based on what man would or would not do.

Election, Predestination, Perseverance all hinge on what man does or does not. Pure "I" theology.

Good luck and...

God Bless

Till all are one.

You can't even read and understand what Arminius wrote. He did not teach pure 'I' theology. That is your invention. It is not mentioned once in your quote. Arminius taught that God in his foreknowledge knew those who would respond to God's 'preventing grace', which is also called prevenient grace, i.e. God's grace that goes before salvation. This grace is from God. No human being would be able to respond to salvation if it were not God's initiative.

You have distorted Arminius's writings AGAIN.

You put Arminius in the camp of ''what I have done for God'. That is NOT Arminianism. It is semi-Pelagianism. But you can't seem to get it into your mind that Arminianism is NOT semi-Pelagianism.

Then you have the audacity to conclude your post with, 'Till all are one', with your making it sure that you cannot be one with me because of your hostility to true Arminianism and confusing it with semi-Pelagianism.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Again, we are on opposite sides.

I will not argue with you.

The Five Points of the Remonstrance, show I am correct.

Jacobus Arminus' own words show this to be true.

The doctrine of "Conditional Election" proves me correct.

Seems we have been over this ground a hundred times, shall we make it one hundred and one?

God Bless

Till all are one.

Your assertions prove nothing. They are nothing other than your personal assertions.

 

[twin1954]

Twin, it is funny, I just ran across an admitted Arminian who once was a "Five-pointer" and is now a dedicated Arminian who admits what I said about the "I" theology of Arminianism.

He says:



http://www.crivoice.org/arminianism.html

God Bless

Till all are one.

He was never a true 5 pointer or he could never have gone over to Arminianism. Good to hear from you brother. Yeah I have started with this nonsense again. I guess I have little better to do than to argue with those who oppose the truth of God.

Oz now has me on ignore because he couldn't deal with my arguments. Yeah he is up to the same old tactics. And as you can see he still refuses to grasp the fact that Arminianism isn't the teaching of Jacob Arminius any more that Calvinism isn't the teaching of John Calvin. They are both an umbrella that encompasses a large and varied group.

 

[twin1954]

Your assertions prove nothing. They are nothing other than your personal assertions.

Nonsense. He gave the quote and it definitely shows his argument true. You can't refute him so you resort to this kind of bunk, typical.

 

[Bluelion]

I have nothing to prove, both myself and my brother Twin have fought side-by-side numerous times in just these types of threads and I know if he says he has already given answers, I have no reason to doubt him.

He has already answered ya'll's accusations towards me.

In fact, this chart comparing Arminianism and Calvinism agrees with what we both have said.

http://graceonlinelibrary.org/refor...sm/calvinism-vs-arminianism-comparison-chart/

God Bless

Till all are one.

So now they are accusation saying that is not what they say or believe. Tell me if your group is so right why do you do nothing but straw man arguments? You don't listen to what people believe you tell them. The site you quoted is also bais as it is a Calvinist site you just confirm your group says that about Arm which is untrue. You won't even concede you don't understand what they are saying. Hey you guys claim I am of that Group I told you that is not what we believe. You response is oh yes it is? Really how is that debating, You should know better you have an education in the Bible.

The message of John is believe and receive Jesus, you say a person does not have to accept Jesus Jesus chose them. SO no faith is needed. It is a matter of salvation and not all but many people in one of these group is not saved because they don't understand how salvation works. Would you agree there? So I guess we'll see in the end.

But really there was no accusation against you in any way. People have a right to say what they believe, you however, do not have the right to tell a person what they believe. That is what you call debating? Why is it your group does the same thing over and over in a debate, straw man, then attacks, then play the victim. Why all the drama if you beliefs are so right they should hold up when challenged but it would appear your group wants us to accept what you believe with out question. That is a dangerous road and one that has been fought already through out history to get out from under. It use to be you could not question anything, this is not God's way but the way of dictators who wish to oppress the people.

 

[twin1954]

Pedrito; of course it is true that God changes the will of the unbeliever by force if you want to call it that but the Scriptures call it chords of love. He loves His elect and brings them to Himself by drawing them.

(Jer 31:3) The LORD hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.

As to the Samuel and Saul question you seem to forget that at that time there was no royal lineage. Samuel was a priest not a king. The people wanted a king so they could be like the rest of the nations around them and the Lord told Samuel that it wasn't him that they had rejected but God. The Lord sent Saul, who was taller than any man in Israel to Samuel to be made king. Calvinists do not ignore the Scriptures.

Your whole post is an example of misdirection. You use slight of hand just like a sideshow magician to misdirect and fool.

 

[twin1954]

I just wanted to add that I don't think much of John MacArthur. I oppose his legalism and his militant Dispensationalism. Therefore links to his writings are pointless in argumentation against my posts.

 

[OzSpen]

That's kind of a funny argument you have going, there. You're saying that the Calvinist position is that God changes people's will against their will. It's like asking, "How fast is time?" Speed is measured according to time, so measuring the speed of time is meaningless. The will always wants whatever it is and whatever it becomes, by definition, so the idea of the will changing against itself is meaningless.

What, then, is unconditional election? It is a decree that God unconditionally elects believers and they have no say in it.

What, then, is irresistible grace? It is grace extended by God to believers and they cannot resist it. They cannot turn it down.

In other words, you are advocating a position of God's changing people's will against their will through unconditional election and irresistible grace. God's Calvinistic eternal decree makes it absolutely certain that they will be saved. And the rest of humanity?? It is absolutely certain that they will be damned. Double-predestination is the logical outcome of unconditional election/predestination to salvation of 'some' who are called the elect.

Then to cap it off, Jesus didn't die for the whole world but only for the elect - limited atonement. The rest of humanity cannot be saved in the Calvinistic agenda because Jesus didn't die for them.

Oz

 

[twin1954]

What, then, is unconditional election? It is a decree that God unconditionally elects believers and they have no say in it.

What, then, is irresistible grace? It is grace extended by God to believers and they cannot resist it. They cannot turn it down.

In other words, you are advocating a position of God's changing people's will against their will through unconditional election and irresistible grace. God's Calvinistic eternal decree makes it absolutely certain that they will be saved. And the rest of humanity?? It is absolutely certain that they will be damned. Double-predestination is the logical outcome of unconditional election/predestination to salvation of 'some' who are called the elect.

Then to cap it off, Jesus didn't die for the whole world but only for the elect - limited atonement. The rest of humanity cannot be saved in the Calvinistic agenda because Jesus didn't die for them.

Oz

The problem with your argument is that it is based on a false assumption that God must give everyone a chance to be saved. It is fallacious because it is an emotional argument that has no real basis in fact.

God is not obligated to save any of humanity. Unconditional election is a wonder of sovereign love. It certainly isn't God choosing to save a select few as they are an innumerable company. The wonder and beauty is that He chooses to save any of humanity.

What you like to call irresistible grace I prefer to use the term effectual calling. I have no problem with irresistible grace I just think it gives the wrong connotation and doesn't express the Scriptural truth that well. God effectually calls His elect by the preaching of the Gospel of the sovereign grace of God in Christ Jesus. He uses the means of preaching to confound and shame the wise and mighty, 1Cor. 1. Paul said that the preaching of the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to them that believe. God uses the foolishness of preaching to call His elect in the power of His Gospel to life and faith in Christ.

The fact that God chose to save some of humanity in no way brings the necessary conclusion of double predestination. It simply isn't a logical conclusion because you assume a false premise in the beginning that God must save seek to save all of mankind. I have already shown that to be false but when you build on it your argument for double predestination it fails.

As I said there is no requirement in God that obligates Him to save any of mankind. He, as the ruler and King of all, can do what He wills with His own. Moreover He doesn't have to predestine those who end up in everlasting damnation to that fate He simply needs to pass them by and leave them in their natural state. Eternal damnation is the default position of all of mankind so for Him to save some is to His glory and honor and the rest just get what they deserve.

 

[Patmos]

Do you think that Calvinists don't believe in choice? If that is what you think you are incorrect. Of course we make choices and we have a will it just isn't a free will and our choices are all according to the purpose of God.

Purpose or plan ?

Your colleague says:

So God created the world without knowing what was going to happen? A plan and a purpose are essentially the same: What He purposes to happen is what He plans to have happen.

 

[twin1954]

John Calvin reminds me of the curious discrepancy in reflecting on what is said to be God's choice of messengers of his word. In cases such as those that think the god of the muslims is the same as our own and that same god then chose the sadistic psychopath muhammad as his prophet. A higher power should know better than to choose a low life to bring divine wisdom to the planets fallen people.

John Calvin was an attorney before he was a pastor. And as a pastor he was a sadist. It is widely believed he had Michael Servetus burned to death at the stake and commanded green wood be used to make his suffering last longer. Because green wood burns much slower.

John Calvin interpreted scriptures to the point that TULIP became a synopsis of the Calvinist tradition.
In essence, God created all people after he predetermined those who'd go to Hell and those who'd find him and arrive in Heaven.
No free will. Which in a sense is a given when God is God.

The Michael Servetus story is a lie created to discredit John Calvin. Servetus was a heretic and at that time it was common to put heretics to death. John Calvin actually pleaded for mercy for Him and visited him in prison several times trying to get him to recant his hersey. Servetus was being hunted as a heretic all over Europe and it was the civil government of Geneva that sentenced him to the stake. John Calvin was no sadist he was a product of his time and culture. The fact that he was a lawyer has no bearing on his character.

If you are going to repeat a story you should at least get the facts. I hope that history doesn't look back on you with such animosity and vehement hatred and tell such lies about you.

 

[twin1954]

Purpose or plan ?

Your colleague says:

I can't answer for Clothedingrace. I am aware that most people don't realize that there is a difference including many Calvinists.

 

[Patmos]

I can't answer for Clothedingrace. I am aware that most people don't realize that there is a difference including many Calvinists.

I believe you are correct.
Thank you, and for backing what you say with Scripture.

 

[twin1954]

I believe you are correct.
Thank you, and for backing what you say with Scripture.

You are welcome. I constantly pray that my theology be shaped by the Spirit in the knowledge of the Scriptures. I am aware that it is very easy to read into the Scriptures our theology and have to fight against it every day.

 

[Sovereign Grace]

↑
Pedrito; of course it is true that God changes the will of the unbeliever by force
Some other quotes :

“The problem with this statement is that it supposes that God forces against our will. That has never been the Calvinist position.”

"As I said before God never refuses any who truly desire to be saved. He never turned any away who came to Him begging mercy. Nor does He drag any kicking and screaming against their will. He makes them willing."

'Force', 'MADE willing', then back to 'force' as in reply to Pedro. So which is it ?


I asked first. I am not surprised by your evasion, disappointed though.


I was not asking you to. I was hoping to kill off the 'context' escape route by quoting a Calvinist web site.

Here is where people's assumptions are wrong. The unregenerate are dead in transgressions and sins(Ephesians 2:1). In Ezekiel 37, Ezekiel comes upon a valley of very dry bones. After he prophesies as God commands him, these bones live again. Now, what will, what choice did they exercise in being brought to life? None. Now, this is an example of how God quickens the dead. Then in John 11, when Jesus calls Lazarus to come forth, he comes forth as he was commanded. When God calls the unregenerate, it is not an invite, such as 'Will you please come to Me?' but rather, 'Come to Me.' It effectually draws them that He draws. Once the unregenerate is quickened, he then exercises his God-given faith and repentance and is saved.

The unregenerate's will is bent towards sin and self. The unregenerate hates all things about God. They are His enemies. Yet, even as enemies, Christ died for them that were His enemies. In proper context, those He tasted death for were His sheep. Once God quickens His enemies, they love Him. I will close with 1 John 4:7...

Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God.

 

[DeaconDean]

Here is where people's assumptions are wrong. The unregenerate are dead in transgressions and sins(Ephesians 2:1). In Ezekiel 37, Ezekiel comes upon a valley of very dry bones. After he prophesies as God commands him, these bones live again. Now, what will, what choice did they exercise in being brought to life? None. Now, this is an example of how God quickens the dead. Then in John 11, when Jesus calls Lazarus to come forth, he comes forth as he was commanded. When God calls the unregenerate, it is not an invite, such as 'Will you please come to Me?' but rather, 'Come to Me.' It effectually draws them that He draws. Once the unregenerate is quickened, he then exercises his God-given faith and repentance and is saved.

The unregenerate's will is bent towards sin and self. The unregenerate hates all things about God. They are His enemies. Yet, even as enemies, Christ died for them that were His enemies. In proper context, those He tasted death for were His sheep. Once God quickens His enemies, they love Him. I will close with 1 John 4:7...

Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God.

Careful there, your sounding like a Calvinist.

You know, those people who make or read into scriptures what they want it to say.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Patmos]

....They are His enemies. Yet, even as enemies, Christ died for them that were His enemies.

Amen

 

[Patmos]

Careful there, your sounding like a Calvinist.

You know, those people who make or read into scriptures what they want it to say.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God.