Why discuss Calvinism vs Arminianism in Evangelism? Starts with Definitions

[GaveMeJoy]

"argument", "divisive" -- True about discussions regarding prayers to the dead, and according to Christ also true about the Gospel in Matthew 10, also true about the Trinity in some circles, also true about prayers to Mary, purgatory, images..the Protestant reformation etc.

Almost every stop that Paul makes in the book of Acts includes some "discussion and argument" at some point.

the difference being nothing productive can come from this discussion. A bible believing and faithful believer on either side shouldn’t live their life any differently regardless of their opinion on this issue.

 

[Josheb]

It certainly makes him the author of sin.

Fail.

WCF 3.1 states,

"God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass:a yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."​

1) God is not the author of sin/.
2) God did no violence to the human will.
3) God did no violence to the liberty or contingency of secondary causes.

Anytime any critic of Calvinism argues something other than above s/he is arguing a straw man.

 

[Josheb]

A distinction without a difference...

It is a most significant difference.

The problem here is what's being argued isn't starting from the starting point.

The original starting point was Eden wherein humanity was made good, unashamed, and sinless.

At Genesis 3:7 every single human aside from Jesus was not-good, ashamed, and sinful. As a consequence of that condition access to the tree of life that is Jesus is prevented. I'm going to repeat that: we are prevented from accessing the tree of life. The reality of having angels set to guard entrance into Eden and access to the tree of life that gives eternal life is figuratively applicable throughout the entire Bible. God selected Abraham and left all other humans ignorant and outside of a covenant relationship He initiated. God selected Israel and left all other nations ignorant and outside of a covenant relationship He initiated. In Isaiah God declared the disobedient covenant-breaking nation blind, deaf, and unknown and prophesied it would remain so when His Messiah came and throughout the gospels we learn that blindness and deafness occurred "lest they repent and be healed".

The Arminian imagines this problem is one of more human cognition and volition but scripture tells us this is due to 1) the tyranny of sin, 2) the determinism of the law (sin brings death), and 3) the determinism of prophetic utterance. Once God said that is who they would be there is simply no way they would or could be any other people (otherwise God would be a liar).

The Arminian argues over whether God is deterministic and neglects the determinism of sin and this is evidenced here in this thread in these posts.

Soteriology does not start at that moment of prevenient grace liberation in which the sinfully and enslaved non-believer is freed to understand and then make a choice. Soteriology begins at 1 Pet. 1:20 and runs through Gen. 3:7. It is at Genesis 3:7 that the following ensues:

John 3:18-20 NIV
"whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed"​

That is the state of humanity prior to salvation, prior to this imaginary point of prevenient liberation.

Humanity stands condemned already. It is the inherent disposition of humanity.
People love darkness.
People do not love light.
People hate the light.
People will not come into the light.​

That is the inherent disposition of all humanity apart from Christ.

It is not and open system.

Scripture tells us this changes when we are in Christ. There is now no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:1). The condemnation persists until one is in Christ. Even then we have been purchased, bought at a price and we are not our own. We have been liberated from slavery to sin but we are made slaves of righteousness.

Unless God saves a person that person will not be made a slave of righteousness and will remain a dead, corrupted, faithless slave of sin. It has been assumed God draws all men to Christ for the purpose of salvation but that is untrue; God draws all to the judgment of the cross but not all will be saved. Many are called but few are chosen and there isn't a single verse in the entire Bible that explicitly attributes the cause closeness to the volition/will/choice of the sinfully dead and enslaved non-believer.




The gospel is not an open system and my dissent is not a distinction without a difference.

 

[renniks]

think that God is the standard, God makes the rules and defines what holiness is. So whatever God does, it is holy.

So God can cause every sin by his secret will, while telling us he is Holy?

These six things the Lord hates, yes, seven are an abomination to Him: A proud look, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that are swift in running to evil, a false witness who speaks lies, and one who sows discord among brethren” (Proverbs 6:16-19).

Yet in Calvinism, God secretly causes everything he claims to hate.

 

[renniks]

God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass:a

If this is correct, then God is the author of sin, and the next part only attempts to explain that away, but fails.

 

[Josheb]

the difference being nothing productive can come from this discussion. A bible believing and faithful believer on either side shouldn’t live their life any differently regardless of their opinion on this issue.

Hmmm... I don't think that's wholly correct, GaveMeJoy.

The repercussions of these two paradigms, monergism and synergism, is significant. Scripture tells us that a man is as he thinks and it is out of the abundance of our hearts that we speak (and act). If I believe my volition is untainted by sin then that drives my thinking and my behavior. If I believe my volition is adversely affected by sin but there remains something of it by which I might seek God in my own might then that belief drives my thinking and behavior. If I believe there is a point at which God has liberated my knowledge and will and I am then free to not-choose God then that creates a state where I can claim to know God but not be saved (where are these people?) If I believe I chose God and it because of my choice that I am saved then I am a causal part in my own salvation and that will drive my thinking and behavior. If I believe God and God alone changed me in spite of myself and it is only after that divine act of gracious change that I can do anything then that belief drives my thinking and behavior.

In other words, these various positions on salvation create a spectrum ranging from the wholly human-centric to the wholly God-centric view of life. You've couched the idea no distinction in behavior will exist if one is believing the Bible faithfully but it is what we believe about the Bible that makes a difference and sometimes that difference is indeed significant.

I'll give you an example removed from soteriology and give you two other examples, one from ecclesiology and the other from eschatology. If you believe the church is corrupt then a works-based view of the church will develop and measure various congregations will be measured specifically for the purpose of deciding whether or not they qualify as the church or not. Whereas if you believe there is only one church, the body of Christ, the ekklesia and Christ and his body are never corrupt then it will be understood the problems within the body are part of the process by which unity, maturity, and Christ-likeness are manifested in each generation. Similarly, if the eschatological position is that the world is literally going to go to hell in a hand basket any day now, and the church is going to be impotent and in need of rescue and can do nothing to effect eternally significant change in God's creation then there is no need to save for college funds or retirement because you're not going to be around to spend that treasure and good stewardship warrants it be spent in a manner consistent with imminency. Alternatively, if the eschatology understands God is going to be victorious without having to destroy His own creation and He is going to work through the church to realize His desire as articulated in commands like the cultural mandate and the great commission then an entirely different view of life, future, and work ethic ensues.

 

[Peter J Barban]

So God can cause every sin by his secret will, while telling us he is Holy?

These six things the Lord hates, yes, seven are an abomination to Him: A proud look, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that are swift in running to evil, a false witness who speaks lies, and one who sows discord among brethren” (Proverbs 6:16-19).

Yet in Calvinism, God secretly causes everything he claims to hate.

OK, I'm going to bow out of this thread. Thank you for attention.

 

[Josheb]

If this is correct, then God is the author of sin, and the next part only attempts to explain that away, but fails.

Here's your argument, renniks:

God is not the Author of sin.
Yes, He is.
No, He is not.
Yes, He is.
No, He is not.
Yes, He is.
No, He is not.
Yes, He is.
No, He is not.
Yes, He is.
No, He is not.



That is not an argument for or against anything. It is an argument for foolishness on part of those who think circular arguments prove something. Don't be that guy. You have to actually show up with a reasonable and rational case of scripture and/or logic, and that has not been done.

You are arguing a straw man. Calvinism does not view God as the Author of sin. He created a world in which unrealized dialectic potentials existed. He created humans corruptIBLE, not already-corruptED. That's a very big and important difference between God making humans already corruptED or making them NOT-corrupted and then making them corruptED.


Any god can make action figures who say and do only that which they are made to say and do. It is a much more powerful God Who creates volitional creatures and remains sovereign over an interactive creation even after the creation becomes corrupted.

God ordained all that comes to pass without causing sin and without violating human will and without strict determinism. Anything else is not Calvinism.

And if you think you know Calvinism better than Calvinists and the doctrinal statements of that soteriology then it is incumbent upon you to show up with something more than, "If this is correct, then God is the author of sin, and the next part only attempts to explain that away, but fails."

 

[renniks]

You are arguing a straw man. Calvinism does not view God as the Author of sin. He created a world in which unrealized dialectic potentials existed.

Um, no, there are no potentials in a world where everything is already decided. That's what the confession states, that everything was already decided, and not because God foresaw what people would do.

 

[renniks]

God ordained all that comes to pass without causing sin and without violating human will and without strict determinism. Anything else is not Calvinism.

No, I think that burdens on you to prove how that's possible. If everything is pre decided by the universe, we have atheistic. determinism. If everything is pre decided by God we have theistic determinism.
All the confession does is state that is not so, when logically, it clearly is. It doesn't explain how it is not so.

 

[renniks]

Here's your argument, renniks:

God is not the Author of sin.
Yes, He is.
No, He is not.
Yes, He is.
No, He is not.
Yes, He is.
No, He is not.
Yes, He is.
No, He is not.
Yes, He is.
No, He is not.



That is not an argument for or against anything. It is an argument for foolishness on part of those who think circular arguments prove something. Don't be that guy. You have to actually show up with a reasonable and rational case of scripture and/or logic, and that has not been done.

You are arguing a straw man. Calvinism does not view God as the Author of sin. He created a world in which unrealized dialectic potentials existed. He created humans corruptIBLE, not already-corruptED. That's a very big and important difference between God making humans already corruptED or making them NOT-corrupted and then making them corruptED.


Any god can make action figures who say and do only that which they are made to say and do. It is a much more powerful God Who creates volitional creatures and remains sovereign over an interactive creation even after the creation becomes corrupted.

God ordained all that comes to pass without causing sin and without violating human will and without strict determinism. Anything else is not Calvinism.

And if you think you know Calvinism better than Calvinists and the doctrinal statements of that soteriology then it is incumbent upon you to show up with something more than, "If this is correct, then God is the author of sin, and the next part only attempts to explain that away, but fails."

"Your Honor, we maintain that Josheb is not responsible for the bank robbery"

Judge: "Did Josheb plan the robbery?"

"Well, yes, he did.

Judge: "Did he not , in fact, program the robots that committed the robbery? "

"Yes, he did."

Judge: "Then how on God's green earth can you claim he is not responsible for it?"

"Secondary causes, your Honor. He used secondary causes."

Judge: "So? He planned it, he executed it, he caused it, yet your claim he's not responsible because he used robots instead of personally walking into the bank? How can you make such an absurd claim?"

"Well, we got together, voted on it and wrote it down."

Judge: "You wrote it down? Why was I not informed of this? Of course, that changes everything! Case dismissed!"

 

[Ilikecats]

"Your Honor, we maintain that Josheb is not responsible for the bank robbery"

Judge: "Did Josheb plan the robbery?"

"Well, yes, he did.

Judge: "Did he not , in fact, program the robots that committed the robbery? "

"Yes, he did."

Judge: "Then how on God's green earth can you claim he is not responsible for it?"

"Secondary causes, your Honor. He used secondary causes."

Judge: "So? He planned it, he executed it, he caused it, yet your claim he's not responsible because he used robots instead of personally walking into the bank? How can you make such an absurd claim?"

"Well, we got together, voted on it and wrote it down."

Judge: "You wrote it down? Why was I not informed of this? Of course, that changes everything! Case dismissed!"

Why do you think predetermining equates into a robot? Have you ever made a robot? Calvinism in no way takes away the will of a man. It’s just not free. Robots have no will. Humans do.

 

[renniks]

Calvinism in no way takes away the will of a man. It’s just not free.

Contradiction alert! Do we make free choices or don't we?

 

[Ilikecats]

Contradiction alert! Do we make free choices or don't we?

You make choices. It’s not free. Why does choice imply freedom?

 

[renniks]

You make choices. It’s not free. Why does choice imply freedom?

If it's not free, it's not really a choice.
It's just the illusion of a choice.
If I tell you you had the choice between ice cream and potatoes, but I pre program you to only eat potatoes, then you really don't have a choice.

 

[Ilikecats]

If it's not free, it's not really a choice.
It's just the illusion of a choice.
If I tell you you had the choice between ice cream and potatoes, but I pre program you to only eat potatoes, then you really don't have a choice.

Well you’re programmed to eat certain things anyway. You can’t eat poisonous or rotting food. And many people have their favourite food that they would choose over another. There isn’t a 50 50 I can choose this or that usually.

 

[renniks]

Well you’re programmed to eat certain things anyway. You can’t eat poisonous or rotting food. And many people have their favourite food that they would choose over another. There isn’t a 50 50 I can choose this or that usually.

But you totally missed the point.
Calvinist teach that certain people are irresistibly chosen for salvation. And others are irresistibly chosen for damnation, or just passed over, if one is squeamish, but it's the same thing.
So where do you see true choices in that system?

 

[Ilikecats]

But you totally missed the point.
Calvinist teach that certain people are irresistibly chosen for salvation. And others are irresistibly chosen for damnation, or just passed over, if one is squeamish, but it's the same thing.
So where do you see true choices in that system?

There is no choice on your part for God. He chooses whosoever he will. What’s a choice? A choice is declaring that you want something more than another. Is God partial? (Edit) Yes. Of course. He chooses as is evident in the Bible. God wants all that he saves more then the ones that he doesn’t. Why? God only knows.

 

[renniks]

There is no choice on your part for God. He chooses whosoever he will. What’s a choice? A choice is declaring that you want something more than another. Is God partial? No. Of course not. He chooses as is evident in the Bible. God wants all that he saves more then the ones that he doesn’t. Why? God only knows.

Not according to scripture. Why would we be told the atonement was for all, if it wasn't?

"gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time."

And you again contradict yourself.

"is God partial? No. Of course not. He chooses as is evident in the Bible. God wants all that he saves more then the ones that he doesn’t. Why? God only knows."

If he chooses the ones you say he wants more than the others, that is indeed partiality.

 

[Ilikecats]

Not according to scripture. Why would we be told the atonement was for all, if it wasn't?

"gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time."

And you again contradict yourself.

"is God partial? No. Of course not. He chooses as is evident in the Bible. God wants all that he saves more then the ones that he doesn’t. Why? God only knows."

If he chooses the ones you say he wants more than the others, that is indeed partiality.

Oh sorry I mean that God is partial. But if the ransom for all is for all then why is not everyone saved?