Why the early church fathers don't put scripture in a systematic way? I don't believe they pick books or passage by random.
Hence I think calvinisms or arminianims is both system of error. I try to take what the scripture said at face value, put my logic below what the scripture says although it seems inconsistent.
For example when the scripture says salvation is of the Lord, nothing we can do about it, it's all Christ's merit. But Paul says work of our salvation, I also accept it, I won't abuse God's grace by doing evils. Another example, when the scripture says God so loved the world I see it as the whole world, Christ is the savior of all I accept it. But when scripture says christ die for his sheep and church I amen also.
If we accept either arminianims or calvininsms I have to accept the church fathers are dumb and failed to put the scripture in a consistent way. If a calvinist come to me and show his system I can easily point him to another great thinker who's arminian to argue with him..
Hence I think calvinisms or arminianims is both system of error. I try to take what the scripture said at face value, put my logic below what the scripture says although it seems inconsistent.
For example when the scripture says salvation is of the Lord, nothing we can do about it, it's all Christ's merit. But Paul says work of our salvation, I also accept it, I won't abuse God's grace by doing evils. Another example, when the scripture says God so loved the world I see it as the whole world, Christ is the savior of all I accept it. But when scripture says christ die for his sheep and church I amen also.
If we accept either arminianims or calvininsms I have to accept the church fathers are dumb and failed to put the scripture in a consistent way. If a calvinist come to me and show his system I can easily point him to another great thinker who's arminian to argue with him..