Why discuss Calvinism vs Arminianism in Evangelism? Starts with Definitions

Phil W said:

In as few words as possible...here goes.
I turned from all sin, permanently. Repentance.
I was washed of my old sins at my baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.
I received the gift of the Holy Ghost, as promised by Peter in Acts 2:38.
Having crucified the flesh, (Rom 6:3-7), with the affections and lusts, (Gal 5:24), it is within my power, by the grace of God, to keep my eyes focused on the prize, with remembrance of all the suffering and death Jesus endured so we too can partake in His victory over sin.
I pray and read every day. I study so as to insure I continue to grow in grace and knowledge daily.
I reach out to those in need, aware of so many that aren't as well off as I.
By giving, I receive.

BTW, I am not the first to believe all that is written, or to love God above all else, or to love my neighbor as myself.

Click to expand...

You are not the first, Phil. You are the second, though.

jimmyjimmy said:

You are not the first, Phil. You are the second, though.

Click to expand...

Not the second either.
Faith cometh by hearing, and I heard the good news about freedom from sin...and its punishments, many years ago from Godly men at a church in San Diego, Cal.

Phil W said:

Not the second either.
Faith cometh by hearing, and I heard the good news about freedom from sin...and its punishments, many years ago from Godly men at a church in San Diego, Cal.

Click to expand...

You are right. Not the second. Not the second, because there is only One who is sinless. Christ is sinless. You are not.

jimmyjimmy said:

You are right. Not the second. Not the second, because there is only One who is sinless. Christ is sinless. You are not.

Click to expand...

Because God, through Christ, has provided us a way to kill the old man and be reborn of Godly seed we can be free from sin.
Rebirth provides a new identity; a new nature that is able to love God above all else and love our neighbors as one's self all the time.
It is an escape from temptations of the flesh.

Dave L said:

The legalistic job offer gospel puts God in debt to save the worker.

Click to expand...

Has not God made himself a debtor by his own promises in Christ?

I do not see this as reducing the sovereignty of God when you place predestination in Christ [where it should be] and not in ourselves. There is nothing in me that is worth saving, I know this full well since Christ saved me ere I learned to choose; yet I did choose, after he revealed, and I learned, what he had done in me.

It is not me who said, "If I come to him he cannot cast me out," but he who said, "Whoever come to me I will in no wise cast out."

I still do not see this "legalistic job offer" you speak of, therefore I cannot rule out the need to choose, however you make that choice.

Mark Quayle said:

But one thing he did say to me, though I never realized it contradicted the "decision" mentality of my mother's kin until much later, "Some people just come to know the Lord --it doesn't necessarily have to relate to a particular point in time."

Click to expand...

.

I met a Lutheran who would have stated it this way once and I believe there is some truth in it because a one time decision does not bring knowledge but recognition. After this we speak of growing in grace.

However knowledge comes by learning and learning by decisions of the will or choices we make if you would have it that way, and so it cannot take away from the freedom of choice.

No, no on can take away from the command of God, Except you believe in Jesus you will not be saved. This is God's will, not mine.

OF course I will openly testify that when I came to such knowledge no other choice seemed conceivable. Could I have chosen differently? As far as I determined, no; but I suppose to a bystander I was at a fork in the road. I never even noticed there was another way, but the Scripture reveals there is.

Since I believe that salvation is of the Lord I am happily to gratefully concede that I was not left to my own demise of saving myself but that the Holy Spirit drove me in the direction I needed to go.

Up to that point I was learning of God, and showing determination to go his way, since my parents were both believers in Jesus Christ.

I do believe that salvation is the work of God through his Holy Spirit and not of man. That is why I pray that the Lord will lead people to salvation for they will not come on their own. This is why I do not believe in freewill. God did give us freedom of choice but I do not believe he left us in the demise of making that choice but sent Jesus and the Holy Spirit to bring us to him.

Yes, I make a choice, but that choice is not of my own making because no one becomes a child of God by the will of man nor the will of the flesh.

BobRyan said:

1. Matthew 23 does not say "would not because you could not".
2. Matt 23 shows Christ's will "How I WANTED to..." and the opposing will "but YOU would not"

Click to expand...

The verse does not say another's will prevented him. You cannot have it both ways, Bob. You cannot say, "The verse does not say......" if you are not willing to apply that exact same standard to your own position. You cannot say, "The verse does not say...." if you're not willing to have me call you on your own dross. The verse says they were unwilling to be gathered, not Jesus was prevented from gathering them. It most definitely does not say their will is greater than God's will and their will therefore prevented God from doing God's will. That interpretation contradicts the truth of God's omnipotence and subjugates God to humans - rebellious humans.

Arminius never believed such a condition. That interpretation would even contradict Arminius. So don't be trying to find flaws in monergism if you're not first willing to look at the huge gaping hole in your own psition. Log, not speck.


I believe I explained how and why the verse is to be understood to say, they would not because they could not. Yes, it is true the verse does not state "They would not because they could not," but that is nonetheless what it means when considered in the light of whole scripture.

Here's what the verse states in its context: Jesus has just judged and convicted the scribes and Pharisees for a long history of repeated and diverse wrongdoing, including the past and future killing of God's prophets, Son, and apostles. The law required a life for a life. The destruction that had long been prophesied was coming upon them, and it would come upon them in their generation. The blood of the prohpets was on their hands. This is the context in which Jesus states the following,

[/indent]

That is what the verse states.

There's nothing in the verse stating anything about any way out of the judgment just leveled against them. There's nothing in the verse stating there was any way out of the sentence coming upon them. There is certainly nothing in the verse stating anything about their changing their will or making another choice to escape the judgment/sentencing. Nothing.

All of that is an argument from silence so we ask ourselves, "What do these verses state, and what can they exegetically be understood to properly say?" because they exegetically cannot be made to say what you make them say.

What Jesus is saying is rooted in the OT prophets. Throughout the Matthew narrative (which encompasses almost five whole chapters from Matthews gospel - Mt. 23:18 to Mt. 26:5) Jesus is repeatedly referencing a variety of OT prophets. Throughout that day Jesus has been telling his various audiences that the things the prophets spoke about were coming true, coming to fulfillment, right then and their in their time, their day and age. God had prophesied and the prophesies were now coming true in the New Testament era. In other words, those scribes, Sadducees, and Pharisees were the guys about whom God was referring when God spoke prophetically about His judgment coming a future faithless people! Jesus Matthew 24 audience were those guys.

When God speaks prophetically what He says must come true. If it doesn't come true then God is speaking falsely and God does not speak falsely, nor does He lie. So when He spoke centuries earlier in the days of Isaiah and Jeremiah and Amos and Joel and the rest of those OT prophets there was going to be a group of people that were gonna be those guys. There is no way there wasn't going to not be those guys. The scribes and Pharisees were those guys. They were the guys Jesus had earlier reported were ever seeing but never perceiving, ever hearing but never understanding "lest the repent and be healed."

That does not mean they did not also choose to be that way but it does mean their will didn't have any ability to prevent God from doing what God wanted and intended to do.

And that was what you were arguing. The verse is NOT and example of human volitional agency. Furthermore, the verse is eschatological, not soteriological.

I've got to go now but I will return to address the other items you listed. In the interim get out your Bible and read Matthew 21:18 through Matthew 26:5 and verify what I have just posted. There is nothing in Matthew 23:37 saying what you say the verse says.

And the onus was on you. You were asked for a verse asserting volitional agency soteriologically, and Mt. 23:37 does not do that.

Llewelyn Stevenson said:

Has not God made himself a debtor by his own promises in Christ?

I do not see this as reducing the sovereignty of God when you place predestination in Christ [where it should be] and not in ourselves. There is nothing in me that is worth saving, I know this full well since Christ saved me ere I learned to choose; yet I did choose, after he revealed, and I learned, what he had done in me.

It is not me who said, "If I come to him he cannot cast me out," but he who said, "Whoever come to me I will in no wise cast out."

I still do not see this "legalistic job offer" you speak of, therefore I cannot rule out the need to choose, however you make that choice.

Click to expand...

The point is, law cannot save. Neither can a legalistic gospel.

BobRyan said:

2. Matt 23 shows Christ's will "How I WANTED to..." and the opposing will "but YOU would not"

Click to expand...

Yes, and why would the scribes' and Pharisees' not allow their children to be gathered?

Fundamentally, what is it that causes the unfaithfulness found in the scribe and Pharisees, and the notion of Israel as a whole? What is it that causes the rebellion and disobedience for which they'd be judged?

Sin.

Matthew 23:37 is not about volitional fre agency. Those people were bound in sin and could not come to God, and I quoted Arminius informing you of that fact. In the sinful state man can do nothing good. He cannot and does not come to God for salvation unless God has acted in that individual's life to that effect. That is Arminian soteriology.

So unless and until you show some evidence from Matthew 23 that God was acting in the individual lives of those scribes and Pharisees to save them then you haven't made your case AND it's not only the proof-texted verse of Mt. 23:37 that's being abused but Arminian soteriology.

And as to Isaiah 5:4 that one is simple. God could have done something more. We know God could have done something more because He did do something more! He sent His Son. And. again, we have the problem of you inserting something into the verse it doesn't actually state all the while complaining the verse doesn't say what others say it says. The Isaiah text does not report God was bound or in any way prevented from saving them because the sinner's will was stronger than His will.

I'm off to church but I'll address the other two verses later.

BobRyan said:

1. Matthew 23 does not say "would not because you could not".
2. Matt 23 shows Christ's will "How I WANTED to..." and the opposing will "but YOU would not"
3. Isaiah 5:4 "what MORE could I have done than what I have already done?"
4. 2 Peter 3 "God is now WILLING that any should perish"
5. John 1:11 "He came to His OWN and His OWN received Him not"

Click to expand...

Let's clarify this branch of the conversation. All the way back in post#462 it was stated,
And my response was a plain and simple, "Prove it," and I explained specifically what it was that warranted proving.

Both before and after this request for the case claiming free will provides a level of independence it was assert Matt 23 is evidence of evangelism. Posts #399 and 466 both contain this statement,
As I have already explained, the Matthew 23 passage is not an episode of evangelization; it is an episode of judgment - judgment following the repeated rejection of evangelization! It is an episode of judgment followign the repeated blatant rejection of the Messiah.

There's not a single word in verse 37 nor in the entire chapter about evangelization!

So, Bob, you've got not one but three problems in your exegesis of Matthew 23:37. First, the verse is being proof-texted. Second, the verse says nothing about evangelism. Third, the verse says nothing about free will.



There's another problem. This next problem area I'm about to cite is important and for that reason I will re-post what follows in a separate post so it can be discussed apart from Matthew 23:37.

I have shown how Arminius held to the concept of what we now call "total depravity" and his view of the sinful human's sinfully corrupted will was identical to that of Augustine's. I quoted Arminius emphatically stating we can do nothing apart from Christ in the sinful state to effect salvation. I showed Arminius quoting Augustine. I linked everyone to the writings of Arminius so that all he wrote on the matter of the will of the sinfully dead and enslaved person could be read and verified.

I did my part.

Arminius stated quite plainly that in the sinful state, "the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost." I'm gonna repeat that: in the sinful state the free will of man towards the true good is destroyed. That's what he stated. Not only did Arminius teach the sinful human's will was destrooyed in its ability to do "the true good," but Arminius further stated, "its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers." The will of the sinful human is destroyed and powerless in regards to its ability to do the true good. That's what Arminius stated. That's not what I made Arminius to say; that Arminius in Arminius' own words. To support his position Arminiuis appealed to Augustine and John 15:15.

I quoted the Arminius text and I linked everyone to the source material. There is, therefore no excuse for not accepting this evidence. Nor is there any excuse for arguing something other than this and then claiming to be Arminian.

The reason this is not importantly relevant is because those four verses you've cited, Bob, must be read in a manner consistent with what Arminius taught! In other words, When reading Matthew 23:37 it must be understood that the people about whom Jesus is speaking have a will that is destroyed and powerless, and incapable of doing the true good.

Anything else is not Arminian.

The same condition holds when reading Isaiah 5:4! The people to whom God is speaking are sinful so their free will is destroyed and powerless in its ability to do the true good. Anything else is inconsistent with what Arminius taught.

The same holds true for John 1:11. The people to whom God came were sinful people. They were sinful, unfaithful Jews living in an unfaithful sinless state despite their living within a covenant relationship initiated by God. The people about whom John was writing were sinful so their free will is destroyed and powerless in its ability to do the true good. Anything else is inconsistent with what Arminius taught.


The point is this: whenever any Arminian reads scripture it is incumbent upon that Arminian to read the scripture from the point of view consistent with what Arminius taught about the human will in the sinful state: it is destroyed and powerless in its ability to do the true good, in its ability to come to God through Christ in its own might. This is how the Arminian must read Isaiah 5:4, Matthew 23:37, and John 1:11 and all other scriptures pertaining to the unsaved and non-believing if the Arminian is to be consistent with Arminianism!


And you, Bob, have not been consistent. You have not been consistent with scripture. You have not been consistent with Arminius, and you haven't been consistent within your own posts.

Arminius stated quite plainly that in the sinful state, "the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost." I'm gonna repeat that: in the sinful state the free will of man towards the true good is destroyed. That's what he stated. Not only did Arminius teach the sinful human's will was destrooyed in its ability to do "the true good," but Arminius further stated, "its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers." The will of the sinful human is destroyed and powerless in regards to its ability to do the true good. That's what Arminius stated. That's not what I made Arminius to say; that Arminius in Arminius' own words. To support his position Arminius appealed to Augustine and John 15:15.

The reason this is not importantly relevant is because those four verses you've cited, Bob, must be read in a manner consistent with what Arminius taught! In other words, When reading Matthew 23:37 it must be understood that the people about whom Jesus is speaking have a will that is destroyed and powerless, and incapable of doing the true good.

Anything else is not Arminianism.

The same condition holds when reading Isaiah 5:4! The people to whom God is speaking are sinful so their free will is destroyed and powerless in its ability to do the true good. Anything else is inconsistent with what Arminius taught. The same holds true for John 1:11. The people to whom God came were sinful people. They were sinful, unfaithful Jews living in an unfaithful sinless state despite their living within a covenant relationship initiated by God. The people about whom John was writing were sinful so their free will is destroyed and powerless in its ability to do the true good. Anything else is inconsistent with what Arminius taught.


The overarching point is this: whenever any Arminian reads scripture it is incumbent upon that Arminian to read the scripture from the point of view consistent with what Arminius taught about the human will in the sinful state: it is destroyed and powerless in its ability to do the true good, in its ability to come to God through Christ in its own might.

Anything else is not Arminianism.

BobRyan said:

4. 2 Peter 3 "God is now WILLING that any should perish"

Click to expand...

God isn't willing that none should perish. There's nothing in that verse (2 Pet. 3:9) about the will of the sinfully dead and enslaved non-believer, though. Didn't I already address this post? Hmmmm..... perhaps not. Let's take a look at the passage and examine it as written.


Note first what Peter says is what we should know "first of all." What we should not first of all is that what he's describing is conditions relevant to "the last days." In other words, like the Matthew 23 passage this text is eschatological, not soteriological. Conflating the two is an error in exegesis. Yes, perhaps there is some figurative aspects in which God saving some on the "day of the Lord" is soteriological, but Peter is not specifically writing about evangelism and the doctrine of salvation from sin.

Note also that Peter had previously told his readers they were living in the last times. In 1 Peter 1:20 he stated, Jesus was, "foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you who through Him are believers in God..."

Not only was Peter writing about the last days but he was also writing to believers about believers! He was not writing about non-believers.

So.... 2 Pet. 3:9 is not about evangelization as was previously claimed. Neither is 2 Pet. 3:9 specifically about the free will of the non-believing sinner.

If we examine the passage to see to whom Peter was writing and about whom Peter was writing we see in the opening of the letter he was writing "To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ..." He was not writing to non-believers. When we examine chapter 3 we find Peter is talking about those who mock God and deny God's promises of return. Peter states quite plainly, "Don't let this escape your notice..." Who is the "your" in that psentence? Is it regenerate believers, or is it unregenerate non-believers to whom he is writing? Peter is saying God has not forgotten what He promised and He is not delaying. The day of the Lord is coming so "what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness..."? Who is the "you" in that verse? Is it the regenerate believer to whom he is writing, or is it the unregenerate non-believer to whom he is not writing?

So who is it that God does not want to perish? Is it the regenerate believer who He has saved from sin and wrath, or is it the unregenerate non-believer who has rejected the appearing Messiah in those last days and times? Who is Peter evangelizing? Regenerate believers to remain faithful or unregenerate unbelievers who rejected Jesus to accept Jesus?

Given the evidence contained in the greater passage we see that Peter is writing as a regenerate believer to regenerate believers about regenerate believers and he is writing with implicit urgency about events soon to occur in the last days of those last times.


."





Remember: what we are talking about is the premise of evangelism from an Arminian pov and the premise sinfully dead and enslaved non-believing unregenerate humans have some form of soteriologicaly salient volitional agency and these verses prove those two positions.

Dave L said:

The point is, law cannot save. Neither can a legalistic gospel.

Click to expand...

Define for me "a legalistic gospel" that I may understand your argument.

In your church, how do you present the gospel and how are you aware that your listeners have responded positively?

Josheb said:

Arminius taught about the human will in the sinful state: it is destroyed and powerless in its ability to do the true good, in its ability to come to God through Christ in its own might.

Click to expand...

How is this different from Calvanism?

Llewelyn Stevenson said:

Define for me "a legalistic gospel" that I may understand your argument.

In your church, how do you present the gospel and how are you aware that your listeners have responded positively?

Click to expand...

The legalistic gospel is the most popular today. It is an "offer" for salvation for all who accept the terms and act on them. Just like any job offer.

The true gospel in contrast is an "announcement" or preaching to those who believe the message they are hearing, that they have eternal life. Followed by instruction to repent and become baptized.

Law cannot save so I question if the "job offer" gospel saves people any more than the Law could save.

Llewelyn Stevenson said:

How is this different from Calvanism?

Click to expand...

Llewelyn, my dear brother in Christ, have you been participating in the discussion of this op prior to this post? Have you read any of the exchanges I've had with Bob and others in this op?

If so, then it has been noted that I have - several times - pointed out the commonality between Calvinism and Arminianism on the matter of total depravity. If my previous posts in this op were read then the evidence showing Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Arminius, and Wesley were all in agreement on this point and only the Pelagian differs. If any of my prior posts in which that point was made have been read then.... you are asking a question already answered and addressed.

And I am belaboring the point now because I don't want to start in another conversation in which I have to unnecessarily repeat already posted content because the other poster didn't read the posts.

Arminius' position on the soteriological depravty of humanity is no different than Calvin's!

The op has several flaws in it and I have endeavored to address a few of them so there are three or for threads within this op on different concerns. An introductory expression of my concerns with this op begins in my op-reply in post#73, where you will find me noting the commonality of all mainstream soteriological views on the topic of total depravity. I noted how the single two most frequently occurring problems in any discussion of soteriology is 1) the poster not correctly understanding his own soteriology and/or that of the other paradigms, and 2) not properly exegeting scripture, all of which has happened in the posts exchanged with me here in this op. Most importantly, I noted hos the biggest exegetical errors occur because single verses are proof-texted, the contexts in which those single verses occur is ignored, and folks take verses that were written to covenant people or regenerate believers and they try to apply them to unregenerate non-believers. These posts are rife with that error and not a single poster committing that error has acknowledged the error or repented of the practice! Even in the most obvious and undeniable of examples!

The op states the op is about "definitions" but many of its definitions are incorrect. Some are correct, but many are not. Arminianism is not an open system, at least not until God acts to make the closed system of sin open. Because of total depravity all soteriological systems are closed, and that includes Calvinism. If you go back and re-read the op then you will readily see the op cites scripture after scripture that was written by, to, and about regenerate believers and it attempts to apply them to the unregenerate non-believer. Every single one of those deserves re-examination. The problem is there are some many of them the discussion will be enormous.

And here you are jumping into the middle of an op that's already got more than 500 posts in it. Bless you.

If you wish to discuss anything relevant to this op with me I am amenable but I'm not interested or willing to unnecessarily repeat already-posted content.






Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Arminius, and Wesley were all adherents of what we now call "total depravity," the condition in which humans are not so corrupted that they cannot do good, only that they are so corrupted that they cannot and do not have the ability to come to God for salvation or act in any manner that is soteriologically good. And I provided proof, not mere evidence but proof Arminius held to that position. So any self-styled Arminian not reading scripture that way isn't actually Arminian; s/he's Pelagian.

Dave L said:

The legalistic gospel is the most popular today. It is an "offer" for salvation for all who accept the terms and act on them. Just like any job offer.

The true gospel in contrast is an "announcement" or preaching to those who believe the message they are hearing, that they have eternal life. Followed by instruction to repent and become baptized.

Law cannot save so I question if the "job offer" gospel saves people any more than the Law could save.

Click to expand...

I fail to follow the logic of this, it appears circular, but it may influence the way you preach the gospel. In both your reasonings I still see a need to obey the gospel.

"Salvation for all who accept the terms and act on them" is how it is presented in the gospels, yet it is also an announcement of the gift of God.

I fail to see why people cannot perceive what is plainly shown: there is no salvation without Christ. Therefore God gave the gift of salvation in his son Jesus Christ through his death and resurrection. The Father predestined salvation through Jesus Christ alone. That is the foundation of predestination and there is none other. I am not saved because God knew me from the foundation of the earth. I am saved because I come to the Father through Jesus Christ.

Jesus said, "No one comes to the Father except through me."

He did not say, "No one comes to the Father except he knew them from the foundation of the world," or, "since the beginning."

This is another gospel and not the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Josheb said:

Llewelyn, my dear brother in Christ, have you been participating in the discussion of this op prior to this post? Have you read any of the exchanges I've had with Bob and others in this op?

Click to expand...

Thank you, Josh. I did not mean for you to repeat yourself. I am trying to understand why there should need to be such a discussion as this if there was such an agreement.

I was not looking for you to re-establish what you said, I was looking for the "I beg to differ..." in regards to your statement.

If they all agree that there is nothing in man that would lead him to salvation, or even to consider it, why contend over something that is agreed on?

Perhaps I should ask, what, then, is the point of all this discussion?

Llewelyn Stevenson said:

I fail to follow the logic of this, it appears circular, but it may influence the way you preach the gospel. In both your reasonings I still see a need to obey the gospel.

"Salvation for all who accept the terms and act on them" is how it is presented in the gospels, yet it is also an announcement of the gift of God.

I fail to see why people cannot perceive what is plainly shown: there is no salvation without Christ. Therefore God gave the gift of salvation in his son Jesus Christ through his death and resurrection. The Father predestined salvation through Jesus Christ alone. That is the foundation of predestination and there is none other. I am not saved because God knew me from the foundation of the earth. I am saved because I come to the Father through Jesus Christ.

Jesus said, "No one comes to the Father except through me."

He did not say, "No one comes to the Father except he knew them from the foundation of the world," or, "since the beginning."

This is another gospel and not the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Click to expand...

If you take any job offer and change the benefits to salvation, you have today's popular gospel. It amounts to so much pay for so much work. It has nothing to do with salvation by grace