Shades of Calvinism vs. the Gospel

SaintCody777 · Jun 19, 2020

Arminianism has it's their own shades too, like Calvinism.

1) Classical Arminianism- This is what I hold to. Founded by Jacob Arminius himself, who was a co-worker of one of Calvin's disciples, but then discovered and pondered upon free will in the Bible. But, this doctrine may have been taught earlier within the Anabaptist movement and even the Waldensians. Contrary to what Calvinists think, Arminius taught total depravity. He said "In this 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. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace. For Christ has said, “Without me ye can do nothing.” St. Augustine, after having diligently meditated upon each word in this passage, speaks thus: “Christ does not say, without me ye can do but Little; neither does He say, without me ye can do any Arduous Thing, nor without me ye can do it with difficulty. But he says, without me ye can do Nothing! Nor does he say, without me ye cannot complete any thing; but without me ye can do Nothing.” In other words, the only reason why men have a free-will to choose whether or not to follow Christ is because of previnent grace from Calvary. Nuetral on OSAS, but many Remonstrants rejected it. Classical Arminianism was/is not really that common. It mostly prevails among the Free Will/General Baptists and maybe some of the Assemblies of God. Roger Olsen is a Southern Baptist theologian who believes this sorietology.
The reason why I believe Classical Arminianism is most represented by the Bible is that man is totally depraved and dead in his sins, unless God bestows previnent enabling grace to him. We are justified by faith through grace alone apart from works, with Christ's perfect righteousness imputed to those who trust in Him (Ephesians 2:8; Romans 4:5-6; Romans 5:12). And as I said in my earlier post in this form, God commands all men everywhere to repent. This command is clear throughout the Bible. What's the point of giving common grace to unbelievers if they are not going to choose Christ anyways?

2) Wesleyan Arminianism- A modified Arminianism by John Wesley. It teaches the second grace. Meaning that in addition to imputed righteousness, Wesleyan Arminianism teaches entire sanctification, that a Christian can be free of stumbling with willful sin for the rest of his life as long as he preserves. Strictly believes that salvation can be lost but can be regained. This sorietology is held by Methodists/Wesleyans, outside the UMC, and some, but not all, Holiness and/or Pentecostals, like the Church of the Nazarenes.
My comment: Although Christ died not just to save us from the penalty of our sins, but also from our grip and bondage to our sins (Ephesians 2:9, Romans 6, 1 John), are bodies are still struggling with sins (Romans 7, Noah got drunk, Moses did something that kept him out of the promise land, and many other saints stumbled with sins, sometimes horrifying ones), just as how Christians on Earth can still get sick and die. However, with God's help, we can mature to being better believers walking in the fear of God and getting better a tackling and avoiding our sins or anything that can easily lead to it (1 Corinthians 3:1-4, 1 John:1-2, 2 Timothy 4:7, Philippians 2:12-13).

Most people who call themselves "Arminian" nowadays, are either actually semi-Pelagian, which affirms original sin, but NOT total depravity, or even full-blown Pelagian, which denies original sin entirely. It is the dominant soreitology of our churches today. This is why many Calvinists associate Arminius and Arminianism with semi-Pelagianism or Pelagianism. This is not helped by the fact that the Calvinist backed Dutch magistrates and government of Arminius' day who were on a smear campaign against Arminius and his teachings, twisting and ultimately misrepresenting what he said.

a-lily-of-peace · Jun 19, 2020

Let a man so consider us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover it is required in stewards that one be found faithful. But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by a human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. For I know of nothing against myself, yet I am not justified by this; but He who judges me is the Lord. Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the counsels of the hearts. Then each one’s praise will come from God.

Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other. For who makes you differ from another? And what do you have that you did not receive? Now if you did indeed receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?

(1 Corinthians 4:1-7, NKJV)

Tra Phull · Jun 19, 2020

I wouldn't say Arminius was a "co-worker" of John Calvin, as Arminius was born 5 years before Calvin's death.

Arminius was a CalvinIST, in Holland/Netherlands, working with Calvin's followers. At one point, Arminius was tasked to refute the ideas of a guy named Koornheert, but in studying the matter, Arminius "switched sides" - found he could not refute what he had been tasked to refute. Thus "Arminianism" was born.

SaintCody777 · Jun 19, 2020

Tra Phull said:
I wouldn't say Arminius was a "co-worker" of John Calvin, as Arminius was born 5 years before Calvin's death.

Arminius was a CalvinIST, in Holland/Netherlands, working with Calvin's followers. At one point, Arminius was tasked to refute the ideas of a guy named Koornheert, but in studying the matter, Arminius "switched sides" - found he could not refute what he had been tasked to refute. Thus "Arminianism" was born.

Thanks for the correction there. What I meant was probably a close follower of John Calvin was a co-worker of Arminius.

Tra Phull · Jun 19, 2020

In 1609, Arminius passed away. His followers were led by Simon Episcopius, these followers known as REMONSTRANTS for 5 points of Remonstrance they had developed long before the 5 TULIP points were enumerated.
The Synod of Dort was held, denouncing the Remonstrants, who stood as accused during the Synod - most of them fled Holland.

Much later, John Wesley put forth Arminianism in England, where Calvinism had a strong following due to Cranmer and others.

In these days the BAPTISTS had come on the scene - in Holland - Particular BAPTISTS were Calvinistic, General BAPTISTS were ARMINIAN.

Particular BAPTISTS came over on the Mayflower to America.

Tra Phull · Jun 19, 2020

It's ok stcody, I am just trying to get down all I remember. I read Bangs' biography of Arminius, a very detailed work.

Of course Methodists came to America also, soon Asbury and Coke led them and separated somewhat from Wesley. (American revolution drove American Methodists their own way.)

Arminianism was carried on in Methodist, Nazarene and Assembly of God churches, among others.

The distinction between General and Particular BAPTISTS was loosely maintained.

I believe someone mentioned Roger Olson, a prominent ARMINIAN among BAPTISTS, same age as me, 67, perhaps still teaching at Baylor University and goes to a Baptist church catty-corner to the Methodist church where I grew up in Waco, Texas.

Tra Phull · Jun 19, 2020

So Olson I guess still lives.
The mention of Pelagians, semi-Pelagians, and Molinists have been mentioned.

It is true Arminius had Molin' s book in his library - well, why not?
Arminius travelled to Rome, and some Calvinists alleged that Arminius "kissed the Pope' s slipper".

No, Arminius saw the Pope from a distance.

You see, everything I say about Calvinism is subject to be "misrepresenting Calvinism" - just as everything Calvinists say about Arminianism is "misrepresenting Arminianism" and round and round we go...

But the Bangs biography of Arminius was said to be very good by drstevej, a Calvinist chaplain here at CF.

He and Hedrick and Albion are knowledgeable Calvinists here, Hammster too, so I don't sling mud at all Calvinists.
Just most of them LOL

Currently how I see things, is that most Christians believe in Free Will - even if they have never read a word of Arminius.

Semi-Pelagianism need not be a dirty word. The ancient church, a thousand years before Calvin, had accepted neither Pelagius' views nor the Double Predestination of Augustine - one might even deem its conclusions as semi-Pelagian, but some Calvinists paint Arminians with horns and a tail with language of Pelagius, Molin and kissing the Pope' s slipper

So, yeah, there are SHADES.
I too would be more Classical Arminian, as stcody described, but there are OSAS Arminians - OSnAS is an optional viewpoint from Arminianism' s inception, the Remonstrants said OSAS vs OSnAS was too close to call.

Tra Phull · Jun 19, 2020

And the building of the Methodist church where I grew up was sold to Missionary Baptists - a black congregation - so now I must mention JUNETEENTH - today is June 19th, when a Union General came to Galveston 2 years after Lincoln signed Emancipation Proclamation, announcing slaves free - all Arminians and Calvinists brothers and sisters - and all Texans the humble souls that we are.

Happy juneteenth, everybody!!

Tra Phull · Jun 19, 2020

I put a Juneteenth thread in SOCIETY - History and Genealogy.

I wonder if much response will be made.

BBAS 64 · Jun 20, 2020

zoidar said:
Thanks, but that was not what I meant. Sorry for being unclear. I meant how is the person in my example the primary effective cause if he first asks God for forgiveness and then gets regenerated and saved?

How?

Good Day, Peter

What would motivate a person who's heart was set on evil continually, who is incapable of doing good, and love darkness to seek forgiveness?

Again seeking forgiveness is the result of a regenerated heart not the cause of it.

IN Him,

Bill

zoidar · Jun 20, 2020

BBAS 64 said:
Good Day, Peter

What would motivate a person who's heart was set on evil continually, who is incapable of doing good, and love darkness to seek forgiveness?

Again seeking forgiveness is the result of a regenerated heart not the cause of it.

IN Him,

Bill

The sinner becomes convinced he is exactly that, a sinner. As he gets aware of his condition he chooses either to keep living his worldy life or turn to God for forgiveness, repentance. As he repents he gets born again by the Holy Spirit. God leads a sinner to repentance, but he is not born of the Spirit (regenerated) just because he understands his condition. For that there is a need of repentance.

yellowMan · Jun 20, 2020

Calvanism is composed of some interesting theories. They certainly don't line up with scripture though. You have to buy into TULIP paradigm and then read those theories into scripture instead of simply performing exegesis. They are able to cherry-pick a few verses to support their views although usually taken way out of context. There are a couple of verses that do support some of their theories however there are many more that refute them. I'm a bit surprised at how popular it has gotten in recent years although I suppose it is due to the abundance of strong speakers and literature and SEO'd websites (gotquestions). OTOH I've started to see some Calvanism refuters out there so hopefully it will be fading away as it once did.

Bible Highlighter · Jun 21, 2020

helmut said:
It is also not fully defined in 1.Cor 15:1-4.

Show me in Scripture where else the Bible says something similar to this?

1 “Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:1-4).

You said:
So there is a truth from God outside the Gospel? 1.Tim 2,4 states clearly that the following is truth everybody should know because God wants to save every man.

I am not denying that there are not other truths in Scripture we must accept as a part of the faith or salvation. A person can believe the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, but if they live like the devil, they have not believed the faith in regards to Titus 2:11-12, Hebrews 12:14, Titus 1:16, Romans 8:13, etc.

You said:
Why 1.Cor 15:1-4?

Why nor Rom 2:16,

You said:
This does not explain that the Gospel is something we should obey to (2.Ts 1:8!). Paul had a wider concept of Gospel than you.

I do apologize. I have believed for along time now that the gospel not only needs to first be believed, but there is another aspect of the gospel that later needs to be obeyed.

Here is a CF thread I created a long while back:
What is obedience to the gospel?

Anyways, “obedience to the gospel” is based on believing the gospel. It's about the death, burial, and resurrection. It is a shadow of the gospel that we first receive. It has the same elements.

For I am aware of the obedience to the gospel in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9, and 1 Peter 4:15-18.

I believe the obedience to the gospel is crucifying the affections and lusts (Romans 6:6-7) (Romans 6:1-2) (Romans 12:1-2) (Galatians 5:24) (i.e. the death, and burial of Christ), and walking in newness of life like unto his resurrection (Romans 6:4-5).

You said:
or Col 1,21-23?

In context, I see this as a belief in the gospel as mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. It's not an expansion. Read it again.

Molinism? What's that?

You can check out one of my explanations on Molinism in an older thread a while back here.

You said:
Can't see that God makes any conditions for us to be saved. In the parable of the prodigal son,. the Father does not make any condition, but receives the lost son in his arms.

Not true. If there were no conditions, then the father would not have said TWO times that his son was “dead” and he is “alive again” when his son sought forgiveness with him (See: Luke 15:24, and Luke 15:32). Plus, the parable is a third parable in a series. The theme of all three is repentance (seeking forgiveness with the everlasting Father, i.e. Jesus), and salvation.

Bible Highlighter said:
#4. Provisional Majority Atonement (Based upon God’s Foreknowledge).

You said:
Someone that demands sticking to the wording, as in your arguing that only 1.Cor 15 is the correct description of the Gospel, such a person should not go away from the words of the Bible that God wants to save all men.

I believe Jesus died for the sins of the WHOLE world. I believe in Provisional Atonement for most all people or the world, (see: John 1:29, 1 John 2:2, 1 Timothy 2:6, 2 Corinthians 5:19, Romans 5:6-8.). The only exception to the rule on this are those individuals in whom God knows will worship the beast in the future (See: Revelation 13:8, and Revelation 17:8). For those who worship the beast in the future never even had their names written in the book of life since the foundation of the world. If there name was never in the book life ever, this means that Jesus did not die for their sins. This means that the sin of worshiping the beast is so bad that God did not include them in His plan of redemption because of what He knows they will do.

You said:
Definitely not. Thia is not only against Arminianism, it is also against Calvin, Luther etc. It is Pelagianism, simply.

Partial Depravity is true. If it wasn't then God would not have bothered to reason with Cain over doing good (See: Genesis 4:7). Cain was said to be of the wicked one (1 John 3:12).

helmut · Jun 23, 2020

Bible Highlighter said:
Show me in Scripture where else the Bible says something similar to this?

The number of verses in Scripture that are similar depends on the degree of similarity you require.

1.Cor 15 says nothing about grace, the point so important to Paul. It is not said who the "we" are, for whom Christ died (did he die only for Jews? or only for some elected ones? - 1.Tim 2:4 shows all men should be saved). There is no mention of Jesus as the Son of David and Son of God (the facet of the Gospel which Paul mentions in Rm 1:1-4) or of eternal judgement (which is part of the Gospel Paul preached, Rm 2:16). So we can see that 1.Cor 15 does not give the full Gospel, but only the aspects that are important in that context (because some believers of the Gospel denied general resurrection). I did no exhaustive search, so there may be more parts that Paul explicitly mentions as part of his Gospel and that are not in 1.Cor 15.

Bible Highlighter said:
You can check out one of my explanations on Molinism in an older thread a while back here.

Speculation about best possible worlds ... I don't think that it will bring anything good to delve in such thinking.

Bible Highlighter said:
Not true. If there were no conditions, then the father would not have said TWO times that his son was “dead” and he is “alive again” when his son sought forgiveness with him (See: Luke 15:24, and Luke 15:32). Plus, the parable is a third parable in a series. The theme of all three is repentance (seeking forgiveness with the everlasting Father, i.e. Jesus), and salvation.

It seems we have different concepts of what we call "condition".

Bible Highlighter said:
The only exception to the rule on this are those individuals in whom God knows will worship the beast in the future

You lost me. God denies those who will worship the beast the grace of being saved? Something out of order of logical impact, I guess. If a person accepts Christ now, (s)he will be saved, and through grace will not worship the beast.

Bible Highlighter said:
If there name was never in the book life ever, this means that Jesus did not die for their sins.

I don't think so. Those who are written in the book of life are saved. The logical order is P accepts Christ as Saviour -> P is saved -> name of P is written in the book of life from the foundation of the world. For us who live in time a cause that follows the effect is not logical, but I think in God's eyes it is different.

And because we cannot grasp the mystery of free will and God causing everything, there come theories like Calvinism which speculate about things to high to us.

Bible Highlighter said:
Partial Depravity is true. If it wasn't then God would not have bothered to reason with Cain over doing good (See: Genesis 4:7). Cain was said to be of the wicked one (1 John 3:12).

Can't follow you. Cain is not fully deprived because he is wicked? Total depravity includes that no man has an excuse of the form "I was not me, I just could not resist sin because of my total depravity". No, such a line of reasoning is damned (Rm 9:19).

Bible Highlighter · Jun 23, 2020

helmut said:
The number of verses in Scripture that are similar depends on the degree of similarity you require.

This is simply not dealing with the problem. There is no other verse as stated like 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 that further explains the gospel in the same manner. None. No other verse like it exists in our Bible that we have today.

You said:
1.Cor 15 says nothing about grace, the point so important to Paul.

The word “grace” appears 3 times in 1 Corinthians 15.

In Acts, Paul refers to the gospel as the gospel of the grace of God.

“...to testify the gospel of the grace of God.”
(Acts of the Apostles 20:24).

Peter said,
“And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.” (Acts of the Apostles 15:7).

What did Peter say to the Gentiles about his gospel?

34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all: )
37 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;
38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree: [i.e. Christ's death]
40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;
41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead. [i.e. Christ's resurrection]
42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.
43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
(Acts of the Apostles 10:34-43).

Romans 10:9-17 sounds like an obedience to BELIEVING the gospel or initial salvation. Verse 9 talks about believing in the resurrection.

2 Timothy 1:10 says “But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:“

“Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:” (2 Timothy 2:8).

You said:
It is not said who the "we" are, for whom Christ died (did he die only for Jews? or only for some elected ones?

1 John 2:2 makes it clear that Jesus was not only the propitiation (atoning sacrifice) for our sins, but for the sins of the whole world. But there are a few exceptions to the words “whole world” here if we are to read and believe the whole of Scripture. The exception is Revelation 13:8, and Revelation 17:8.

You said:
- 1.Tim 2:4 shows all men should be saved).

Yes, this is true. But the exception is Revelation 13:8, and Revelation 17:8.

You said:
There is no mention of Jesus as the Son of David and Son of God (the facet of the Gospel which Paul mentions in Rm 1:1-4)

David is a human like us. So Jesus being of the seed of David and being the Son of God is speaking of the Incarnation. The Incarnation is a natural package deal to the truth that: “Christ died for our sins” according to the gospel mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. The good news can include believing in the life of Jesus, but it includes most importantly that He died for our sins, He was buried, and He was risen three days later for our salvation. Jesus' whole life was a testimony of His obedience to His Father unto death on our behalf. Jesus is the second or last Adam.

The gospel means “good news.”
You have to think why the information you believe about the gospel makes it good. There has to be a rational reason why the gospel is the good news.

You said:
or of eternal judgement (which is part of the Gospel Paul preached, Rm 2:16).

As I mentioned before, I believe that there is an aspect of the gospel that can later be obeyed. This taught to us Romans 6, but it is based on believing the gospel. So the judgment of God is a part of Paul's gospel. The gospel needs to first be believed, and then it needs to later be obeyed (Which is based upon believing the gospel). Crucifying the affections and lusts (Galatians 5:24) (Romans 6:3-4) is a parallel to believing that Jesus died for our sins (1 Corinthians 15:3). Walking in newness of life (like a new resurrected life) (Romans 6:4-5) is a parallel of believing in Christ's resurrection for salvation (1 Corinthians 15:4).

You said:
Speculation about best possible worlds ... I don't think that it will bring anything good to delve in such thinking.

Well, I am not a proponent of Molinism. I merely mentioned it because there are not many options between Arminianism and Calvinism besides Molinism.

You said:
It seems we have different concepts of what we call "condition".

So you believe that the prodigal son was saved while he was in his sins? If so, I cannot fathom why people believe this way. The father clearly said he was “dead,” and he was “alive again.”

You said:
You lost me. God denies those who will worship the beast the grace of being saved? Something out of order of logical impact, I guess. If a person accepts Christ now, (s)he will be saved, and through grace will not worship the beast.

Yes. Did you not read Revelation 13:8, and Revelation 17:8 before? It essentially says that those who worship the beast never had their names in the book of life since the foundation of the world. Obviously this book of life would include everyone Jesus died for. But those who worshiped the beast did not have their names in the book of life, which means Jesus did not die for their sins on the account of what they would do.

I don't think so. Those who are written in the book of life are saved. The logical order is P accepts Christ as Saviour -> P is saved -> name of P is written in the book of life from the foundation of the world. For us who live in time a cause that follows the effect is not logical, but I think in God's eyes it is different.

But Revelation 13:8, and Revelation 17:8 says their names are not in the book of life. This means they are not saved because of this.

You said:
And because we cannot grasp the mystery of free will and God causing everything, there come theories like Calvinism which speculate about things to high to us.

No. I believe Calvinism is hocus pocus mumbo jumbo. The Bible teaches in many instances of how God holds man accountable for what He will do on this earth (Especially in their decision to accept Christ). 2 Thessalonians 2:10 says, “And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.”

The reason why they perish is not because God has not elected them but because they receive not the love of the truth that they MIGHT be saved. There is no MIGHT in being saved if God force saves people and He forces others to not be saved. Think.

You said:
Can't follow you. Cain is not fully deprived because he is wicked? Total depravity includes that no man has an excuse of the form "I was not me, I just could not resist sin because of my total depravity". No, such a line of reasoning is damned (Rm 9:19).

Paul writes that without Christ we are “slaves to sin” (Romans 6:20) and “dead in trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1). The Bible certainly teaches that human beings are depraved – we inherit a sinful nature that tempts us to do evil. We have all committed sin and therefore stand guilty before God, deserving of death (Romans 6:23). “There are none righteous, no, not one” (Romans 3:10). Without Christ, we are depraved sinners in need of a savior. But Calvinism takes this to such an extreme as to say that human beings utterly incapable of believing in, obeying, or pleasing God. By doing so, Calvinists remove free will from the equation. If we are not capable of making a free will decision to follow Christ, salvation cannot be on the basis of free will, and must instead be on the basis of God choosing who is and is not saved.

Remove total depravity from the picture and the whole structure of Calvinism collapses. If man is capable of choosing God, salvation does not need to be predetermined by God, and can be on the basis of our free will decision to believe in Jesus Christ.

“I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:” (Deuteronomy 30:19).

Free Will in the Bible:

#1. Joshua 24:15 KJV -
"Choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve"

#2. Matthew 11:28 KJV -
"Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest."

#3. John 7:17 KJV -
"If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God."

#4. John 7:37 KJV -
"If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink."

#5. Acts 2:38 KJV -
"Repent, and let everyone of you be baptized"

#6. Acts 3:19 KJV -
"Repent therefore and be converted"

#7. Acts 16:31 KJV -
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved"

#8. Acts 17:30 KJV -
"but now commands all men everywhere to repent"

#9. Revelation 22:17 KJV -
"Whoever wills, let him take the water of life freely."

#10. Genesis 4:7 KJV -
"If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him."

#11. Revelation 22:17 KJ2
"And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that hears say, Come. And let him that is thirsty come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely."

#12. Luke 13:34 NLT -
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones God's messengers! How often I have wanted to gather your children together as a hen protects her chicks beneath her wings, but you wouldn't let me.

Source used for two paragraphs within this post:
Three Arguments Against Total Depravity

helmut · Jun 23, 2020

Bible Highlighter said:
This is simply not dealing with the problem. There is no other verse as stated like 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 that further explains the gospel in the same manner. None. No other verse like it exists in our Bible that we have today.

You don't understand. There is no other verse beside Romans 1:1-4 that states that part of the Gospel are the statements that Jesus is son of God and Son of David.

So Roman 1:1-3 is unique, as 1.Cor 15:1-4. The only difference is, that the wording of Rm 1 does not lead you into the error that those sentences are the complete Gospel, while you think that 1.Cor 15:1-4 is the complete Gospel. But as other verses that name parts of the Gospel show, this is not true: The Gospel includes points not mentioned in 1.Cor 15:1-4.

Bible Highlighter said:
The word “grace” appears 3 times in 1 Corinthians 15.

My fault, I should have been precise: The word grace does not appear in the sentences you call "the" Gospel, 1.Cor 15:1-4.

Bible Highlighter said:
What did Peter say to the Gentiles about his gospel?

34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all: )

Now even you cite a verse that shows that the Gospel includes facets that are not in "your" Gospel, i.e. 1.Cor 15:1-4: There is neither said that God prefers no persons, nor it is said there that Jesus is Lord of all.

Bible Highlighter said:
39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree: [i.e. Christ's death]

It's not just the death of Jesus - hanging on a wood (cross) was a shame, the shame of the cross is not mentioned in 1.Cor 15:1-4, but we know from other verses that this is a very important part. Jesus demanded people should follow him in that way.

Bible Highlighter said:
Romans 10:9-17 sounds like an obedience to BELIEVING the gospel or initial salvation. Verse 9 talks about believing in the resurrection.

That's not all, you miss that Jesu is calles Lord ()=YHWH, the name of God) in Rm 10:9. Those who deny Jesus as God cannot claim the assurance "you will be saved" from Rm 10:9.

The very point highlighted as "saving" in Rm 10:9 is, according to what you said, no part of the Gospel!

Bible Highlighter said:
1 John 2:2 makes it clear that Jesus was not only the propitiation (atoning sacrifice) for our sins, but for the sins of the whole world.

I know. But according to what you said this is not part of the Gospel - it is said only in 1.Jn 2:2, not in the Gospel of 1.Cor 15:1-4.

Bible Highlighter said:
So Jesus being of the seed of David and being the Son of God is speaking of the Incarnation. The Incarnation is a natural package deal to the truth that: “Christ died for our sins” according to the gospel mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.

A point not mentioned in 1.Cor 15:1-4, which cannot be drawn from those verses is no part of what is said there. You reckon it as part of the Gospel, because you know from other parts of the Bible that it is an indispensable part of the Gospel. But this does not alter the fact that this part has to be found elsewhere - 1.Cor 15:1-4 ist not the whole Gospel, Paul mentions parts of the Gospel, and he can trust that the receivers of his letter know that the Gospel includes more. And if you were honest you would say the same instead interpret into 1.Cor 15 what is not there (only implicit, but has to be found in other parts of the Bible that explain aspects of the Gospel).

Bible Highlighter said:
So you believe that the prodigal son was saved while he was in his sins?

Of course not.

Bible Highlighter said:
But Revelation 13:8, and Revelation 17:8 says their names are not in the book of life. This means they are not saved because of this.

What do you mean by "this"? They are not saved because they worship the beast. And because they are not saved, their names are not in the book of life. Not the other way round.

Bible Highlighter said:
The reason why they perish is not because God has not elected them but because they receive not the love of the truth that they MIGHT be saved.

The people receive (or don't receive) the love of the truth - from God. Think about it!

Bible Highlighter said:
But Calvinism takes this to such an extreme as to say that human beings utterly incapable of believing in, obeying, or pleasing God. By doing so, Calvinists remove free will from the equation.

Not just Calvinism, also Luther spoke against free will.

There is always the double danger: One one side, deny the responsibility of man (as Calvinism does, though Calvin didn't, AFAIK), and on the other side the danger of denying the power of God who is the cause of everything.

Bible Highlighter said:
Remove total depravity from the picture and the whole structure of Calvinism collapses.

There are other solutions than that.

Bible Highlighter said:
If man is capable of choosing God, salvation does not need to be predetermined by God, and can be on the basis of our free will decision to believe in Jesus Christ.

If you define "predetermination" in terms of time, it is pre-determination what the Bible teaches. But in a logical way it is post-determination, based on the decision of a man.

The Christian doctrines has some built-in paradoxes, like Jesus being whole man and whole God - but God is no man (Nu 23:19). And I teach another paradox: Free will, given by God who causes everything, even your free decisions you are responsible for. This does not fit in the scheme of Calvinism vs. Arminianism you know. Choosing between these two is like hosing whether Jesus is God or man: If you accept the alternative, both options you have are wrong. Jesus is not "God, and therefore no man" (docetism etc.), He is not "Man, and therefore not God" (adoptianism etc.), and He is definitely not "neither man nor God, something in-between" (Arianism), he is true (100%) God and true (100%) man. And this kind of logic, accepted in ancient times, should also applied to the question "free will of man or caused by God".

helmut · Jun 23, 2020

EDIT: Sorry, double posting. This can be removed.

helmut · Jun 23, 2020

Bible Highlighter said:
This is simply not dealing with the problem. There is no other verse as stated like 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 that further explains the gospel in the same manner. None. No other verse like it exists in our Bible that we have today.

You don't understand. There is no other verse beside Romans 1:1-4 that states that part of the Gospel are the statements that Jesus is son of God and Son of David.

So Roman 1:1-3 is unique, as 1.Cor 15:1-4. The only difference is, that the wording of Rm 1 does not lead you into the error that those sentences are the complete Gospel, while you think that 1.Cor 15:1-4 is the complete Gospel. But as other verses that name parts of the Gospel show, this is not true: The Gospel includes points not mentioned in 1.Cor 15:1-4.

Bible Highlighter said:
The word “grace” appears 3 times in 1 Corinthians 15.

My fault, I should have been precise: The word grace does not appear in the sentences you call "the" Gospel, 1.Cor 15:1-4.

Bible Highlighter said:
What did Peter say to the Gentiles about his gospel?

34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all: )

Now even you cite a verse that shows that the Gospel includes facets that are not in "your" Gospel, i.e. 1.Cor 15:1-4: There is neither said that God prefers no persons, nor it is said there that Jesus is Lord of all.

Bible Highlighter said:
39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree: [i.e. Christ's death]

It's not just the death of Jesus - hanging on a wood (cross) was a shame, the shame of the cross is not mentioned in 1.Cor 15:1-4, but we know from other verses that this is a very important part. Jesus demanded people should follow him in that way.

Bible Highlighter said:
Romans 10:9-17 sounds like an obedience to BELIEVING the gospel or initial salvation. Verse 9 talks about believing in the resurrection.

That's not all, you miss that Jesu is calles Lord ()=YHWH, the name of God) in Rm 10:9. Those who deny Jesus as God cannot claim the assurance "you will be saved" from Rm 10:9.

The very point highlighted as "saving" in Rm 10:9 is, according to what you said, no part of the Gospel!

Bible Highlighter said:
1 John 2:2 makes it clear that Jesus was not only the propitiation (atoning sacrifice) for our sins, but for the sins of the whole world.

I know. But according to what you said this is not part of the Gospel - it is said only in 1.Jn 2:2, not in the Gospel of 1.Cor 15:1-4.

Bible Highlighter said:
So Jesus being of the seed of David and being the Son of God is speaking of the Incarnation. The Incarnation is a natural package deal to the truth that: “Christ died for our sins” according to the gospel mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.

A point not mentioned in 1.Cor 15:1-4, which cannot be drawn from those verses is no part of what is said there. You reckon it as part of the Gospel, because you know from other parts of the Bible that it is an indispensable part of the Gospel. But this does not alter the fact that this part has to be found elsewhere - 1.Cor 15:1-4 ist not the whole Gospel, Paul mentions parts of the Gospel, and he can trust that the receivers of his letter know that the Gospel includes more. And if you were honest you would say the same instead interpret into 1.Cor 15 what is not there (only implicit, but has to be found in other parts of the Bible that explain aspects of the Gospel).

Bible Highlighter said:
So you believe that the prodigal son was saved while he was in his sins?

Of course not.

Bible Highlighter said:
But Revelation 13:8, and Revelation 17:8 says their names are not in the book of life. This means they are not saved because of this.

What do you mean by "this"? They are not saved because they worship the beast. And because they are not saved, their names are not in the book of life. Not the other way round.

Bible Highlighter said:
The reason why they perish is not because God has not elected them but because they receive not the love of the truth that they MIGHT be saved.

The people receive (or don't receive) the love of the truth - from God. Think about it!

Bible Highlighter said:
But Calvinism takes this to such an extreme as to say that human beings utterly incapable of believing in, obeying, or pleasing God. By doing so, Calvinists remove free will from the equation.

Not just Calvinism, also Luther spoke against free will.

There is always the double danger: One one side, deny the responsibility of man (as Calvinism does, though Calvin didn't, AFAIK), and on the other side the danger of denying the power of God who is the cause of everything.

Bible Highlighter said:
Remove total depravity from the picture and the whole structure of Calvinism collapses.

There are other solutions than that.

Bible Highlighter said:
If man is capable of choosing God, salvation does not need to be predetermined by God, and can be on the basis of our free will decision to believe in Jesus Christ.

If you define "predetermination" in terms of time, it is pre-determination what the Bible teaches. But in a logical way it is post-determination, based on the decision of a man.

The Christian doctrines has some built-in paradoxes, like Jesus being whole man and whole God - but God is no man (Nu 23:19). And I teach another paradox: Free will, given by God who causes everything, even your free decisions you are responsible for. This does not fit in the scheme of Calvinism vs. Arminianism you know. Choosing between these two is like hosing whether Jesus is God or man: If you accept the alternative, both options you have are wrong. Jesus is not "God, and therefore no man" (docetism etc.), He is not "Man, and therefore not God" (adoptianism etc.), and He is definitely not "neither man nor God, something in-between" (Arianism), he is true (100%) God and true (100%) man. And this kind of logic, accepted in ancient times, should also applied to the question "free will of man or caused by God".

Bible Highlighter · Jun 23, 2020

helmut said:
That's not all, you miss that Jesu is calles Lord ()=YHWH, the name of God) in Rm 10:9. Those who deny Jesus as God cannot claim the assurance "you will be saved" from Rm 10:9.

Well, I believe a person can be saved by believing in the name of Jesus for salvation on their death bed (John 1:12). I am not denying that there are other things that can sometimes accompany salvation in believing the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. I believe that a saint will be led in time to know of the truths of calling upon the name of the Lord for salvation AND in confessing the words: “Lord Jesus.”

You said:
Of course not.

Do you believe the prodigal son was saved before he went prodigal?

You said:
What do you mean by "this"? They are not saved because they worship the beast. And because they are not saved, their names are not in the book of life. Not the other way round.

Revelation 13:8 KJV
“And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”

Revelation 17:8 says a similar thing.
The names were not written in the book of life FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD.
This means that they never had their names in the book of life ever.

You said:
The people receive (or don't receive) the love of the truth - from God. Think about it!

Yes, but this is not forced upon them because they are damned not by election or God not choosing to illuminate them so as to see the truth, but because THEY did not receive the love of the truth that they MIGHT be saved. The word MIGHT implies a possibility that they could be saved which doesn't make any sense if God just zaps some people to be saved and He zaps others to not be saved.

You said:
Not just Calvinism, also Luther spoke against free will.

I cannot figure out in whom I disagree with more. I find them both to carry heretical beliefs.
Luther said he could sin a thousand times a day and still be saved. As for John Calvin: One name comes to mind.

Michael Servetus.

You said:
There is always the double danger: One one side, deny the responsibility of man (as Calvinism does, though Calvin didn't, AFAIK), and on the other side the danger of denying the power of God who is the cause of everything.

Arminians do not deny the power of God. I see salvation as synergistic and not a one way street. It's not entirely God and it's not entirely man, either. Both God and man play a part in salvation. Calvinists say... “no.” Calvinists say God zaps a person to be saved, and then He zaps another to not be saved (Which is not based on the will of the person in any way).

You said:
There are other solutions than that.

Well, a person can refute each of the fives points of Calvinism, too.
But refuting Total Depravity first will cause a domino effect.

You said:
If you define "predetermination" in terms of time, it is pre-determination what the Bible teaches. But in a logical way it is post-determination, based on the decision of a man.

The Christian doctrines has some built-in paradoxes, like Jesus being whole man and whole God - but God is no man (Nu 23:19). And I teach another paradox: Free will, given by God who causes everything, even your free decisions you are responsible for. This does not fit in the scheme of Calvinism vs. Arminianism you know. Choosing between these two is like hosing whether Jesus is God or man: If you accept the alternative, both options you have are wrong. Jesus is not "God, and therefore no man" (docetism etc.), He is not "Man, and therefore not God" (adoptianism etc.), and He is definitely not "neither man nor God, something in-between" (Arianism), he is true (100%) God and true (100%) man. And this kind of logic, accepted in ancient times, should also applied to the question "free will of man or caused by God".

I believe God can declare us as “elect” based on Him knowing our future free will choices (See: 1 Peter 1:1-2). Is that what you are talking about?

Some Calvinists have given me the impression that God has decreed all things to happen... including sin. Surely it does not sound like you believe that.

helmut · Jun 24, 2020

Bible Highlighter said:
Well, I believe a person can be saved by believing in the name of Jesus for salvation on their death bed (John 1:12).

I did not say that a person that "cannot claim the assurance 'you will be saved' from Rm 10:9" will definitely not be saved. We always have to take into account what Jesus says in Lk 12:47-48. So a person spiritually rather ignorant may need so little to be saved that our theology predicts he will not be saved ... Abraham believed in the God who justifies the not righteous ones - it seems that this was all that was required from him (and believing in the promises he got from God), Rm 4:6.

God is a living God, he does not fit into a simple theological system.

Bible Highlighter said:
Do you believe the prodigal son was saved before he went prodigal?

No. He was saved when he went home, but this was written in the book of life before the foundation of the world. Had he not come to his senses and went home, his name would not be written there.

You should stress other words in Rec 13:6:

Revelation 13:8 KJV
“And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”

BTW, I once read from C.S. Lewis that the lamb has been slain from the foundation of the world (re-translation into English from German), and I wondered how he got that idea. In German, the word-order is different, you have to choose between "the (from the foundation of the world) slain lamb", and "the slain lamb from the foundation of the world", in the latter case it is clear that the foundation dos not refer to the lamb. (in the former case, I added brackets as a compensation for information contained in adjectival inflection). I know of no German Bible that translates the way Lewis understood the verse, only years later I stumbled over the English text. Well, I do not think Lewis was correct, but since the word-order in Greek is (in this instance) the same than in English, we cannot entirely rule out his reading.

Rev 13:8 does not stress about "not written ... from ...". The book aims at believers in times of hardship and affliction, it assures the reader they are saved, written into the book of life from the foundation of the world. The verse mentions people that not belong to the group whose names are written from the foundation of the world. There is a difference between saying "it is not the case that their names are written from the foundation" ans saying "it is the case that their names are not written from the foundation". In our way of thinking this looks like a play of words (because we live in time), but I think this is a real difference.

Bible Highlighter said:
The word MIGHT implies a possibility that they could be saved which doesn't make any sense if God just zaps some people to be saved and He zaps others to not be saved.

I don't think in the way you reject. The wording you use forces an alternative which does not offer a cofrect answer, neither "deprivation is not total" nor "God zaps" is what I can find in the Bible. Or, in a sort of sense, I find both of them. As I have said, it is like choosing between "Jesus is God" and "Jesus in man" in a sense that one answer excludes the other.

Bible Highlighter said:
Luther said he could sin a thousand times a day and still be saved.

Can you give the context? Luther's concern was assure people that were afflicted by thoughts like "my sins are too great to be forgiven". I suppose it was this context he used that hyperbole.

Bible Highlighter said:
Arminians do not deny the power of God. I see salvation as synergistic and not a one way street.

The Bible tells it is one way:
Eph 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

It is entirely God. You are a creation of God, not only your physical constitution, but also your spiritual life (which started when you received Christ) is a creation from God. No-one can boast to have any contribution to that.

The error of Calvinism is to draw the "logical" conclusion: Therefore, God is responsible for the decision to accept or reject Christ - no, not God is responsible, we are. It is basically the same error as drawing the conclusion: I I am responsible or the decision to accept/reject Jesus, there is not total deprivation. Both have in common that thy take our way of thinking (because we live in time) to set an alternative that does not exist (according to my understanding of Scripture).

Bible Highlighter said:
But refuting Total Depravity first will cause a domino effect.

Maybe. But I suspect that you see a sort of domino-effect in accepting total Depravity, that does not exist in my way of thinking. It is influenced by a flavor quantum theory (quantum logic), and it started with thinking about trinity: There are statements you cannot combine, the answer to one invalidates the answer to the other. Subatomic particles cannot described in "ordinary" logic, and the same applies to trinity, and (as I am convinced) the question of free will and God's predestination. There are things to high to be grasped by mortals like us.

Shades of Calvinism vs. the Gospel

The young, curious Berean

Well-Known Member

Ecumenical Loose Canon

The young, curious Berean

Ecumenical Loose Canon

Ecumenical Loose Canon

Ecumenical Loose Canon

Ecumenical Loose Canon

Ecumenical Loose Canon

Contributor

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️

Active Member

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Member

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Member

Member

Member

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Member

Similar threads