Arminian Or Calvinist?

[Albion]

"Yes, predestination DOES mean that God chooses those whom he will bring to faith."

No, it does not, and there is no such teaching in Scripture.

Well, you are simply wrong about that. Jesus himself, as recorded in the Gospel of John, says that those whom the Father gave to him could in no wise be taken from him. That's election. And what's more, there are many other places in scripture where the elect are spoken of.

Yes, indeed, God does choose whom He will save.

You bet.

He chooses (elects) to save everyone who accepts Jesus as Lord and Savior.

No, that would mean that they chose him and he then accepted it.

But nowhere in the Bible does God choose who will accept Jesus.

I'd suggest you give it another look, in that case. Consider, for instance John 15:16 in which we have Jesus saying the following: "You did not choose me; I chose you...." That's pretty clear as to who does the choosing, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Vince53]

In John 15:16, Jesus explains to the 11 apostles that they did not choose Him, but He chose them to bear much fruit. The verse has nothing to do with salvation.

In the Gospel of John, Jesus promised that He would not lose anyone who trusted Him as Savior. The word "predestine," which refers only to the saints being adopted as sons and being conformed to His image, does not appear anywhere in the book.

When God calls men to salvation and they refuse, is it because God gave them a hypocritical call, designing it so that they could not answer, and then pretending that it is their fault? No, the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. God's call to salvation is genuine.

 

[TimRout]

In John 15:16, Jesus explains to the 11 apostles that they did not choose Him, but He chose them to bear much fruit. The verse has nothing to do with salvation.

I'm sorry Vince, but once again I simply cannot agree. [Jn. 15:12-17/NASB]

"This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends. You are My friends if you do what I command you."

Two things to note:

Firstly, in this context Jesus is indeed speaking salvifically. He is speaking of those for whom He will soon lay down His life. You are wrong to have suggested otherwise.

Secondly, there is a qualifier placed on the "friends" title; Judas Iscariot was excluded from the "friends" group, since he did not in fact obey. Therefore...and don't miss this...Jesus did NOT lay down His life for Judas. (Limited Atonement )

"No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you."

Notice that Jesus did not die for a group of people who had previously chosen to be His friends. Rather, He names them "friends", having already determined to die for them. As much as proponents of free will would like to believe otherwise, only Unconditional Election can account for John's soteriology.

Also, there is a relationship between Christ's revealing of Himself and His Father, and this positional status called "friend". Not everyone has been given to understand the mysteries of the kingdom [Mt. 13:11].

"You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you. This I command you, that you love one another."

Firstly, since this is indeed a soteriological passage, the choosing of Christ does indeed speak to the saved status of the eleven. It is profoundly incorrect to suggest otherwise.

Secondly, the bearing of spiritual fruit is always related to salvation. That is, all who are saved, and only those who are saved, bear the fruit of the Spirit [Gal. 5:22-25], since spiritual fruit is exhibited only by those who walk in the Spirit. Now let's be clear about what we're saying, Vince. You have erroneously dichotomized salvation from fruit bearing. There is NEVER any biblical basis for doing this. Indeed, it is usually the "easy believists" who pull this argument out of the hat --- and we both know you do not support easy believism. Why the inconsistency?

In the Gospel of John, Jesus promised that He would not lose anyone who trusted Him as Savior. The word "predestine," which refers only to the saints being adopted as sons and being conformed to His image, does not appear anywhere in the book.

Vince, the absence of the word "predestine" is nonconsequential, if John nevertheless teaches the very same concept using other words. As we have repeatedly demonstrated from John 6:37-44 (to the emphatic denials of your Wesleyan compatriot), it is the giving of the Father that determines who will come unto Christ for salvation. If you want to walk through that text yet again, I'd be only too happy to oblige you.

When God calls men to salvation and they refuse, is it because God gave them a hypocritical call, designing it so that they could not answer, and then pretending that it is their fault? No, the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. God's call to salvation is genuine.

Yes, God's gospel call is to everyone. And yes, God's gospel call is most certainly genuine. However, once again, you have failed to fully acknowledge the purpose of the gospel.

The message of the cross does indeed proclaim life to those who will believe, but it also proclaims judgment upon those who will not believe. That's why I, as a Calvinist evangelist, preach the good news to everyone. I expect that by God's sovereign grace the elect will ultimately come to saving faith, and by God's sovereign decree the reprobates will continue to rebel, just as they desire. I am free to preach the gospel without restraint because I do not know who -- out of the vast crowd before me -- God has chosen to save. But I do know that He always and only saves through the preaching of the gospel [Ro. 10:17].

 

[Vince53]

The Greek word translated "foreknow" is formed by combining the Greek prefix "fore" with the Greek word "know." "Fore" means "ago," while the Greek word "know" means "be aware of." The word "foreknow" means "be aware of in advance."

The idea that God's uses foreknowledge as a tool to force men to accept Christ cannot be found in the Bible, nor can it be found in the dictionary.

 

[Tzaousios]

The Greek word translated "foreknow" is formed by combining the Greek prefix "fore" with the Greek word "know." "Fore" means "ago," while the Greek word "know" means "be aware of." The word "foreknow" means "be aware of in advance."

The idea that God's uses foreknowledge as a tool to force men to accept Christ cannot be found in the Bible, nor can it be found in the dictionary.

Are you ever going to answer Tim Rout directly by quoting from his posts? It seems you pretty much ignore replies to you and just move on by posting your next Calvinism excoriation piece. It would be nice if you could quote specifics from his posts and try to refute them systematically.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Originally Posted by PrincetonGuy
The majority of the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers may conceivably have been incorrect regarding some interpretations of the Scriptures, but when a doctrine is totally absent from the writings of the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers and is abundantly refuted by them, there can be no reasonable doubt but that the doctrine is a spurious, erroneous doctrine. Such is the case with all of the Five Points of Calvinism.
How are you so sure? This sure seems like an opinion and case of wishful thinking. You would be hard-pressed not to find any element of the five points of Calvinism in the ante-Nicene fathers. Of course, you are entitled to your opinion though.

How can I be so sure? By reading what they wrote! You are more than welcome to read their writings for yourself and quote them if you can find what you hope is there.

Originally Posted by PrincetonGuy
Let us always keep in mind that the Protestant Reformation was a reaction to abuses in the Roman Catholic Church and that at the time of the Protestant Reformation, students of the Bible had very few resources to aid them—not so much as a copy of Strong’s concordance or Nave’s Topical Bible or a reliable Greek grammar.
Obviously, the Reformers did not have a copy of those reference works because they are modern. However, after the proliferation of the printing press, especially in large cities and the lower country of Germany, reference works and dictionaries began to be printed up and disseminated. If you knew about the work of Aldus Manutius and others you would understand this.

Printers generally find it difficult, even with today’s modern technology, to print works that have not yet been written.

Originally Posted by PrincetonGuy
Had the Protestant Reformation occurred in this century, it is extremely unlikely that we would have the Five Points of Calvinism to worry about.
What in the world are you talking about? There is no way to prove this and even to suggest it is a grave historical anachronism. Please explain in more detail.

The Protestant Reformation occurred at a time before even very basic tools for Bible study such as concordances, topical Bibles, and reliable Greek grammars were available. Today, we have very sophisticated software for the study of not only Biblical literature, but also relevant extra-Biblical literature.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Albion;53551747][/b][/size]

[/COLOR]
Originally Posted by PrincetonGuy http://www.christianforums.com/t7416783-8/#post53549357
Let us not confuse a consensus of opinion or the prevailing opinion with the unanimous teaching of the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers and the total absence of a conflicting doctrine.

And let us never be misled by this kind of self-fulfilling claim. There is nothing unanimous about the teachings of the Church Fathers and many changed their own minds as their careers moved along. Almost none of them were alive at the time of the Apostles, and almost all that is claimed to be true because "it was handed down from the Apostles" indeed was.
In short, this allegation that whatever always was, must, therefore, be true, is unproven...and worse, is unprovable. And from all that we know, it is false on its face since there is no evidence that most of these doctrines actually came from the Apostles, constituted the faith or practice of the first Christian churches, or was, in fact, the "unanimous" teaching of the Ante-Nicene or any other group of churches. It is nothing but a self-validating myth.

The Ant-Nicene Church Fathers held unanimous views concerning several important issues, including views that are directly contrary to what are today known as the Five Points of Calvinism. This incontrovertible fact has been a thorn in the side of Calvinists ever since the writings of the Ant-Nicene Church Fathers became widely available in both their original languages, Greek and Latin, and in translations in modern Western languages. They seem to keep hoping that an archeologist will someday find something written before 325 A.D. that supports at least one of their five points, but this is extremely unlikely because none of the Ant-Nicene Church Fathers so much as made an allusion to any of the five points, making it very clear that such concepts were unknown to them from the Scriptures or any where else.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Originally Posted by Vince53
In John 15:16, Jesus explains to the 11 apostles that they did not choose Him, but He chose them to bear much fruit. The verse has nothing to do with salvation.
I'm sorry Vince, but once again I simply cannot agree. [Jn. 15:12-17/NASB]

"This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends. You are My friends if you do what I command you."

Two things to note:

Firstly, in this context Jesus is indeed speaking salvifically. He is speaking of those for whom He will soon lay down His life. You are wrong to have suggested otherwise.

Secondly, there is a qualifier placed on the "friends" title; Judas Iscariot was excluded from the "friends" group, since he did not in fact obey. Therefore...and don't miss this...Jesus did NOT lay down His life for Judas. (Limited Atonement )

The choosing that Jesus is speaking of in John 15:16 is NOT choosing for salvation, but choosing for discipleship. We can be absolutely certain of this because this is part of the conversation, beginning in John 13:6, between Jesus and his disciples in the upper room right after their eating of the last supper.

Let us now look at the part of the conversation that immediately preceded John 15:16,

John 15:1. “I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.
2. “Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit.
3. “You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.
4. “Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me.
5. “I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.
6. “If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned.
7. “If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.”
8. “My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be My disciples.
9. “Just as the Father has loved Me, I have also loved you; abide in My love.
10. “If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love.
11. “These things I have spoken to you so that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full.
12. “This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you.
13. “Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.
14. “You are My friends if you do what I command you.
15. “No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you.
16. “You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain, so that whatever you ask of the Father in My name He may give to you.
17. “This I command you, that you love one another.” (NASB, 1995)

Notice especially v. 6. If anyone does not abide in Christ, he is thrown away and ultimately burned. In all occurrences of the English word “abide” in the four gospels in the KJV, the Greek verb is the same, μενω. The same Greek verb is also used in John 15:4 where it is translated “abideth,” in John 15:9 where it is translated as “continue,” and in John 15:16 where it is translated “remain.” It is also used in John chapter 1 four times, John chapter 2 once, John chapter 3 once, John chapter 4 once, John chapter 5 once, John chapter 6 twice, John chapter 7 once, John chapter 8 twice, John chapter 9 once, John chapter 10 once, and in John chapters 11, 12, 14, 19, and 21.

Therefore, in the passage before us, Jesus is expressly teaching His disciples the necessity of their abiding in Him for their ultimate salvation. Unless they continue to remain faithful to Him, their end will be eternal damnation in the fires of hell. So yes, Jesus is speaking salvifically, but the choosing that Jesus is speaking of in John 15:16 is NOT choosing for salvation, but choosing for discipleship.

Judas was chosen for discipleship, but he did not continue to remain faithful to Jesus.

 

[TimRout]

The Greek word translated "foreknow" is formed by combining the Greek prefix "fore" with the Greek word "know." "Fore" means "ago," while the Greek word "know" means "be aware of." The word "foreknow" means "be aware of in advance."

The idea that God's uses foreknowledge as a tool to force men to accept Christ cannot be found in the Bible, nor can it be found in the dictionary.

"Force" men to accept Christ? Oh dear, Vince. Don't you ever get tired of misrepresenting Calvinism?

Since you seem unimpressed with anything I have to say, perhaps it would be helpful for me to provide an alternative source. Here's Dr. James White on the subject of divine foreknowledge as found in the Golden Chain Of Redemption [Ro. 8:29-30].

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBRSFx6n1Kc

 

[Albion]

The Ant-Nicene Church Fathers held unanimous views concerning several important issues, including views that are directly contrary to what are today known as the Five Points of Calvinism.

Oh, but that (the so-called five points) wasn't what you were claiming had no precedent. It was that there was no hint of anything but freewill--which of course is incorrect and you must realize it now if you are re-fashioning your claim into this very narrow claim that doesn't prove much anyway. I mean, someone else's way of explaining predestination--Luther or Augustine, for example--proves my point just as well that there is no truth to the claim that the early church was unanimously against this Biblical teaching. Maybe if you were to say that you don't know of anyone in the early church who explained election using the exact words that Calvin did, we could agree to that. LOL

Nicene Church Fathers so much as made an allusion to any of the five points

As I was saying....

 

[Albion]

Are you ever going to answer Tim Rout directly by quoting from his posts? It seems you pretty much ignore replies to you and just move on by posting your next Calvinism excoriation piece. It would be nice if you could quote specifics from his posts and try to refute them systematically.

Or post one scintilla of evidence that supports his claims. All we've been given is a claim with nothing backing it up...and of course the retort that we can read the liturature for ourselves. Big deal.

 

[Vince53]

Folks, I'm not trying to be unkind, but when you run across a verse you do not like, you need to submit to God's authority and change your beliefs. Defining "the world" as "the elect;" "all men" as "some men;" and "knowing the future" as "forcing men to believe" is a wrong response to God's Word.

I was saved forty years ago today, but continued praying to statues and saints. When I learned the truth from God's Word, that was a victory, not a defeat. It was spiritual growth, not failure.

 

[Jessica01]

Folks, I'm not trying to be unkind, but when you run across a verse you do not like, you need to submit to God's authority and change your beliefs. Defining "the world" as "the elect;" "all men" as "some men;" and "knowing the future" as "forcing men to believe" is a wrong response to God's Word.

I was saved forty years ago today, but continued praying to statues and saints. When I learned the truth from God's Word, that was a victory, not a defeat. It was spiritual growth, not failure.

Your comments do not address the discussion at all. In fact I think you are making a ad hom comment in assuming that just because some disagree with your view, they are not submitting to God's authority.

 

[Jessica01]

"Yes, predestination DOES mean that God chooses those whom he will bring to faith."

No, it does not, and there is no such teaching in Scripture. Those who accept Christ are predestined to be conformed to the image of God's Son, and they are predestined to be adopted as sons. There is no other type of predestination in the Bible.

Yes, indeed, God does choose whom He will save. He chooses (elects) to save everyone who accepts Jesus as Lord and Savior. But nowhere in the Bible does God choose who will accept Jesus.

Romans 8:29-30:
For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined {to become} conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

foreknew- predestined - called
those He called, He justified - those He justifies, He glorifies

Ephesians 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

So being called - doesn't that mean we were chosen?

This supports Calvinism imho

 

[Vince53]

God knew, in advance, who would accept Christ. He chose to save them. Nowhere does the Bible teach that He chose who would accept Christ.

He also predestined them to be conformed to the image of His Son. But He did not predestine them to accept Christ, and the Bible nowhere teaches that He did.

God calls the entire world to Himself. Nowhere does the Bible teach that God forces people to accept His call, or that His call is irresistible.

 

[Jessica01]

Well, that is how you see it.....a Calvinist will see it a bit differently. That does not mean that either of you are less responsive to God's authority as your earlier post implied.

 

[Jessica01]

Well, that is how you see it.....a Calvinist will see it a bit differently. That does not mean that either of you are less responsive to God's authority as your earlier post implied.

 

[Vince53]

"All we've been given is a claim with nothing backing it up."

Uhm, a few dozen Bible verses and a couple of Greek word studies.

 

[TimRout]

"All we've been given is a claim with nothing backing it up."

Uhm, a few dozen Bible verses and a couple of Greek word studies.

Well Vince, as a general rule, when one presents a positive case that is then challenged, it is customary to respond to that challenge and demonstrate why your presentation must be correct. You seem unwilling to do this. Calvinists value careful exegesis. So far we have seen much verse citation, but no meaningful exegesis of those texts whatsoever. So then, to get back to the subject at hand....

Can you demonstrate from Scripture why we (Calvinists) should believe that "world" in Jn. 3:16 has to mean all people everywhere?

 

[Albion]

"All we've been given is a claim with nothing backing it up."

Uhm, a few dozen Bible verses and a couple of Greek word studies.

Yes, it's true that no matter what the subject, it is possible to find a verse or two to hang your hat on, depending upon how you interpret it to your own ends. I'll give you that much--you at least used some verses, even if you scorn others which clearly speak against your notion. That's a good way to protect yourself in a debating siutuation. However, it's not a good way to understand Scripture, to choose only the verses that seem to support what you believe and pretend that the rest of the Bible doesn't matter.

But what I was referring to was what another poster had given us, which was nothing. He stated that there was "unanimous" agreement among the Early Church Fathers that freewill is God's way. He, thyough, offered nothing except a claim. Moreover, it is well-known that Irenaeus and Augustine taught predestination, so that fact alone disproves his claim.