Arminianism leads to Calvinism

[cygnusx1]

I'm not representing what they believe; I'm representing my opinion of what their belief really is.

makes no difference , it's still false!!

Show me where we were "chosen apart from our belief for salvation"...

you have been shown , but you cannot see......

Oh every point has been refuted. 1Cor2:14 "proves Calvinism" --- until refuted with verse 12.

Mark4:11-12 "proves Calvinism" --- until refuted with Matt13:15.

2Cor4:3-4 "proves Calvinism" --- until refuted with 3:16.

Philip3:19 "proves Calvinism" --- until refuted with Col3:1-3 (and following).

1Jn2:19 "proves Calvinism" --- until refuted with Jn2:26-28, and 2Jn1:7-9 (some who "go out from us", that WERE "of-us/saved").

not one single point has been refuted .......... and never will be.

On and on, Cygnus. Eventually we'll convince you.

yes .... you have convinced me ben , you have convinced me over and over of the dismal and bankrupt nature of man centered Arminianism and it's false idol 'Free-will'

 

[Scholar in training]

yes .... you have convinced me ben , you have convinced me over and over of the dismal and bankrupt nature of man centered Arminianism and it's false idol 'Free-will'

This is what people say when they have nothing else to support their argument.

 

[cygnusx1]

This is what people say when they have nothing else to support their argument.

is that it ?

 

[Ben johnson]

not one single point has been refuted .......... and never will be.

That's because in concepts like 2Pet3:17, it has been proposed that "there is such a thing as unsteadfastly saved", or "he doesn't really MEAN we CAN fall from steadfastness". Or in James5:19-20, he's talking to the "unsaved-pretenders-lurking-AMONGST-the saved" --- telling that "if they should wander from the truth (though they've never truly HAD the truth), and another leads them back (but it's really 'leads TO salvation' because they've never been where they can go back TO)"...

And it has been proposed that 2Jn1:7-9 really means "watch yourselves against deceivers, that you not lose what has been wrought (meaning, lose 'heavenly rewards but not Heaven itself') --- anyone who goes too far (meaning has always BEEN too far, was never really SAVED --- he changes SUBJECTS between verse 8 and 9) --- and does not abide in the teachings of Christ (meaning 'has never really abided') --- he does not have God."

It has been proposed that the warning in 1Jn2:26-28 (sorry I got it wrong in the post before, writing "Jn2:26-28") for us "to abide in Christ so that we not shrink in shame at His coming", is really only warning us against "losing heavenly REWARDS" --- "it's possible to be 'not-abiding', and to be 'shrinking-in-shame-at-Jesus'-coming", but still be saved just losing only heavenly-rewards...

It has been proposed that "be on your guard lst by the error of unprincipled men you fall from your own steadfastness" (2Pet3:17), and "see that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception ...rather than according to Christ" (Col2:8), and "I worry that as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, that your minds should be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ" --- it has been proposed that there is such a thing as: "unsteadfast or captive-away-from-Christ or led-astray-from-devotion-to-Christ", but those are STILL SAVED".

That's how "my refutations have been rejected", Cygnus; by holding to ideas exactly as I've recounted them. I'm not understanding how those "deceived/led-astray/unsteadfast" are considered "still saved". And I'm not understanding what about my presentation has not challenged the credibility of "lose-heavenly-rewards-but-not-Heaven-itself"...

you have been shown , but you cannot see......

What I've "been shown", reflects understandings such as I've just recounted. I don't find them credible, and am puzzled that other people do.

 

[cygnusx1]

That's because in concepts like 2Pet3:17, it has been proposed that "there is such a thing as unsteadfastly saved", or "he doesn't really MEAN we CAN fall from steadfastness". Or in James5:19-20, he's talking to the "unsaved-pretenders-lurking-AMONGST-the saved" --- telling that "if they should wander from the truth (though they've never truly HAD the truth), and another leads them back (but it's really 'leads TO salvation' because they've never been where they can go back TO)"...

And it has been proposed that 2Jn1:7-9 really means "watch yourselves against deceivers, that you not lose what has been wrought (meaning, lose 'heavenly rewards but not Heaven itself') --- anyone who goes too far (meaning has always BEEN too far, was never really SAVED --- he changes SUBJECTS between verse 8 and 9) --- and does not abide in the teachings of Christ (meaning 'has never really abided') --- he does not have God."

It has been proposed that the warning in 1Jn2:26-28 (sorry I got it wrong in the post before, writing "Jn2:26-28") for us "to abide in Christ so that we not shrink in shame at His coming", is really only warning us against "losing heavenly REWARDS" --- "it's possible to be 'not-abiding', and to be 'shrinking-in-shame-at-Jesus'-coming", but still be saved just losing only heavenly-rewards...

It has been proposed that "be on your guard lst by the error of unprincipled men you fall from your own steadfastness" (2Pet3:17), and "see that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception ...rather than according to Christ" (Col2:8), and "I worry that as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, that your minds should be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ" --- it has been proposed that there is such a thing as: "unsteadfast or captive-away-from-Christ or led-astray-from-devotion-to-Christ", but those are STILL SAVED".

That's how "my refutations have been rejected", Cygnus; by holding to ideas exactly as I've recounted them. I'm not understanding how those "deceived/led-astray/unsteadfast" are considered "still saved". And I'm not understanding what about my presentation has not challenged the credibility of "lose-heavenly-rewards-but-not-Heaven-itself"...
What I've "been shown", reflects understandings such as I've just recounted. I don't find them credible, and am puzzled that other people do.

hi ben ,

the Life of David confounds all your theories and assumptions !
there was a man who did things that you are fond of quoting none who are saved can remain such , but did David lose his salvation , did God abandon him ?
Did God impute his sin to him ?

So I concur that all the warnings are real , apostacy does happen (Judas) but the Elect though they may fall into some terrible sins (Peter denied three times he even knew Jesus , even after Jesus had said "He who denies me before men I will deny before my Father" !! ) cannot be lost!

 

[ghs1994]

1 Corinthians 1:12-13 Now this I say that every one of you saith , I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were yet baptized in the name of Paul?

Are you of Calvin? Are you of Arminian? Are you of Christ? Hmm....hard to tell.

 

[cygnusx1]

1 Corinthians 1:12-13 Now this I say that every one of you saith , I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were yet baptized in the name of Paul?

Are you of Calvin? Are you of Arminian? Are you of Christ? Hmm....hard to tell.

There is only ONE Lord and Saviour and we thank and praise Him for Calvin and Luther ........ where would YOU be today without the Reformation , probably doing penance , perhaps buying an indulgence , and believing that you can earn salvation!

 

[ghs1994]

Yea probably, but then again, God knew what I was gonna do anyway, right?

January 24,1994, He knew I would be on my knees receiving Christ.

 

[cygnusx1]

Yea probably, but then again, God knew what I was gonna do anyway, right?

January 24,1994, He knew I would be on my knees receiving Christ.

So it's OK to ignore the Reformation , or play it down as though you were going to be saved without it ? Right ?

 

[ghs1994]

Not playing anything down, sir. Just lettin' ya know that I am saved by His grace and nothing else. Whether it came thru Calvin's way of doing things or Luther's, it was still God's. I give no credit to Luther or Calvin, but God thru them. They're just men. I'm not of either, but of God. Am I splitting hairs? Nah. I just don't give allegiance to anyone but God. This whole deal with Calvanism and Arminism is a good study and basically personal conviction using scripture to fulfill your point of view and then call it inspriration of the Holy Spirit. But there aren't two Holy Spirit's or two God's. There is One God, and I try my best not to spend my time arguing the point, but in this case, I do apologize if I've given you any grief because that is not my intention here.

 

[cygnusx1]

Not playing anything down, sir. Just lettin' ya know that I am saved by His grace and nothing else. Whether it came thru Calvin's way of doing things or Luther's, it was still God's. I give no credit to Luther or Calvin, but God thru them. They're just men. I'm not of either, but of God. Am I splitting hairs? Nah. I just don't give allegiance to anyone but God. This whole deal with Calvanism and Arminism is a good study and basically personal conviction using scripture to fulfill your point of view and then call it inspriration of the Holy Spirit. But there aren't two Holy Spirit's or two God's. There is One God, and I try my best not to spend my time arguing the point, but in this case, I do apologize if I've given you any grief because that is not my intention here.

OK , lets assume you are having difficulty with eternal security (thousands of Christians do) who do you ask ?

If you ask the OSAS brigade they open up the door of error to reckless sinning instead of persevering .
and
if you turn to the Roman and Remonstrants you will be fed the error that you can lose your salvation!

only the Reformed view is consistant with the full force of scripture and avoids these pit-falls....

 

[ghs1994]

Like I said before, those men were great for what they did, but as God saw them thru it. They didn't have that knowledge until God gave it to them. I'm not concerned so much with Calvin and Luther, but not because of them, because of God, the Word has been preserved for me and you. Just as God uses you and I daily, He just used them as well. Their accomplishments may seem great, but no more than what you or I do on a daily basis. We read the Word, discern the Word, preach it, share it, meditate on it, etc. The only difference is they are known by the world. I'm not trying to diminsh what they did, but we all have our purposes and we must run the race marked out for us, just as they did.

 

[cygnusx1]

Like I said before, those men were great for what they did, but as God saw them thru it. They didn't have that knowledge until God gave it to them. I'm not concerned so much with Calvin and Luther, but not because of them, because of God, the Word has been preserved for me and you. Just as God uses you and I daily, He just used them as well. Their accomplishments may seem great, but no more than what you or I do on a daily basis. We read the Word, discern the Word, preach it, share it, meditate on it, etc. The only difference is they are known by the world. I'm not trying to diminsh what they did, but we all have our purposes and we must run the race marked out for us, just as they did.

have you ever looked at the cost of the Reformation ............ in blood?

 

[ghs1994]

Like I said before, I said these men were great in what they did. I'm not denying that. But why is their cost so much more than anyone else's cause for the furthering of the gospel? Did anyone else run in vain? I think too much emphasis is put on these two. They were great Christians, but again, just men. They were used by God for His purpose. It wasn't as if they were used in writing scripture, if we're gonna talk about great men. I don't think that Calvin or Luther will be one of the 24 sitting around the throne, but I'm sure God has awesome plans for them both. But again, only great because God saw to it that way.

 

[bitwise]

Like I said before, I said these men were great in what they did. I'm not denying that. But why is their cost so much more than anyone else's cause for the furthering of the gospel? Did anyone else run in vain? I think too much emphasis is put on these two. They were great Christians, but again, just men. They were used by God for His purpose. It wasn't as if they were used in writing scripture, if we're gonna talk about great men. I don't think that Calvin or Luther will be one of the 24 sitting around the throne, but I'm sure God has awesome plans for them both. But again, only great because God saw to it that way.

I think it goes against Scripture to take upon ourselves the name of another man, be it Calvin (i.e. Calvinist) or Luther (i.e. Lutheran). Who then is Luther, and who is Calvin, but ministers by whom we believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? Luther planted, Calvin watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth anything, neither he that watereth; but GOD that giveth the increase. If the apostle Paul forbids the Corinthians to take upon themselves his OWN name, how much more would he forbid Christians to take upon themselves the names of other men? What was the reason for Paul's disliking of this? Namely, is Christ divided? If we seek to conform ourselves to the Truth of the Gospel, why fail on such a small point? What God says is best, indeed is best, although all men be against it.

-bit

 

[Ben johnson]

So I concur that all the warnings are real , apostacy does happen (Judas)

Hello! What does that mean? What did Judas "aspostacize FROM"? Was Judas ever saved?

... but the Elect though they may fall into some terrible sins (Peter denied three times he even knew Jesus ,

Didn't Jesus pray for Peter to continue in salvation? Lk22:32. Was that prayer sincere?

... even after Jesus had said "He who denies me before men I will deny before my Father" !! ) cannot be lost!

OK, please take that "deny Me before men, and I will deny you before My Father" (Jn10:32-33); and apply it to 2Tim2:11-13. How does it not speak of "falling because of faithlessness, denying Jesus and Him denying Us, so that the faithless-denying-ones will NOT reign with Him"?

 

[Ben johnson]

I am saved by His grace and nothing else. Whether it came thru Calvin's way of doing things or Luther's, it was still God's. I give no credit to Luther or Calvin, but God thru them. They're just men. I'm not of either, but of God. Am I splitting hairs? Nah. I just don't give allegiance to anyone but God. This whole deal with Calvanism and Arminism is a good study and basically personal conviction using scripture to fulfill your point of view and then call it inspriration of the Holy Spirit. But there aren't two Holy Spirit's or two God's. There is One God, and I try my best not to spend my time arguing the point

Amen. Yet --- the "arguments", cut to the "essence of salvation". In that, we "earnestly contend for the faith". Jd3. Are we saved BEFORE we believe (monergistic-regeneration)? Or are we saved THROUGH belief, and likewise ABIDE in Christ through belief (Responsible Grace)? The answer affects our walk and spirituality greatly...

January 24,1994, He knew I would be on my knees receiving Christ.

I am honored to be part of His family with you!

 

[cygnusx1]

Hello! What does that mean? What did Judas "aspostacize FROM"?

Hello!!

From being a "follower of Christ" .......... no need to read saved into that , because it is so plainly written that Jesus knew from the beginning Judas was a reprobate.

Was Judas ever saved?

no!!!!

Didn't Jesus pray for Peter to continue in salvation? Lk22:32.

the point is He didn't pray for Judas !

Was that prayer sincere? OK, please take that "deny Me before men, and I will deny you before My Father" (Jn10:32-33); and apply it to 2Tim2:11-13. How does it not speak of "falling because of faithlessness, denying Jesus and Him denying Us, so that the faithless-denying-ones will NOT reign with Him"?

OK , are you expecting to see Peter in heaven seeing as he commited the 'cardinal sin' ?

of course you are!
which just goes to show your theory doesn't fit the facts.

 

[Ben johnson]

the point is He didn't pray for Judas !

OK , are you expecting to see Peter in heaven seeing as he commited the 'cardinal sin' ?

The point, is that Jesus truly and sincerely saw Peter's saved-faith, at risk. Judas fully apostacized; Peter was "teetering on the brink".

"I prayed that your faith not fail --- and when you have RETURNED (epistrepho), strengthened your brothers."

1. The possibility of "faith failing", cannot fit with the idea of "monergistic-instilled-saving-faith-from-God".
2. Jesus praying that Peter's faith NOT fail, can only mean that Jesus considered "falling" a real possibility.

From being a "follower of Christ" .......... no need to read saved into that , because it is so plainly written that Jesus knew from the beginning Judas was a reprobate.

Then you believe that Jesus selected an UNSAVED REPROBATE as one of the twelve disciples. I don't find that credible.

"Apostasy", means "abandoning faith that one once believed in". Look at what was happening at the end of John6:

Many of his disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him any more. Jesus said therefore to the twelve, "YOU'RE not wanting to go away TOO, are you?"

Peter answered, "Lord --- to whom shall we go? We know that you are the Holy One of God (Messiah)."

Jesus answered, "Did I not choose all twelve of you, and ONE is a devil?"

Here is how I understand that:
1. All twelve (including Judas) were chosen equally.
2. Judas truly apostasized from belief, and betrayed Jesus.
3. John15:16 says: "You did not choose Me, I chose you (to BE disciples), and appointed you, that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain."
4. Jesus CHOSE/APPOINTED the twelve, all twelve.
5. ONE of the twelve fell away
6. Jesus asked if the REST of the twelve were going to ALSO leave, like JUDAS did
7. Jesus prayed that Peter's faith not fail (Lk22:32)
8. Luke asserts "savage wolves will arise, not sparing the flock; from among your own selves men will arise and speak perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them." Acts20:29-30

Cygnus, please explain to me how, Scripturally, a true disciple, cannot apostasize from salvation? How do these verses together support "predestined-elect-CANNOT-FALL", rather than "faith that CAN fall, anyone can leave just like JUDAS"?

How am I misunderstanding what I just showed, numbers 1-8?

 

[cygnusx1]

The point, is that Jesus truly and sincerely saw Peter's saved-faith, at risk. Judas fully apostacized; Peter was "teetering on the brink".

"I prayed that your faith not fail --- and when you have RETURNED (epistrepho), strengthened your brothers."

1. The possibility of "faith failing", cannot fit with the idea of "monergistic-instilled-saving-faith-from-God".
2. Jesus praying that Peter's faith NOT fail, can only mean that Jesus considered "falling" a real possibility.
Then you believe that Jesus selected an UNSAVED REPROBATE as one of the twelve disciples. I don't find that credible.

"Apostasy", means "abandoning faith that one once believed in". Look at what was happening at the end of John6:

Many of his disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him any more. Jesus said therefore to the twelve, "YOU'RE not wanting to go away TOO, are you?"

Peter answered, "Lord --- to whom shall we go? We know that you are the Holy One of God (Messiah)."

Jesus answered, "Did I not choose all twelve of you, and ONE is a devil?"

Here is how I understand that:
1. All twelve (including Judas) were chosen equally.
2. Judas truly apostasized from belief, and betrayed Jesus.
3. John15:16 says: "You did not choose Me, I chose you (to BE disciples), and appointed you, that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain."
4. Jesus CHOSE/APPOINTED the twelve, all twelve.
5. ONE of the twelve fell away
6. Jesus asked if the REST of the twelve were going to ALSO leave, like JUDAS did
7. Jesus prayed that Peter's faith not fail (Lk22:32)
8. Luke asserts "savage wolves will arise, not sparing the flock; from among your own selves men will arise and speak perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them." Acts20:29-30

Cygnus, please explain to me how, Scripturally, a true disciple, cannot apostasize from salvation? How do these verses together support "predestined-elect-CANNOT-FALL", rather than "faith that CAN fall, anyone can leave just like JUDAS"?

How am I misunderstanding what I just showed, numbers 1-8?

hi ben,

I think your basic problem is in misunderstanding the potential (all men can fall away)from the actual (God secures our redemption).......... you are so emphasizing the former as to deny the latter , I believe both!

eg , was Abraham really in danger of slaying Isaac ?

Yes .................... and NO!!!