Calvinism vs Arminian is a worldview debate

[ToBeLoved]

I can agree with you to some extent, especially if the issues came down to soteriology. I wouldn't say Arminians are brainless. They are ruled by emotions and they are typically most people. Calvinist are more ruled by the brain and the emotions tend to follow. I never would have claimed paradox beliefs when I claimed I was Calvinist. However, Lutheranism does claim to be paradoxical. They believe Christians have eternal assurance and yet can lose their salvation. To them, Calvinist and Arminians are both a bit messed up. Calvinist reject free will, but Lutherans say free will exists. Arminians say we have free will in salvation while Lutherans say you don't. Both Calvinist and Arminians say you can't lose your salvation, however Lutherans say you have free will to lose it.

The one area that disturbs me with the Arminians types is how loose they are with Scripture. You can't tell me a flippant view of Scripture doesn't affect the entirety of their view. It becomes inconsistent.

My favorite people to listen to are Lutherans. In life they are so more care free. They enjoy a drink. Some love to play Different games some baptist types are not fond of. But they take Scripture to what it says. There is no way baptist can agree with Lutheran theology because they will see it as too RC.

Interesting.

I see it just the opposite. I think Calvinists have no emotions. SInce they have made no decision for Christ, but have been drawn without there consent, then salvation just happened to them one day. One day your not saved, the next you are. After that anything that happens in your life you are not responsible for because you can not and do not make any decisions, but just let God's will spill out.

But I must say, I don't meet many nice Calvinists, so it cannot be all God spilling out of them.

There is no need to change anything because God's will has it on wrap.

But then on the other hand, it makes me wonder what about human beings is what the BIble calls 'made in the image of God'?

What is that image of God?

It also makes me ask, if only God's will can be done than you believe that Adam & Eve's sin was part of God's will?

 

[ToBeLoved]

d) We are saved by grace through faith, which is a gift from God

d) Baptists

Which is the gift? Grace or faith?

What does grace mean?

What does faith mean?

 

[ToBeLoved]

Question.

In what year did Calvinism come about, by Calvin?

In what year did Arminism come about?

 

[Bluelion]

To put it like Oz stated, and is more to the scholarly way to put it, hermeneutics has changed. In the manner of this thread, Christianity has changed. The worldviews of the day have impacted Christianity. There is always a bit of truth people are responding to with their worldview, but within those changes they make within their worldviews, they are still altering Christianity wrongly.

For instance, postmodernism has shaped Christianity. One of the plights postmodernism Christians see is hypocrisy and injustice and hate within Christianity. The result is the growth of the charismatic milieu into all of Christianity to fuse together Christianity as one. But in this there is a false theology of charismatic hermeneutics infecting theology. Gone is sound doctrine of the gospel and what enters is mysticism they claim is the holy spirits work, but it's a lie. The Holy Spirit does not distort context of Scripture for a shot of hope, wealth and health. So a legitimate concern is used for a different bad theology.

But don't you think that should change, that we should no longer accept this as reality? That there should be only one world very for all Christians, that we should be trying to bring about one church instead of dividing it to better reflect the Body of Christ? To often we say that is just the way it is, and look what have got for it. Gays are now pastors there is a new Bible which takes out the law to allow for gays called the qeen james bible. If people can change the Bible and the church to reflect the world what will ever be left of either? My point is we need to unite against this in the church and attack on the Bible. We need to call out those in pastor potions which are not children of God and remove them. We have focus on the world to long and not enough on the church, so it is corrupt and a harlot of Babylon. Just tried of saying that is the way it is, you know.

 

[ToBeLoved]

To put it like Oz stated, and is more to the scholarly way to put it, hermeneutics has changed. In the manner of this thread, Christianity has changed. The worldviews of the day have impacted Christianity. There is always a bit of truth people are responding to with their worldview, but within those changes they make within their worldviews, they are still altering Christianity wrongly.

If hermeneutics has changed, it is because we are willing to accept 30 different translations. We still have the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

For the lazy, hermeneutics have changed. Not for all of us. To me it is an excuse. An excuse to say this is why I am not 'all in'. Why not just admit that you don't follow God's Word if you do not follow and are obedient to what the Bible tells/commands us? Or that you choose the loosest translation that doesn't get to strict? Or that some of the Bible is true and some is not? Or whatevefr the case may be.

God never changes, so for those who are letting modern times affect their faith, they are probably going about their faith wrong. God layed it out as He wants it.

 

[Bluelion]

If hermeneutics has changed, it is because we are willing to accept 30 different translations. We still have the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

For the lazy, hermeneutics have changed. Not for all of us. To me it is an excuse. An excuse to say this is why I am not 'all in'. Why not just admit that you don't follow God's Word if you do not follow and are obedient to what the Bible tells/commands us? Or that you choose the loosest translation that doesn't get to strict? Or that some of the Bible is true and some is not? Or whatevefr the case may be.

God never changes, so for those who are letting modern times affect their faith, they are probably going about their faith wrong. God layed it out as He wants it.

wow where you been? I like the truth in your words you should have came to this section a long time ago

 

[mikedsjr]

But don't you think that should change, that we should no longer accept this as reality? That there should be only one world very for all Christians, that we should be trying to bring about one church instead of dividing it to better reflect the Body of Christ? To often we say that is just the way it is, and look what have got for it. Gays are now pastors there is a new Bible which takes out the law to allow for gays called the qeen james bible. If people can change the Bible and the church to reflect the world what will ever be left of either? My point is we need to unite against this in the church and attack on the Bible. We need to call out those in pastor potions which are not children of God and remove them. We have focus on the world to long and not enough on the church, so it is corrupt and a harlot of Babylon. Just tried of saying that is the way it is, you know.

With independent autonomous churches, no outsider has any say in the theology of that church. What would you suggest is the answer that unites autonomous churches, liturgical churches and any other type where pastors can be removed from their office?

 

[Bluelion]

With independent autonomous churches, no outsider has any say in the theology of that church. What would you suggest is the answer that unites autonomous churches, liturgical churches and any other type where pastors can be removed from their office?

I guess that would have to be the foundation which is Jesus. If we get back to living and teaching what Jesus taught, the way he taught it, I think we would find the old establishment would crumble like it did before. Check everyone who comes in the name of the Lord with God's word as Paul said. If they speak against it they are not from God or preach so other doctrine they are not from God. It should be shown to everyone what they said and how they spoke against God. Then if people still seek that pastor they condemn their selves having been warned.

 

[Bluelion]

Problem is no one wants to speak against a church or pastor but this was what Jesus did, He did not speak against Rome but the temple.

 

[Bluelion]

Jesus said don't think i came to bring peace but rather a sword. He meant he sought to divide the world from the children of God. Do you see that goal realized, are these buildings that call themselves a church are they divided from the world?

 

[twin1954]

Interesting.

I see it just the opposite. I think Calvinists have no emotions. SInce they have made no decision for Christ, but have been drawn without there consent, then salvation just happened to them one day. One day your not saved, the next you are. After that anything that happens in your life you are not responsible for because you can not and do not make any decisions, but just let God's will spill out.

But I must say, I don't meet many nice Calvinists, so it cannot be all God spilling out of them.

There is no need to change anything because God's will has it on wrap.

But then on the other hand, it makes me wonder what about human beings is what the BIble calls 'made in the image of God'?

What is that image of God?

It also makes me ask, if only God's will can be done than you believe that Adam & Eve's sin was part of God's will?

Could it be that it isn't the nasty Calvinists who are rude but you when you makes statements like you did in this post? There are plenty of nice Calvinists who would be more than willing to help you understand what we believe if you would approach us a little bit more honestly. This post is nothing but antagonistic nonsense and a straw man. I guess that you think this is God spilling out of you right?

 

[twin1954]

I guess that would have to be the foundation which is Jesus. If we get back to living and teaching what Jesus taught, the way he taught it, I think we would find the old establishment would crumble like it did before. Check everyone who comes in the name of the Lord with God's word as Paul said. If they speak against it they are not from God or preach so other doctrine they are not from God. It should be shown to everyone what they said and how they spoke against God. Then if people still seek that pastor they condemn their selves having been warned.

Just one question; who gets to decide what the actual teachings are that we judge by? You?

 

[ToBeLoved]

Could it be that it isn't the nasty Calvinists who are rude but you when you makes statements like you did in this post? There are plenty of nice Calvinists who would be more than willing to help you understand what we believe if you would approach us a little bit more honestly. This post is nothing but antagonistic nonsense and a straw man. I guess that you think this is God spilling out of you right?

It would be nice if you asked for clarification instead of insults.

What I mean't by the sentence about I haven't met all that many very nice Calvinists was an extention of them saying they are in God's perfect will, because they have no free-will.

So, my point is that why are not Calvinists nicer if what they show is 100% of God's will? They still have no free-will, so then each sin a Calvinist makes would be the will of the Father? That is what they are saying if they say they have no free will because then it is ONLY the Father's will in them.

If what you are saying is true, then it should be like night and day the difference in the behavior of the Arminian and the Calvinist. But that does not exist, so how is what you say true?

So please, stop being rude to me. Ask questions if you truly seek honesty.

God bless you

 

[Bluelion]

It would be nice if you asked for clarification instead of insults.

What I mean't by the sentence about I haven't met all that many very nice Calvinists was an extention of them saying they are in God's perfect will, because they have no free-will.

So, my point is that why are not Calvinists nicer if what they show is 100% of God's will? They still have no free-will, so then each sin a Calvinist makes would be the will of the Father? That is what they are saying if they say they have no free will because then it is ONLY the Father's will in them.

If what you are saying is true, then it should be like night and day the difference in the behavior of the Arminian and the Calvinist. But that does not exist, so how is what you say true?

So please, stop being rude to me. Ask questions if you truly seek honesty.

God bless you

I have found putting people who are rude on ignore makes life a lot easier on here. I highly recommend it. shoot me a pm if your not familiar with how to use the ignore list.

 

[mikedsjr]

I guess that would have to be the foundation which is Jesus. If we get back to living and teaching what Jesus taught, the way he taught it, I think we would find the old establishment would crumble like it did before. Check everyone who comes in the name of the Lord with God's word as Paul said. If they speak against it they are not from God or preach so other doctrine they are not from God. It should be shown to everyone what they said and how they spoke against God. Then if people still seek that pastor they condemn their selves having been warned.

So those who you condemn will just go start their own church. And it starts over.

 

[mikedsjr]

Problem is no one wants to speak against a church or pastor but this was what Jesus did, He did not speak against Rome but the temple.

Actually a podcast I listen to does just that. Fighting for the Faith, hosted by a Lutheran, takes issue with most well known speakers and preachers, including baptist favorites like Beth Moore.

 

[mikedsjr]

Jesus said don't think i came to bring peace but rather a sword. He meant he sought to divide the world from the children of God. Do you see that goal realized, are these buildings that call themselves a church are they divided from the world?

But I could bring up topics, that I believe come from Modernism influence, that you and I will disagree upon instantly, and all of Christiandom history would be behind me. However Modernism fights for equality. Scripture doesn't show equality. And if one is to even defend equality from Scripture must be forced to fight for gay rights.

Again, Worldview affect more than some issues you and I would agree on. There are oh so many nuances of worldviews that bring mysticism into church yet it is done in the name of the Holy Spirit doing them, yet they are lies.

 

[OzSpen]

edited

 

[OzSpen]

The simple fact is that there are only two world views and they are as I described them. Hermeneutics and theology are a result of the basic world views. When one begins with the foundation that man must have free will and choose his own destiny his hermeneutics and theology will follow being built on that foundation.

This is incorrect. I suggest you take a read of James Sire, The Universe Next Door, 5th ed (IVP).

 

[OzSpen]

Which is the gift? Grace or faith?

What does grace mean?

What does faith mean?

ToBeLoved,

The gift is not referring to grace or faith, as the Greek language clarifies.

Let’s look at the gender of some of the nouns and the demonstrative pronoun in this verse: “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8 ESV).

• The noun, grace – charis – is feminine gender;
• The noun, faith – pistis – is feminine gender;
• The demonstrative pronoun, this/that – touto – is neuter gender.

So it is very clear in Greek that touto, neuter, cannot refer back to the antecedent feminine nouns – charis and pistis. If the demonstrative this/that was meant to refer to grace or faith, there is a perfectly good Greek way of expressing this. The demonstrative would be the feminine, taute.

To what does “this/that” refer if it is not to grace or faith? Verse 8 tells us that “it is the gift of God’, thus referring to salvation by grace through faith.

I know that explanation is technical, based on the Greek grammar. However, that is the grammatical way of explaining it, based on my knowledge of the Greek.

In his commentary on Ephesians, renowned Calvinistic commentator, the late F F Bruce, agreed with the conclusion I have reached:

Commentators are not agreed about the exact reference of the words 'and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God'. Do they refer expressly to faith, or more generally to salvation? It is true, in either case, that we could never exercise saving faith did not the Holy Spirit 'persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ, freely offered to us in the gospel' (to quote the Westminster Shorter Catechism).
But the fact that the demonstrative pronoun 'that' is neuter in Greek (tauto), whereas 'faith' is a feminine noun (pistis), combines with other considerations to suggest that it is the whole concept of salvation by grace through faith that is described as the gift of God (Bruce 1961:51).

Oz

Works consulted
Bruce, F F 1961. The Epistle to the Ephesians. Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company,.