Calvinism vs Arminian is a worldview debate

[Patmos]

Your right, you don't get it. You once again build a false straw man even though it has been corrected more times than I can count. God does not need to predestine who will spend eternity in Hell for that is the default position of all of Adam's race. We all deserve Hell and damnation, the saved and the lost alike.

Interesting comprehension of 'predestination'. Has God predestined ALL things before the foundation of the world ( Classic Calvinism) or not ? I am puzzled with the 'default position'. Surely this is predestination by God. Or are you claiming man as a whole freely chose this position ?

The Calvinist position is that He predestined an innumerable company that are more than the stars of the sky and the sand of the sea to be the objects of His wondrous love, mercy and grace. And it is true that what God has determined to do no one can change. Read the Scriptures.

Good description of double predestination - God predestining man to hell before man is born. You say "no one can change". So the poor soul born in the 'default' hell bound condition cannot, as predestined by God ( you say) do anything about it.

For you to continue to use this straw man shows a blatant dishonesty and willingness to portray the theology you oppose in a dishonest manner knowing it is dishonest.

No straw man. No dishonesty ( which you claim God predestines anyway).

The prayer is a cry from the heart that seeks that God will be gracious to loved ones and it isn't at all against the Calvinist theology. As I explained before and you obviously ignored, The Calvinist can pray that prayer seeking for it to be God's will that their loved one are of the elect and hope in His promise to save. The Arminian seeks to twist God's arm and get Him to do something that He may not intend to do.

Waste of time though if God has predestined them before the foundation of the world not to be elect. You are also accusing God of predestining you to pray for something God has predestined not to happen. So it is not the Arminian seeking to do any twisting.

If the Arminian was truly seeking this then this is because (according to you) God predestined the Arminian to twist.

Your diatribe is not just INCONSISTENT. Add Total Hypocrisy. Add Dishonest Allegation (the Arminian is seeking..).

Shame on you.

 

[twin1954]

Interesting comprehension of 'predestination'. Has God predestined ALL things before the foundation of the world ( Classic Calvinism) or not ? I am puzzled with the 'default position'. Surely this is predestination by God. Or are you claiming man as a whole freely chose this position ?


Good description of double predestination - God predestining man to hell before man is born. You say "no one can change". So the poor soul born in the 'default' hell bound condition cannot, as predestined by God ( you say) do anything about it.


No straw man. No dishonesty ( which you claim God predestines anyway).


Waste of time though if God has predestined them before the foundation of the world not to be elect. You are also accusing God of predestining you to pray for something God has predestined not to happen. So it is not the Arminian seeking to do any twisting.

If the Arminian was truly seeking this then this is because (according to you) God predestined the Arminian to twist.

Your diatribe is not just INCONSISTENT. Add Total Hypocrisy. Add Dishonest Allegation (the Arminian is seeking..).

Shame on you.

I will get to this later.

 

[OzSpen]

Interesting comprehension of 'predestination'. Has God predestined ALL things before the foundation of the world ( Classic Calvinism) or not ? I am puzzled with the 'default position'. Surely this is predestination by God. Or are you claiming man as a whole freely chose this position ?

Good description of double predestination - God predestining man to hell before man is born. You say "no one can change". So the poor soul born in the 'default' hell bound condition cannot, as predestined by God ( you say) do anything about it.

No straw man. No dishonesty ( which you claim God predestines anyway).

Waste of time though if God has predestined them before the foundation of the world not to be elect. You are also accusing God of predestining you to pray for something God has predestined not to happen. So it is not the Arminian seeking to do any twisting.

If the Arminian was truly seeking this then this is because (according to you) God predestined the Arminian to twist.

Your diatribe is not just INCONSISTENT. Add Total Hypocrisy. Add Dishonest Allegation (the Arminian is seeking..).

Shame on you.

What do you think it says about the nature of God's justice that He would sovereignly predestine a large chunk of humanity from the beginning of time to eternal damnation within the Gehenna of torment - forever and ever?

Or is this a statement about human beings' inadequate understanding of the nature of God and the doctrine of God?

Oz

 

[twin1954]

<Staff Edit>
I am sorry that I can't give you my full attention. I do have other things that I must do.

Having a will in no way means that you have a free will. Calvinism doesn't deny that we have a will but only that our will is free. Why don't you actually find out what we actually believe instead of parroting what you have been told that we believe?

 

[OzSpen]

I have actually done this, thanks. As for parroting anything, only you have done this. Which is the basis of my objections. Fancy some trill ?

I urge you to back quote so that I know the person to whom you are replying.

Oz

 

[Patmos]

What do you think it says about the nature of God's justice that He would sovereignly predestine a large chunk of humanity from the beginning of time to eternal damnation within the Gehenna of torment - forever and ever?

Or is this a statement about human beings' inadequate understanding of the nature of God and the doctrine of God?

Oz

Hi Oz

The bottom line for me is the question of how is God sovereign yet man has responsibility for his own sin. I have sought an answer for a long time and come to the conclusion that it is an unfathomable mystery not comprehendible to humans. Those that say God predestined all man's sin but, no, they sinned of their own choice, is ridiculously inconsistent. Read RC Sproul's book 'Chosen by God'. He spends several chapters explaining God's sovereignty, ties himself in knots working around the author of evil issue, then does a U-turn and says it was all the result of free will! Waste of time and waste of paper.

The idea you describe above, this originated with Augustine of Hippo as I expect you know. It was an anathema to Augustine's own supporters at the time and the talk about Pelegius is largely a side show. It has been an anathema ever since.

Those that promote the view above show, in my opinion, an inadequate effort to read the whole Bible. As such I doubt they would bother with Augustine's retractions either.

 

[Patmos]

I urge you to back quote so that I know the person to whom you are replying.

Oz

I was replying to twin. I shall endeavour to use quotes, my cranky lap top seems to have a hard time with this web site which makes reply with quotes a challenge.

Regards

 

[Bluelion]

Another problem with predestination is that Jesus says that He wishes ALL would come to Him.

Now, since Jesus is perfect why would He say 'ALL' if He knew that God only predestined 'SOME"?

Awww good point. They say that God when He said all only meant the elite, those elected from creation. So they pick and choose what they believe from God's word and assign meaning to it as they see fit. But that answer does not fit because why would God say He wished all would come if the elect are already predestine for Heaven. To this they do not answer. lol

 

[Bluelion]

I can't tell you how many times I have been on a thread and there is someone confused about their faith or asking how can they know if they are really saved? And then someone writes "Well if you do not know if you are saved, you probably were never elect to begin with".

What is that to say something like that to a new believer or someone who is in confusion?

Or the other one is "You would know if you were elect, because God would have drawn you to Himself".

smh

You know I questioned if I was saved must of asked God to save me a million times. I thought why is it so hard. then a friend and a woman minister to me and showed me a person can not lose salvation and you only have to ask God once. John 6, Jesus says this him self. Now most Calvinist will also tell you women should not preach to men.

 

[ToBeLoved]

You know I questioned if I was saved must of asked God to save me a million times. I thought why is it so hard. then a friend and a woman minister to me and showed me a person can not lose salvation and you only have to ask God once. John 6, Jesus says this him self. Now most Calvinist will also tell you women should not preach to men.

I'm so happy that you have gotten the truth.

There are a lot of people who doubt their salvation. Those are the ones that I debate with people for. We are to care for the babes in Christ. Watch over them.

 

[Bluelion]

I'm so happy that you have gotten the truth.

There are a lot of people who doubt their salvation. Those are the ones that I debate with people for. We are to care for the babes in Christ. Watch over them.

It because of bad info that people question their salvation. For me i am not so much worried about those who question if they are saved as much as I am worried about those who declare they are righteous.

Oz i wonder if you could tell us the ARM point of view on salvation. Maybe we could find some inconsistencies with that

 

[OzSpen]

Hi Oz

The bottom line for me is the question of how is God sovereign yet man has responsibility for his own sin. I have sought an answer for a long time and come to the conclusion that it is an unfathomable mystery not comprehendible to humans. Those that say God predestined all man's sin but, no, they sinned of their own choice, is ridiculously inconsistent. Read RC Sproul's book 'Chosen by God'. He spends several chapters explaining God's sovereignty, ties himself in knots working around the author of evil issue, then does a U-turn and says it was all the result of free will! Waste of time and waste of paper.

The idea you describe above, this originated with Augustine of Hippo as I expect you know. It was an anathema to Augustine's own supporters at the time and the talk about Pelegius is largely a side show. It has been an anathema ever since.

Those that promote the view above show, in my opinion, an inadequate effort to read the whole Bible. As such I doubt they would bother with Augustine's retractions either.

I have read Sproul's, Chosen by God. I have it in my library. His book is one of the best expositions for why I'm not a Calvinist.

I don't think it relates to people like Sproul not reading the whole Bible. He is a man, aged 77 (who recently had a stroke), who has spent most of his life as a Reformed (Calvinistic) theologian. He is so steeped in Calvinism that he reads the Bible to arrive at Calvinistic conclusions. That's my understanding of his writings. He has written about 60 books.

You will notice what Calvinistic theologians do when they hold a conference. Sproul, John MacArthur, John Piper and other Calvinists will be guest speakers, but there is not an Arminian theologian amongst them. When I see a theologian such as the Arminian, Roger E Olson, on the same platform with Calvinist scholars, then I'll be convinced that they are open to other interpretations. They are not.

I had better stop my rave.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I was replying to twin. I shall endeavour to use quotes, my cranky lap top seems to have a hard time with this web site which makes reply with quotes a challenge.

Regards

Thanks, brother. If you hit the 'reply' button (bottom right hand corner), it will automatically backquote for you.

 

[DeaconDean]

I have read Sproul's, Chosen by God. I have it in my library. His book is one of the best expositions for why I'm not a Calvinist.

I don't think it relates to people like Sproul not reading the whole Bible. He is a man, aged 77 (who recently had a stroke), who has spent most of his life as a Reformed (Calvinistic) theologian. He is so steeped in Calvinism that he reads the Bible to arrive at Calvinistic conclusions. That's my understanding of his writings. He has written about 60 books.

You will notice what Calvinistic theologians do when they hold a conference. Sproul, John MacArthur, John Piper and other Calvinists will be guest speakers, but there is not an Arminian theologian amongst them. When I see a theologian such as the Arminian, Roger E Olson, on the same platform with Calvinist scholars, then I'll be convinced that they are open to other interpretations. They are not.

I had better stop my rave.

Oz

Brother, with all due respect, how long has this debate raged?

Darn near 500 years?

I was watching two ministers once on television bashing every demonination but their own. Where we the people defending their views? Did they invite any Baptist to defend their position? Did they invite any Presbyterians, Pentecostals, etc.?

A Calvinist and an Arminian on the same stage would not be a discussion, it would be a debate. That's why you'll not see it.

I have read Jacobus Arminus' theology and I have read Calvin's.

The biggest division between the two is really two points:

Arminianism: what I have done for God.

Calvinism: what God has done for me.

That is why I am a Calvinist.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Bluelion]

Brother, with all due respect, how long has this debate raged?

Darn near 500 years?

I was watching two ministers once on television bashing every demonination but their own. Where we the people defending their views? Did they invite any Baptist to defend their position? Did they invite any Presbyterians, Pentecostals, etc.?

A Calvinist and an Arminian on the same stage would not be a discussion, it would be a debate. That's why you'll not see it.

I have read Jacobus Arminus' theology and I have read Calvin's.

The biggest division between the two is really two points:

Arminianism: what I have done for God.

Calvinism: what God has done for me.

That is why I am a Calvinist.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Yeah that is a misunderstanding. Just because a person has free will does not mean they earned there salvation, which is what your group often claims about them. It would help if you understood. If some one gives me a gift. I can say yes I will take that, or no I do not want it. It does not mean I did any work for the gift or that I paid for the gift or had anything to do with it. It Just means i will accept it and deny it. That is not a work. Hebrew 6 points this choice out with those who taste of heaven and reject it can never be brought back. How is it you ignore God's words?

 

[Bluelion]

it would seem i have jump threads into another thread. It's a bit hard to keep up with all the Arm vs Cal stuff.

 

[Patmos]

I have read Sproul's, Chosen by God. I have it in my library. His book is one of the best expositions for why I'm not a Calvinist.

Perhaps I should not of binned my copy.

You will notice what Calvinistic theologians do when they hold a conference. Sproul, John MacArthur, John Piper and other Calvinists will be guest speakers, but there is not an Arminian theologian amongst them. When I see a theologian such as the Arminian, Roger E Olson, on the same platform with Calvinist scholars, then I'll be convinced that they are open to other interpretations. They are not.

Similar situation at the Synod of Dort.

 

[DeaconDean]

<Staff Edit>

I have nothing to prove, both myself and my brother Twin have fought side-by-side numerous times in just these types of threads and I know if he says he has already given answers, I have no reason to doubt him.

He has already answered ya'll's accusations towards me.

In fact, this chart comparing Arminianism and Calvinism agrees with what we both have said.

http://graceonlinelibrary.org/refor...sm/calvinism-vs-arminianism-comparison-chart/

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Twin, it is funny, I just ran across an admitted Arminian who once was a "Five-pointer" and is now a dedicated Arminian who admits what I said about the "I" theology of Arminianism.

He says:

I admit that I am a committed Arminian. Of course I welcome the host of new "practical Arminians" joining ranks with my theological tradition. I think this approach fits better with the Bible, reason, tradition, and experience. But I must be honest. There are some real hazards over here in the Arminian ocean—especially for Calvinistic churches. You can sink your theological ship here. As a local "pilot," I'd suggest you keep your eyes open wide for submerged rocks!

We Arminians tend to put too much emphasis on man and his decisions, and not enough on God and the gospel. Sometimes we are tempted to act as if God is helpless without us and our work. We lean toward pragmatism and are constantly looking for "what works best" as if methodology were more important than the message. Since we believe that all men can be saved, we tend to assume that if they aren't saved, we have not packaged the invitation (or the message) right. We especially love management, leadership, programs, marketing, and research data. We tend to focus more on the "potential convert" than on the eternal gospel. Arminianism easily leans toward a NIKE mentality—"Just do it." We are somewhat less inclined to pray in order to move God to "do it"

And, as has always been true, Arminianism can be taken to the extreme of humanism. Calvinists have a sovereign God and an inactive man. Humanists have a sovereign man and an inactive God. Arminians lean toward the humanist end of this continuum and thus are always in danger of becoming humanists.

http://www.crivoice.org/arminianism.html

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[OzSpen]

Brother, with all due respect, how long has this debate raged?

Darn near 500 years?

I was watching two ministers once on television bashing every demonination but their own. Where we the people defending their views? Did they invite any Baptist to defend their position? Did they invite any Presbyterians, Pentecostals, etc.?

A Calvinist and an Arminian on the same stage would not be a discussion, it would be a debate. That's why you'll not see it.

I have read Jacobus Arminus' theology and I have read Calvin's.

The biggest division between the two is really two points:

Arminianism: what I have done for God.

Calvinism: what God has done for me.

That is why I am a Calvinist.

God Bless

Till all are one.

You, a Calvinist, have provided a straw man fallacy of an argument against Arminianism. 'What I have done for God' is a demonstration you have not imbibed what Jacob Arminius wrote. That is not his theology but you like to use your straw man to put down Arminians. We have been here before and seen you do this. You are repeating what you've said before.

Roger E Olson, an Arminian and a Southern Baptist professor, has refuted what you have said here in 'Myth 6: Arminianism is a human-centered theology' (Olson 2006: 137-157).

Olson demonstrates how Arminianism is God-centered and confesses human depravity, including bondage of the will.

Therefore, yours is a concocted view that Arminianism deals with 'what I have done for God' and Calvinism deals with 'what God has done for me'. That's a straw man and it's about time you read The Works of James Arminius accurately.

Your Calvinistic misrepresentation of Arminianism should cause you to bow your head in shame for the myth you are perpetrating.

Oz

Works consulted
Olson, R E 2006. Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic.