Calvinism VS. Arminianism: A Futile Argument

[Osage Bluestem]

well If you believe "all" are flawed then shouldn't you be focusing on getting the beam out of the Baptist eye before you start working on getting the splinter out of the pentacosta eyes.

if you would truely study the prophecy of Joel ( chapter 2) the very same prophecy that Peter repeated at Penacost, I do mean study it with a clear heart, you would see that God pouring out His Spirit on "all" flesh began at pentacost but clearly says that it will end with the sun darkening and the moon turning to blood, and on that great and notable day that the Lord comes, we are still in the last days of Joel's prophecy and will be until He comes in His fullness, and this is when knowledge, that we know partly, will vanish For we will be part with the True Word. we won't need any more prophecy for it will "ALL be fulfilled, we won't need tongues, we will "All' be as one even with our language. but this has nothing to do with your salvation, but I would be just a little less judgemental on those that don't see it your way, but still believe that Jesus was the Son of God !

You sound more pentacostal than baptist.

 

[His_disciple3]

Just like Assyria (Evil) was the rod of His anger against Israel. And after His purpose through them was finished, He punished Assyria as well. Isa 10:5-12

Because no one would come to Jesus, God must act. And His actions comply completely with who He is, His nature. And His nature has always shown, with the OT giving many examples.... it is always only a remnant.

So the answer for why only a few will chosen? Is because that is what God desires, that is what His nature requires. A remnant that must be saved is the best outcome.

your teaching is very contradictive, You say from scriptures God desires "ALL" to be saved then you say that only a remnant will be saved, then You put your thinking in the explanation of this, instead of scriptures, so your interpretaion is what is wrong not scriptures. Yes God had a plan of Sending His Son to redeem the world, this plan was well thought of by His foreknowledge before time begin that man would fall. God intervened in keeping His redemptive plan in fullness. God intervened in keeping His chosen/elect nation (the blood line preserved), and God intervened to keep His promises.
The Blood line had to be protected, Noah was perfected in this blood line, ( perfect in His generations) so he was preserved, but evil was washed away. The flood was sent because men had become evil, even Noah got drunk after the Flood. Did God allow Naoh by his God given ability to choose to get drunk, or did God cause Noah to get drunk? God can not even look upon evil, so for your teaching and understanding that God uses evil is not only a misunderstanding of whom God is but also blaspheme. your understanding that God has not given man free-will is wrong, your understanding that God causes people to do evil is wrong, If God caused you to sin then, what would your judgement be, that you served God?? if God causes "ALL" things then "ALL" are obedient to God. there would be no sin for "ALL" would be servants of God, "ALL" would be well pleasers of God. man You need to rethink what you have been taught. If your understanding Of God is correct, then we would never have verses like this in scriptures:

Judges 21:25
25 In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes
KJV

now Look at David if your understanding of scripture is correct, then David even with the matter of Uriah would have done what was right in the eyes of God, evrything David did would have been right in the eyes of God because according to you, it would have been ordered by God even the matter of Uriah, But that is not what scriptures says Now is it?

1 Kings 15:5
5 Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save(except) only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.
KJV

 

[His_disciple3]

You sound more pentacostal than baptist.

Now ain't that what I said, But I fit in very well in my Charismatic Baptist Church, now let's get back on track with the thread, God Just gave me a thought as far as calvinism, I posted it in another post to someone else but would like for you to have a shot at explaining calvinism, after you have heard this thought:

your understanding that God has not given man free-will is wrong, your understanding that God causes people to do evil is wrong, If God caused you to sin then, what would your judgement be, that you served God?? if God causes "ALL" things then "ALL" are obedient to God. there would be no sin. For "ALL" would be servants of God, "ALL" would be well pleasers of God. man You need to rethink what you all have been taught. If the calvinist understanding Of God is correct, then we would never have verses like this in scriptures:

Judges 21:25
25 In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes
KJV

now Look at David if your understanding of scripture is correct, then David even with the matter of Uriah would have done what was right in the eyes of God, evrything David did would have been right in the eyes of God because according to you, it would have been ordered by God even the matter of Uriah, But that is not what scriptures says Now is it?

1 Kings 15:5
5 Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save(except) only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.
KJV

 

[His_disciple3]

Just like Assyria (Evil) was the rod of His anger against Israel. And after His purpose through them was finished, He punished Assyria as well. Isa 10:5-12

Guess I'll keep posting these as you don't seem to have an answer:

Ok I will give you the answer to this, I have never seen anyone deliberately chop up scriptures as you have Isaiah 10:5-12 let me post the verse before this and the verse after this to get the true contents of these verses. I will post so that "ALL" can see, unlike what you have done and only posted your take of the verses, but please take note the verse in bold that waht he said it completely contradicts what you take of these verses are!


Isaiah 10:4-11
4 Without me they shall bow down under the prisoners, and they shall fall under the slain. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.
5 O Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, and the staff in their hand is mine indignation.
6 I will send him against an hypocritical nation, and against the people of my wrath will I give him a charge, to take the spoil, and to take the prey, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets.
7 Howbeit he meaneth not so, neither doth his heart think so; but it is in his heart to destroy and cut off nations not a few.
8 For he saith, Are not my princes altogether kings?
9 Is not Calno as Carchemish? is not Hamath as Arpad? is not Samaria as Damascus?
10 As my hand hath found the kingdoms of the idols, and whose graven images did excel them of Jerusalem and of Samaria;
11 Shall I not, as I have done unto Samaria and her idols, so do to Jerusalem and her idols?
KJV
verse 4 tell us that He has to punish, but His hand is still stretched out. this is Mercy, verse 11 , which I might add here 4 and 11 are verses you have omitted So you can make it say what you want it to say, Verse 11 tells us that He is a Just God and Not a respect of persons, for If He judges one for sin then he must judge "ALL" for sin, even He chosen/elect nation, and His Judgement is without respect of persons. what he did unto Samaria for their idolatry, He MUST do also to Jerusalem His Elect People! as I have said before I will say again, I have had about all your blaspheming teachings that I can stomach, I understand that you couldn't post verses 4 and 11 for this goes against your teachings as well as Calvinism, but remind you, we MUST live by every Word.

 

[Skala]

If you want to refute Calvinism, refute this:

Historic Church Documents at Reformed.org

For that is where the 5 Points first originated in history.

It should be easy to refute since it's apparently so obvious for you, hisdisciple3

It should be quite easy for you to show with exegesis of the Bible that the Synod was drawing erroneous conclusions from the Bible verses they relied upon in their assertions.

 

[His_disciple3]

If you want to refute Calvinism, refute this:

Historic Church Documents at Reformed.org

For that is where the 5 Points first originated in history.

It should be easy to refute since it's apparently so obvious for you, hisdisciple3

It should be quite easy for you to show with exegesis of the Bible that the Synod was drawing erroneous conclusions from the Bible verses they relied upon in their assertions.

I am not interested in seeing how your scholars twist the Word of God. AS I have said before your link will prove nothing but that some calvinist can write a paper put it on the internet and some other calvinist can post that link in here. If the Blind lead the Blind they will both fall in the ditch, keep in mind My Friend that The jehova witnesses uses the KJB, the mormans uses the KJB, Now I AM not saying that calvinist are in the same boat as these two false religions, But am saying that anyone can make the Word of God say what they want it to say, so obviously you can't answer how people did things that was right in their own eyes, or by what judgement the calvinist god judges if he causes people to sin, their only judgement that would be just is they were obeying God! when some denomination can twist John 3:16 and say that the World is only the world of the elect, I really have no interest in anything else that they would use to mislead anyone, esp. a babe in Christ, who would be choked by such a teaching.

ok I went to your link, read the introduction, looked what i found:

The Canons also have a limited character in that they do not cover the whole range of doctrine, but focus on the five points of doctrine in dispute.

they didn't focus on the whole Bible just the point they wanted to dispute( sounds like true calvinist to me). then it went on to say that the Canons couldn't even agree amongst themselves if it was 5 points or 4 points. I stop reading shortly after that, great link really prove alot. NOT!

 

[His_disciple3]

If you want to refute Calvinism, refute this:

Historic Church Documents at Reformed.org

For that is where the 5 Points first originated in history.

It should be easy to refute since it's apparently so obvious for you, hisdisciple3

It should be quite easy for you to show with exegesis of the Bible that the Synod was drawing erroneous conclusions from the Bible verses they relied upon in their assertions.

wait a minute I read some more. now I am a little confused don't these two articles dispute T.U.L.I.P:



Article 4: A Twofold Response to the Gospel

• God's anger remains on those who do not believe this gospel. But those who do accept it and embrace Jesus the Savior with a true and living faith are delivered through him from God's anger and from destruction, and receive the gift of eternal life.

Article 5: The Sources of Unbelief and of Faith

• The cause or blame for this unbelief, as well as for all other sins, is not at all in God, but in man. Faith in Jesus Christ, however, and salvation through him is a free gift of God. As Scripture says, It is by grace you have been saved, through faith, and this not from yourselves; it is a gift of God (Eph. 2:8). Likewise: It has been freely given to you to believe in Christ (Phil. 1:29).

 

[desmalia]

wait a minute I read some more. now I am a little confused don't these two articles dispute T.U.L.I.P:



Article 4: A Twofold Response to the Gospel

• God's anger remains on those who do not believe this gospel. But those who do accept it and embrace Jesus the Savior with a true and living faith are delivered through him from God's anger and from destruction, and receive the gift of eternal life.

Article 5: The Sources of Unbelief and of Faith

• The cause or blame for this unbelief, as well as for all other sins, is not at all in God, but in man. Faith in Jesus Christ, however, and salvation through him is a free gift of God. As Scripture says, It is by grace you have been saved, through faith, and this not from yourselves; it is a gift of God (Eph. 2:8). Likewise: It has been freely given to you to believe in Christ (Phil. 1:29).

No, sir. Not at all. What they dispute is what you think Calvinism is. I'm encouraged that you're willing to read the text. Perhaps this will lead to a better understanding and more fruitful discussion.

 

[His_disciple3]

No, sir. Not at all. What they dispute is what you think Calvinism is. I'm encouraged that you're willing to read the text. Perhaps this will lead to a better understanding and more fruitful discussion.

The cause or blame for this unbelief, as well as for all other sins, is not at all in God, but in man.

so calvinist believe that man has a part in their unbelief! and that they can either receive or reject Christ? then what is irresistible Grace, sounds abit contraditive to me

 

[desmalia]

so calvinist believe that man has a part in their unbelief! and that they can either receive or reject Christ? then what is irresistible Grace, sounds abit contraditive to me

That's because you're still reading some personal assumptions into it. Keep reading.

 

[His_disciple3]

That's because you're still reading some personal assumptions into it. Keep reading.

what is personal assumption about :

The cause or blame for this unbelief, as well as for all other sins, is not at all in God, but in man.

I think I'll stick with the Bible!

 

[reformed ttL]

what is personal assumption about :

The cause or blame for this unbelief, as well as for all other sins, is not at all in God, but in man.

I think I'll stick with the Bible!

just a thought. any Calvinist will tell you that man is only wicked so im not sure how it is you think we blame God as the auther of sin, that makes no sense

 

[His_disciple3]

just a thought. any Calvinist will tell you that man is only wicked so im not sure how it is you think we blame God as the auther of sin, that makes no sense

read some of the other post posted by people claiming to be calvinist.

desertscroll said that God uses sin to get His purpose done.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Now ain't that what I said, But I fit in very well in my Charismatic Baptist Church, now let's get back on track with the thread, God Just gave me a thought as far as calvinism, I posted it in another post to someone else but would like for you to have a shot at explaining calvinism, after you have heard this thought:

your understanding that God has not given man free-will is wrong, your understanding that God causes people to do evil is wrong, If God caused you to sin then, what would your judgement be, that you served God?? if God causes "ALL" things then "ALL" are obedient to God. there would be no sin. For "ALL" would be servants of God, "ALL" would be well pleasers of God. man You need to rethink what you all have been taught. If the calvinist understanding Of God is correct, then we would never have verses like this in scriptures:

Judges 21:25
25 In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes
KJV

now Look at David if your understanding of scripture is correct, then David even with the matter of Uriah would have done what was right in the eyes of God, evrything David did would have been right in the eyes of God because according to you, it would have been ordered by God even the matter of Uriah, But that is not what scriptures says Now is it?

1 Kings 15:5
5 Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save(except) only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.
KJV

Secondary causes to fulfill the will of God.

 

[DeaconDean]

your understanding that God has not given man free-will is wrong,

Same old argument, time after time.

your understanding that God causes people to do evil is wrong,

Another "strawman" argument which runs counter to scriptures.

But lets address the first point.

No person here has argued that man does not have a free-will. Certainly man was given a will, but where we disagree is to the extent to its freeness.

In Gen. 6:5 we read:

"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."

After the flood, we read:

"And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth;" -Gen. 8:26 (KJV)

Jumping ahead in time, we read:

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" -Jer. 17:9 (KJV)

Jumping further ahead in time, we read:

"But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man:" -Mt. 15:18-20 (KJV)

We even read:

"Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life." -Prov. 4:23 (KJV)

How can the will be truly free, if everything that defiles a man comes from the heart and the thoughts of the heart are only continuously evil from his youth up?

If man will is free to makes choices which concern life and death, and it lies in his intellect, how is it scriptures dictate that it is the heart which makes decisions?

If mans will is truly free, how is it scriptures make it subject to the heart?

How can mans will be free when it is subject to, servant of, the heart?

How can the will be both servant and sovereign?

If the will is subject to the heart as scriptures say in Prov. 4:23, how can it be "free" as Arminians suggest?

Calvinists stand accused of:

God has not given man free-will

And that simply isn't true.

It is my arguement that mans will is only "free" on the glourious day of salvation;

"Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power" -Psa. 110:3 (KJV)

Before man is saved by Christ, he is in bondage to sin. And if in bondage to sin, then his will is not, nor ever was "free".

Arthur W. Pink is right when he says:

The sinner’s will is enslaved because it is in bondage to and is the servant of a depraved heart.

It is only after the point of salvation that mans will is truly free:

"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." -Jn. 8:32 (KJV)

Free from the bondage to sin, and free to serve God as He wants.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DesertScroll]

your teaching is very contradictive, You say from scriptures God desires "ALL" to be saved then you say that only a remnant will be saved, then You put your thinking in the explanation of this, instead of scriptures, so your interpretaion is what is wrong not scriptures. Yes God had a plan of Sending His Son to redeem the world, this plan was well thought of by His foreknowledge before time begin that man would fall. God intervened in keeping His redemptive plan in fullness. God intervened in keeping His chosen/elect nation (the blood line preserved), and God intervened to keep His promises.

The teaching is not a contradicition at all.

Just like Matt 23:37:

"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling."

That is a lament. Jesus has always desired to gather Jerusalem, but they did not let Him. Because they could not as no one can be justified under the Law (Gal 3:11) nor was it designed to (Gal 3:21). Even though Jerusalem could not come does not mean Jesus did not lament over it.

1 Tim 2:4 is a type of lament as well. God desires all to be saved, but no one would come. God desires all to come to the truth, but no one would accept it.

Desires all to come is about men's actions.
Saves a remanant is about God's actions.

Mens actions differing with God's actions is not even close to a contradicition. For a contradiction one needs (A) and (not A).
Here we have (X) and (Y).
Both can be spoken about in the exact same sentence.

The Blood line had to be protected, Noah was perfected in this blood line, ( perfect in His generations) so he was preserved, but evil was washed away. The flood was sent because men had become evil, even Noah got drunk after the Flood. Did God allow Naoh by his God given ability to choose to get drunk, or did God cause Noah to get drunk? God can not even look upon evil, so for your teaching and understanding that God uses evil is not only a misunderstanding of whom God is but also blaspheme. your understanding that God has not given man free-will is wrong, your understanding that God causes people to do evil is wrong, If God caused you to sin then, what would your judgement be, that you served God?? if God causes "ALL" things then "ALL" are obedient to God. there would be no sin for "ALL" would be servants of God, "ALL" would be well pleasers of God. man You need to rethink what you have been taught. If your understanding Of God is correct, then we would never have verses like this in scriptures:

God doesn't cause a person to sin.
God can take a sinner and give them more of what they desire, like hardening an already hard heart. And yes, can use that to fulfill His plan. From books like Job and passages such as the lying spirit (1 kings 22:19-23) one can see how God allows evil to do what it desires while accomplishing His purpose.

Sin doesn't come from God (as I have already pointed out) but He does control what its ends will be. God does not control sins desires, but controls the limits/bounderies of the desire. Those limits and bounderies God sets line up with His plan.

Your rebuttal doesn't even make sense in relation to what I am arguing. Sin doesn't come from God. When one sins it is not from God, but it is controlled and "herded" to accomplish His plan.

Judges 21:25
25 In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes
KJV

now Look at David if your understanding of scripture is correct, then David even with the matter of Uriah would have done what was right in the eyes of God, evrything David did would have been right in the eyes of God because according to you, it would have been ordered by God even the matter of Uriah, But that is not what scriptures says Now is it?

1 Kings 15:5
5 Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save(except) only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.
KJV

Nope, not ordered by God. God used the sin which came from David for a purpose. Your rebuttal is rebutting something which does not exist in what I am teaching.

Everything which happens is part of God's plan. Not everything in the plan comes from God. But God uses all (good and evil) to accomplish His plan.

Its like this old saying "Give a person enough rope to hang himself".

Ok I will give you the answer to this, I have never seen anyone deliberately chop up scriptures as you have Isaiah 10:5-12 let me post the verse before this and the verse after this to get the true contents of these verses. I will post so that "ALL" can see, unlike what you have done and only posted your take of the verses, but please take note the verse in bold that waht he said it completely contradicts what you take of these verses are!


Isaiah 10:4-11
4 Without me they shall bow down under the prisoners, and they shall fall under the slain. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.
5 O Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, and the staff in their hand is mine indignation.
6 I will send him against an hypocritical nation, and against the people of my wrath will I give him a charge, to take the spoil, and to take the prey, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets.
7 Howbeit he meaneth not so, neither doth his heart think so; but it is in his heart to destroy and cut off nations not a few.
8 For he saith, Are not my princes altogether kings?
9 Is not Calno as Carchemish? is not Hamath as Arpad? is not Samaria as Damascus?
10 As my hand hath found the kingdoms of the idols, and whose graven images did excel them of Jerusalem and of Samaria;
11 Shall I not, as I have done unto Samaria and her idols, so do to Jerusalem and her idols?
KJV
verse 4 tell us that He has to punish, but His hand is still stretched out. this is Mercy, verse 11 , which I might add here 4 and 11 are verses you have omitted So you can make it say what you want it to say, Verse 11 tells us that He is a Just God and Not a respect of persons, for If He judges one for sin then he must judge "ALL" for sin, even He chosen/elect nation, and His Judgement is without respect of persons. what he did unto Samaria for their idolatry, He MUST do also to Jerusalem His Elect People! as I have said before I will say again, I have had about all your blaspheming teachings that I can stomach, I understand that you couldn't post verses 4 and 11 for this goes against your teachings as well as Calvinism, but remind you, we MUST live by every Word.

You can post the whole chapter if like. Just trying to keep it simple so you can understand.

Nothing you posted contradicts anything I wrote.

First a hand stretched out isn't mercy. You can see this in the verse itself as "His anger does not turn away" and you can see these verses:

"You stretched out your right hand, the earth swallowed them". Ex 15:12

"When the angel stretched out his hand toward Jerusalem to destroy it, the Lord relented from the calamity and said to the angel who destroyed the people, "It is enough! Now relax your hand!" And the angel of the Lord was by the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite." 2 Sam 24:16

The expression "hand is stretched out" means something is about to happen, not mercy.

Second, Verse 11 is about Assyria thinking in its heart that it is going to do to Jeruslaem the same as it did to Samaria and its idols. Verse 8 starts with "For it [Assyria] says"... which continues to verse 11; that is the king of Assyria speaking, not God. That is what verse 7 is about:

"Yet it does not so intend, nor does it plan so in its heart, but rather it is its purpose to destroy and to cut off many nations." Assyria's purpose differed from God's by how their hearts related to the actions. See verse 6 for what God is sending Assyria to do:

"I send it against a godless nation and commission it against the people of My fury to capture booty and to seize plunder, and to trample them down like mud in the streets."

Hence verse 12:

"So it will be that when the Lord has completed all His work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, He will say, "I will punish the fruit of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the pomp of his haughtiness."

After God's work is accomplished, notice Assyria will accomplish God's work, Assyria will be punished for how their hearts related to the actions. Which is why in Matt 5:21-28 Jesus teaches actions are not judged by what happened, but rather from the heart.

So yes, please pay attention to every word.... and understand it.

And until you can deal with them:

-Being saved is by grace. (Eph 2:8,9)
-Mercy does not depend upon man's actions or will, but God alone. (Rom 9:11,12,16)

 

[His_disciple3]

Secondary causes to fulfill the will of God.

What??

 

[His_disciple3]

Secondary causes to fulfill the will of God.

what???

 

[His_disciple3]

The teaching is not a contradicition at all.

Just like Matt 23:37:

"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling."

That is a lament. Jesus has always desired to gather Jerusalem, but they did not let Him. Because they could not as no one can be justified under the Law (Gal 3:11) nor was it designed to (Gal 3:21). Even though Jerusalem could not come does not mean Jesus did not lament over it.

1 Tim 2:4 is a type of lament as well. God desires all to be saved, but no one would come. God desires all to come to the truth, but no one would accept it.

Desires all to come is about men's actions.
Saves a remanant is about God's actions.

Mens actions differing with God's actions is not even close to a contradicition. For a contradiction one needs (A) and (not A).
Here we have (X) and (Y).
Both can be spoken about in the exact same sentence.

)

you know the more you try to prove that free-will is not bibical. the more you prove it to be very Bibical sounds like to me, God desires israel to come to Him but they would not , is FREE-WILL dude no matter how you try to twist it. If God desired "ALL" to come to Him but He could only save remnant is Free-Will, and goes against IRRESISTIBLE GRACE, you know the I in t.u.l.i.p. sorry I didn't take time to read the rest of your post maybe later, I saw enough here to know your flip flop doctrine is not ont that I want to be part of