Calvinism vs Arminianism link - is this accurate?

Bob Moore said:

The most common way of expressing this is that the sacrifice of Jesus was sufficient for all men, but is efficient only for the elect.

Click to expand...

The word "elect" being the differentiation. As the WCF Ch 3, para 3-5 states, the elect, and un-elect, were determined by God before the beginning of time.

My argument was with the word "choice". Because of our being totally corrupt and not being able to make a choice for God, or any good choice for that matter, as was earlier stated.

So, Elderone, I think you might have simply misconstrued what HM80 said.

Click to expand...

I possibly was thinking it was another free will belief.

I agree with the statement of Internal Calling:

b. Internal calling. While we distinguish two aspects of the calling of God, this calling is really one. The internal call is really the external call made effective by the operation of the Holy Spirit. It always comes to the sinner through the Word of God, savingly applied by the operation of the Holy Spirit, I Cor. 1:23, 24. In distinction from the external call, it is a powerful calling that is effectual unto salvation, Acts 13:48; I Cor. 1:23, 24. Moreover, it is a calling without repentance, one that is not subject to change, and is never withdrawn, Rom. 11:29. The person called will surely be saved. The Spirit operates through the preaching of the Word by making its persuasions effective, so that man listens to the voice of His God. It addresses itself to the understanding enlightened by the Holy Spirit, so that man is conscious of it. And it is always directed to a certain end. It is a calling to the fellowship of Jesus Christ, I Cor. 1:9, to inherit blessing, I Pet. 8:9, to liberty, Gal. 6:18, to peace, I Cor. 7:15; to holiness, I Thess. 4:7; to one hope, Eph. 4:4, to eternal life, I Tim. 6:12, and to God's kingdom and glory, I Thess. 2:12. 2. Regeneration. Divine calling and regeneration stand in the closest possible relation to each other.

Click to expand...

The Westminster Shorter Catechism states it similarly:

Question 29.

Question: How are We Made Partakers of the Redemption Purchased by Christ?

Answer: We are Made Partakers of the Redemption Purchased by Christ, by the Effectual Application of It to Us (a) by his Holy Spirit. (B)

a. John 1:11–12. b. Titus. 3:5–6.

Question 30.

Question: How Doth the Spirit Apply to Us the Redemption Purchased by Christ?

Answer: The Spirit Applieth to Us the Redemption Purchased by Christ, by Working Faith in Us, (a) and thereby uniting us to Christ in our effectual calling. (B)

a. Eph. 1:13–14; John 6:37, 39; Eph. 2:8.
b. Eph. 3:17; 1 Cor. 1:9.

Question 31.

Question: What is Effectual Calling?

Answer: Effectual Calling is the Work of God's Spirit, (a) whereby, convincing us of our sin and misery, (B) enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ, (C) and renewing our wills,(D) he doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ, freely offered to us in the gospel. (E)

a. 2 Tim. 1:9; 2 Thess. 2:13–14. b. Acts 2:37.
c. Acts 26:18. d. Ezek 36:26–27.
e. John 6:44–45; Phil. 2:13.

Click to expand...

If that is agreed upon, as heymikey80 says, Peace....

Elderone said:

I possibly was thinking it was another free will belief.

Click to expand...

Yes, I was responding "in his own words" to avoid his confusion, and ... caused another.

Elderone said:

If that is agreed upon, as heymikey80 says, Peace....

Click to expand...

Agreed, certainly. I'm just trying to trace the Calvinist view for the poster in words he has used.

heymikey80 said:

Yes, that's the conventional way of saying it, thanks Bob.

Click to expand...

Conventional and correct.

('Course Calvin himself objected to this way of saying it (cf. "Eternal Predestination", p. 165),

Click to expand...

Yes he did, but you will doubtless agree that for most discussions ( i.e. those where the respondent does not have much apparent background in Reformed Theology) a little simplification is in order.

so ! I just can't win for losing!)

Click to expand...

Yep. Neither can I. But keep on truckin' anyway.

I think the real strength of Reformed Soteriology (Calvinist and Puritan) is the way it understands the importance and centrality of Covenant.

God's Covenant (promise) is varied and at it's most sublime is the Covenant between Father Son and Holy Spirit .

The Salvation of mankind is no after thought , the Son of God is "slain from the foundation of the world" pre-fall !

God covenanted with His Only Begotten Son to grant Him a people if He would obey to the point of death.

The Church is not an idea that God arrived at subsequent to creation ....in the beginning He set Christ up and His delight was with the son's of men (Proverbs 8) .....
remember even marriage (Adam and Eve) is based upon Christ and the Church , not the other way about , this shows us that God has a plan , His plan is Christ as the head of His Church , the redeemed , and that this Covevnant is from Eternity and is therefore unconditional and certain of being fulfilled.

Where other theologies stress human accountability and a conditional view of the Covenant , Calvinists see God's Covenant and Plan as being beyond failure of any kind.

Apart from the historical information I thought DMcKays article (#9) was well balanced – a rare quality for the Calvo-Amin protagonists, and even more especially on an internet forum.

Also its good to see the author (a Calvinist) acknowledge that I (a Wesleyan) am two steps removed from Pelagianism. Thank you, thank you. I shall never call you a hyper-calvinist again.

And one last observation. Calvies often don the prestigious title, 'Reformed Theology.' This makes 'Minnies' like me feel real bad because we like to think we share in the reformation heritage too. Well, the above article shows that 'Reformed Theology' includes 'Lutherism' plus 'Zwingliism' neither of whom were 'Calvinists.' That means I'm 'reformed' too! Now I am feeling good again, though I admit not an innate goodness.

Gideon

Gideon said:

Apart from the historical information I thought DMcKays article (#9) was well balanced – a rare quality for the Calvo-Amin protagonists, and even more especially on an internet forum.

Also its good to see the author (a Calvinist) acknowledge that I (a Wesleyan) am two steps removed from Pelagianism. Thank you, thank you. I shall never call you a hyper-calvinist again.

And one last observation. Calvies often don the prestigious title, 'Reformed Theology.' This makes 'Minnies' like me feel real bad because we like to think we share in the reformation heritage too. Well, the above article shows that 'Reformed Theology' includes 'Lutherism' plus 'Zwingliism' neither of whom were 'Calvinists.' That means I'm 'reformed' too! Now I am feeling good again, though I admit not an innate goodness.

Gideon

Click to expand...

Sorry to be negative about your post, but I do not call myself a Calvinist. Those notes whhich I posted came from a theological history course that I used to teach. While my Degrees or majors are not in Church History, as a theologian I have an abiding interest in the development of man's understanding of G-d's theology.

While I do call myself a firm adherent to the 5-points of T.U.L.I.P. I don't consider myself "reformed" as it is usually used. I firmly believe that the fruit of the Synod of Dort was merely a restatement of the historic doctrines of Grace which always had been the the position of the Church. The 5-points are like a stool with 5 equidistant legs. Each is necessary for the stool to function properly. If one is removed, or even 1/2 of one is removed (for those of you who consider yourselves 4 1/2 pointers) the stool no longer has a firm foundation.

BTW, I don't consider myself a Calvinist merely because during my course of study I have never actually had the time to sit down and read the teaching of Calvin. It could very well turn out that I have much in common with his teachings, but since I don't KNOW that, I am careful to make the distinction.

One would do well to remember that Pelagius'(whether or not the teachings were actually his, or just attributed to him) teachings were rejected by the church as heresy. Jacob Arminius was guilty of trying to revive Pelagius' teachings with a variation which makes it more palatable to a large number of believers today. Error, however, is still error.

Gideon said:

Apart from the historical information I thought DMcKays article (#9) was well balanced – a rare quality for the Calvo-Amin protagonists, and even more especially on an internet forum.

Also its good to see the author (a Calvinist) acknowledge that I (a Wesleyan) am two steps removed from Pelagianism. Thank you, thank you. I shall never call you a hyper-calvinist again.

And one last observation. Calvies often don the prestigious title, 'Reformed Theology.' This makes 'Minnies' like me feel real bad because we like to think we share in the reformation heritage too. Well, the above article shows that 'Reformed Theology' includes 'Lutherism' plus 'Zwingliism' neither of whom were 'Calvinists.' That means I'm 'reformed' too! Now I am feeling good again, though I admit not an innate goodness.

Gideon

Click to expand...

Gid,

I hear you brother. I feel almost trampelled. To be placed a step away from Catholics. Oh, Brother.

This is why I insist on the X- factor.
Not all have it, but those that do, better hold unto it.

See you later.

I'm surprised at my own presumptuousness.
Geelee,
from our brief discussions on Gideon's forum, I pictured you as "lovingly embracing" all who profess Christianity, excepting JWs & Mormons.
My head spun when I read of your 'problem' with Catholic proximity.

I played bass for the local Methodist church, for about a year. The pastor was a very good musician, fun to be & play with, but although ritual & ceremony wasn't as burdensome as I find it in the Catholic mass, he did don robes etc. and left me feeling that the "bones" of Methodist practices were the same.
My take on the great advances of The Reformation is that they didn't adequately address the ecclesiology problems, specificaly, what I identify as "nicolaitanism" ~ the clergy/laity division.
I don't mean to tangle this thread, but I have a hard time finding anyone who seems interested in that.

Rick Otto said:

I'm surprised at my own presumptuousness.
Geelee,
from our brief discussions on Gideon's forum, I pictured you as "lovingly embracing" all who profess Christianity, excepting JWs & Mormons.
My head spun when I read of your 'problem' with Catholic proximity.

I played bass for the local Methodist church, for about a year. The pastor was a very good musician, fun to be & play with, but although ritual & ceremony wasn't as burdensome as I find it in the Catholic mass, he did don robes etc. and left me feeling that the "bones" of Methodist practices were the same.
My take on the great advances of The Reformation is that they didn't adequately address the ecclesiology problems, specificaly, what I identify as "nicolaitanism" ~ the clergy/laity division.
I don't mean to tangle this thread, but I have a hard time finding anyone who seems interested in that.

Click to expand...

Otto,
Don't bite me, I have RC friends too. I love them dearly, but I pray that someday they see the light.
Placing the Arminians and the RC in one basket is unfair, and you know that.
I get along with all people, don't don me with a hat of "unloving", I won't take it, never liked it, and do not look good in it at all. the color don't suite me.

Love
Grieta.

Flynmonkie said:

Thank you!
Yes, she asked specifically where they "split", I had no idea where to start - I guessed this would be it. While reading this I tend to agree with the Calvin camp, I actually think that this is one of the few explanations that attack the “error” of understanding. However, my issues are 1.) I believe God gives us a choice, but this gift is also from God. But I think that is very important - to not forget where the gift came from. 2.) I don't believe that some are predestined (foreknowledge) to salvation while others passed over. God chose all of us, (we love Him because He first loved us) not all will accept this gift. So therefore not all will be saved.

Many, Many threads on this subject, some say this isn't so - others continue to say it is. Mighty confusing and I really feel outside of the “realm” of appropriate discussion, it could deter the gospel message. Leaving question in a “babe” Christians mind. Assurance is so very important to me, and I believe all Christians. Without it – we are left disarmed against the enemy. IMHCO

Click to expand...

Flynmonkey--If you believe God chose everyone, what do you think of the statement by Jesus that many are called, but "few are chosen."?

Rolf Ernst said:

Flynmonkey--If you believe God chose everyone, what do you think of the statement by Jesus that many are called, but "few are chosen."?

Click to expand...

Mat 22:2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son,
:3 And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and they would not come. 4 Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage.8 Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.9 Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.

Click to expand...

Jesus was saying, I believe, that we are all invited, but only those that come to the wedding will be considered as quests.
The others, if you look closely were all slain. Their refussal to react to the invitation lead directly to their death.
So of those that were first invited(called), none came. Then others were invited in their place, and they came to the feast.
Makes you think, doesn.t it. Are you accepting or refussing?

geelee said:

Jesus was saying, I believe, that we are all invited, but only those that come to the wedding will be considered as quests.
The others, if you look closely were all slain. Their refussal to react to the invitation lead directly to their death.
So of those that were first invited(called), none came. Then others were invited in their place, and they came to the feast.
Makes you think, doesn.t it. Are you accepting or refussing?

Click to expand...

It is true that many are invited, but the only ones who will properly respond are those who God chose in Christ before the foundation of the world. The Bible is true and it says, "Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power." That says who will be willing, and why they are willing--because they are God's people; that is, because God chose them in Christ and they are regenerated by His power. As Jesus said, "many are called but few are chosen." God chose them in Christ before the foundation of the world, and every spiritual blessing they receive, including the marriage supper of the Lamb, are the reult of God first choosing them in Christ. That is what the Bible says and no one profits by going against the Bible. He has "blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ according as [that is, as a consequence of having chosen] us in Him before the foundation of the world." Eph.1:3,4 Faith is one of those spiritual blessings. As Jesus said to Peter, "blessed art thou Simon Barjonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed it unto you, but my Father which is in heaven."

I won't bite.
Sometimes labels are just fashion statements.
Ya never know what you're gonna get with RC's.
One will be anti-abortion, but read the astrology column religiously... well, maybe more like a betting sheet !

I think He was saying those first invited (Isreal's seed) weren't worthy (as a group) because they WOULD NOT respond obediently, but even more, He is saying they weren't worthy. I think that He is looking for obedience, for sure, but even more, He's looking for gratitude.

I think the "invite from the highways all ye shall find"
is about evangelism, but also about broadening the covenant beyond Isreal's bloodlines, to all who would partake in the Spirit of the covenant; but that doesn't imply all ye find shall surely attend, and i speak of at least some who fit the Christian profile and are rebuffed with "I never knew ye". Matt7:21-29
http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?passage=mt+7:23&version=kjv&context=1&showtools=1

Sometimes I wonder if our universaly innate knowledge of God Rom.1:20, doesn't constitute a "call" of sorts.

18: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19: Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20: For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22: Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,


"neither were thankful"...See? He DOES mention gratitude! I always feel like it was His goodness that led me to repentance. I could be frightened, but I never stayed frightened for long. I find it easier to stay grateful.

I don't think these passages focus much on the 'predestination boogie', to the left or to the right.
I think the issues are more general in the parable format because like all great metaphors & cliche's, their truth is still contextual & conditional so the analogies & corollations begin to break down in the finer details & greater complexities.
Not a problem.
I like to think of axioms like omniscience, omnipotence, & omnipresence, because they are like pillars of theological physics. A lot of wild theory can be thown at them, and will not stick.

That, for me, is a good place to come from when venturing into the identity crisis of the "P" in the T.U.L.I.P.

I still do not like T-U-L-I-P.

Give me a branch of hyssop anyday.

I had my BD last week. I am now twenty one years and a couple of months old.

Gideon said:

Apart from the historical information I thought DMcKays article (#9) was well balanced – a rare quality for the Calvo-Amin protagonists, and even more especially on an internet forum.

Also its good to see the author (a Calvinist) acknowledge that I (a Wesleyan) am two steps removed from Pelagianism. Thank you, thank you. I shall never call you a hyper-calvinist again.

And one last observation. Calvies often don the prestigious title, 'Reformed Theology.' This makes 'Minnies' like me feel real bad because we like to think we share in the reformation heritage too. Well, the above article shows that 'Reformed Theology' includes 'Lutherism' plus 'Zwingliism' neither of whom were 'Calvinists.' That means I'm 'reformed' too! Now I am feeling good again, though I admit not an innate goodness.

Gideon

Click to expand...

Hey Gideon,

FYI- I did a couple of years (to finish my studies) at a Lutheran seminary and they used to say that both Calvinists and Arminians are "Reformed", that is, coming out of a diffferent movement than the "original" evangelicals (the Lutherans). They used to teach that both hold to equal and opposite errors, both speaking beyond the boundaries set by scripture. Anyway, for some reason Zwingli was rarely mentioned in the same breath, he being labelled a founder of the "Radical" movement. So, they would never have said that Lutheranism and Reformed and Radical were the same at all. They divided them and then subdivided them further.