Calvinism vs. Arminianism - What is the Point?

[LamorakDesGalis]

I can understand the participation and persuasion that goes on in apologetics. In apologetics there is a focus on bridging the gap between belief and unbelief. Those who believe in Jesus Christ as their Savior are justified in the eyes of God, while those who do not are condemned for their unbelief.

However with Calvinism and Arminianism, both views are within the historic range of Christianity. Both sides are regarded as comprising of Christians, not unbelievers. In fact there are many godly Christians on either side - as well as "outside" either tradition. So at its essence the Cal-Arm debate is an "in house" debate.

So I'm wondering - what is supposed to be the significance of attempting to convince someone of one view or the other?


LDG

 

[beloved57]

I can understand the participation and persuasion that goes on in apologetics. In apologetics there is a focus on bridging the gap between belief and unbelief. Those who believe in Jesus Christ as their Savior are justified in the eyes of God, while those who do not are condemned for their unbelief.

However with Calvinism and Arminianism, both views are within the historic range of Christianity. Both sides are regarded as comprising of Christians, not unbelievers. In fact there are many godly Christians on either side - as well as "outside" either tradition. So at its essence the Cal-Arm debate is an "in house" debate.

So I'm wondering - what is supposed to be the significance of attempting to convince someone of one view or the other?


LDG

Sorry friend, the message of the cross is Jesus christ has saved his people from their sins..

His death burial, and resurrection actually saved the elect.

No conditions needed, God The Holy Spirit will reveal to the elect their salvation christ purchased for them..

jn 16:

13Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

when he shews it unto us [the elect,church,sheep] that gives Faith..

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

Sorry friend, the message of the cross is Jesus christ has saved his people from their sins..

His death burial, and resurrection actually saved the elect.

No conditions needed, God The Holy Spirit will reveal to the elect their salvation christ purchased for them..

jn 16:

13Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

when he shews it unto us [the elect,church,sheep] that gives Faith..

Hey beloved57,
Thanks for the reply. I am familiar with your perspective in that an elect person recognizes that they are one of the elect. I do have some questions...

First question...since you say there are no conditions...is it possible then in your view that an non-Christian elect person recognizes they are elect, but they remain Hindu or Muslim or whatever?

Second question...is it possible in your view that an Arminian could recognize they are one of the elect, and remain Arminian?


LDG

 

[beloved57]

First question...since you say there are no conditions...is it possible then in your view that an non-Christian elect person recognizes they are elect, but they remain Hindu or Muslim or whatever?

When a elect person who is now practising a false religon, when they are converted by the gospel, they realize they have been wrong all that time..

Second question...is it possible in your view that an Arminian could recognize they are one of the elect, and remain Arminian?

An arminian and a muslim are both false religons, and when either of them if elect are converted by the gospel, they realize they had been decieved all that time..

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

When a elect person who is now practising a false religon, when they are converted by the gospel, they realize they have been wrong all that time..

Ok, this helps me understand your view better. On the realization aspect - would you say that this understanding is part of the gospel or an addition to it?

And, in this realization process, is it God who gives the understanding or is it the elect person themselves who realize it?

An arminian and a muslim are both false religons, and when either of them if elect are converted by the gospel, they realize they had been decieved all that time..

So in other words you are saying as soon as they are converted, they cease being an Arminian or Muslim? And the flip side to that is that they embrace the set of beliefs you espouse? What some what call HyperCalvinism?


LDG

 

[nobdysfool]

I can understand the participation and persuasion that goes on in apologetics. In apologetics there is a focus on bridging the gap between belief and unbelief. Those who believe in Jesus Christ as their Savior are justified in the eyes of God, while those who do not are condemned for their unbelief.

However with Calvinism and Arminianism, both views are within the historic range of Christianity. Both sides are regarded as comprising of Christians, not unbelievers. In fact there are many godly Christians on either side - as well as "outside" either tradition. So at its essence the Cal-Arm debate is an "in house" debate.

So I'm wondering - what is supposed to be the significance of attempting to convince someone of one view or the other?


LDG

There are some here who insist that to be a true Christian, one must subscribe to either Arminianism or Calvinism depending on who is making the statement. Such an attitude is wrong, from either side. It is not a salvation issue per se, it is an issue of understanding the scriptures.

Some here just cannot abide anyone having a different opinion of certain scriptures than what they themselves hold, and will attempt to tear down the opposition by means of straw man arguments, false statements, appeals to the supposed audience, personal attacks, generalized statements of their opponents "tactics", implying that they are deceivers, deceitful, making up false stories about the opposition, chasing rabbit trails, diversionary tactics, on and on, ad nauseum, rather than actually engage in clear and reasoned debate.

This debate has gone on for well over 400 years, and will not be resolved by any of the self-styled crusaders here, who hold the idea that they, and they alone, will "defeat __________".

 

[heymikey80]

There is a basic point here LDG, and I'm interested to make it public.

It's that Calvinism is Scriptural.

If you check the postings here they're asserting Calvinism is not Scriptural, and they're attacking Calvinism as not being Scriptural -- often of not even being Christian. I spent the first 10 years of Christian life believing that line.

Both need a voice. To force either into silence is to suppress it.

We need people to call oppressive Christians to explain their allegations, especially when attacking a legitimate Christian viewpoint. With regard to Calvinism it seems to be the whipping boy in CF. And why shouldn't people stand up for the truth? My Bible says something about telling the truth when people tell me to stop.

Christianity is not whatever reduced list of essentials it takes to be a Christian. A truth reduced is no longer the truth. Nor are we intended to remain babes in the faith. Christianity involves growth in something -- and that something, how far we grow, that is not an essential to salvation. Growth is essential to life -- even if the limbs of growth, the depth of growth, or the strength of growth is not essential.

 

[beloved57]

Ok, this helps me understand your view better. On the realization aspect - would you say that this understanding is part of the gospel or an addition to it?

And, in this realization process, is it God who gives the understanding or is it the elect person themselves who realize it?



So in other words you are saying as soon as they are converted, they cease being an Arminian or Muslim? And the flip side to that is that they embrace the set of beliefs you espouse? What some what call HyperCalvinism?


LDG

Ok, this helps me understand your view better. On the realization aspect - would you say that this understanding is part of the gospel or an addition to it?

You have a change of mind about the gospel. The basic deception of the gospel is that it has been fragmatized by the devil and his messengers. Its not a blatant all out lie, but subtle distortions..

So when God Illumiantes His elect, a brand new understanding is born..

And, in this realization process, is it God who gives the understanding or is it the elect person themselves who realize it?

The person realizing it, is the fruit of God giving the understanding..

isa 42:

16And I will bring the blind by a way that they knew not; I will lead them in paths that they have not known: I will make darkness light before them, and crooked things straight. These things will I do unto them, and not forsake them.

So in other words you are saying as soon as they are converted, they cease being an Arminian or Muslim?

Yes there understanding is converted from false thinking about salvation to being given a right understanding..

1 jn 5:

20And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

And the flip side to that is that they embrace the set of beliefs you espouse? What some what call HyperCalvinism?

Yes which is nothing but a evil name placed on the Truth of God, satan has utilized it to foster prejudice against the truth..

 

[Van]

So the HyperCalvinist view is if a person does not share in the HyperCalvinist view, they are not saved, they have not been given the understanding which is given only to the Elect. And if all Calvinists do not also hold this perfectly logical assumption, given the underlying premise of the gift of faith, where is the denial? One can only conclude that the Calvinists believe everyone who does not share their view, including the Hypers, is a non-Christian. So only those who believe God credits our faith in Christ as righteousness, also believe there are born again Arminians, Calvinists, Catholics, Independent Baptists and a host of others.

 

[nobdysfool]

Beloved57 speaks for himself, and not all Calvinists. The same with the rest of the Calvinists here. The Calvinists do not have a "spokesman", designated to speak for all of us. Much as the anti-Calvinists here want Calvinists to be all the same, and to not disagree among themselves, (because it makes it easier to slam the whole lot), we are each individuals. Beloved57 doesn't speak for me, I don't speak for him, the anti-Calvinists have to deal with us as individuals, which means that they cannot use a "one size fits all" method. Calvinists do force the anti-Calvinists to think, which they don't like. We know that. And we intend to keep on trying to make people think.

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

There are some here who insist that to be a true Christian, one must subscribe to either Arminianism or Calvinism depending on who is making the statement. Such an attitude is wrong, from either side. It is not a salvation issue per se, it is an issue of understanding the scriptures.

I agree.

Some here just cannot abide anyone having a different opinion of certain scriptures than what they themselves hold, and will attempt to tear down the opposition by means of straw man arguments, false statements, appeals to the supposed audience, personal attacks, generalized statements of their opponents "tactics", implying that they are deceivers, deceitful, making up false stories about the opposition, chasing rabbit trails, diversionary tactics, on and on, ad nauseum, rather than actually engage in clear and reasoned debate.

I've found people clue in those kinds of tactics very quickly - even if they don't know much about that particular topic. And its actually counter-effective because how things are said make a bigger impact than what is said.

Speaking of clear and reasoned debate....there is a new section in Theology - a Debate section. There is a debate proposal forum where the debate is defined with two participants, word limit, number of exchanges, etc. and this sets up the actual debate. Then a thread is begun by the moderators in the appropriate forum for that topic - where folks can make comments on or about the debate.

I'm under no illusion that it will solve any problems or resolve conflicts, but I think it might give a particular issue better focus with sustained conversation/comments. Plus its something a little different and can be fun to watch.


LDG

 

[heymikey80]

I've found people clue in those kinds of tactics very quickly - even if they don't know much about that particular topic. And its actually counter-effective because how things are said make a bigger impact than what is said.

I'd agree with the latter, there is a countereffect from people questioning both initial post and response.

But I don't really think people clue into oppressive tactics very quickly. They simply make judgments and inferences, and often they rely on their perceived credibility of the poster.

"The one who states his case first seems right,
until the next comes and examines him." Pr 16:17
​

Speaking of clear and reasoned debate....there is a new section in Theology - a Debate section. There is a debate proposal forum where the debate is defined with two participants, word limit, number of exchanges, etc. and this sets up the actual debate. Then a thread is begun by the moderators in the appropriate forum for that topic - where folks can make comments on or about the debate.

Clarity in a discussion compartment doesn't seem to address the basic issue I'm seeing here. In many instances here the discussion turns to rhetorical attacks on the Calvinistic label the moment a Calvinist offers a viewpoint -- even when it's suppoted with Scripture.

 

[billychum]

I can understand the participation and persuasion that goes on in apologetics. In apologetics there is a focus on bridging the gap between belief and unbelief. Those who believe in Jesus Christ as their Savior are justified in the eyes of God, while those who do not are condemned for their unbelief.

However with Calvinism and Arminianism, both views are within the historic range of Christianity. Both sides are regarded as comprising of Christians, not unbelievers. In fact there are many godly Christians on either side - as well as "outside" either tradition. So at its essence the Cal-Arm debate is an "in house" debate.

So I'm wondering - what is supposed to be the significance of attempting to convince someone of one view or the other?


LDG

only a guess but I would think that one side thinks that the other side is not holding to the truth which in turn could lead to a false wittness. Something that requires correction.

Billy <><

 

[childofGod31]

Just my 2 cents:

I think the reason we like to discuss our different views is just because we like to share.

Another reason is that sometimes, we really are looking for answers.

I have learned different things. And learned that I was wrong at times...

It would be funny, if it weren't so sad, that we are like little children keep calling each others' opinions "false doctrines". I think a "false doctrine" is something that leads away from faith in Christ, otherwise, it's just "opinions"...

Also, about Arminianism and Calvinism,
they sort of show a different character/side of God. If somebody is wanting to know God more, they need to get into this and find the answer. For example, Arminian view shows God as just, and Calvinism does not. Although we believe that God is just because the Bible tells us so, we also like to actually see it too...
I am really happy that I believe in "free will" now, because it shows God as more compassionate, just, and loving...

 

[beloved57]

It would be funny, if it weren't so sad, that we are like little children keep calling each others' opinions "false doctrines". I think a "false doctrine" is something that leads away from faith in Christ, otherwise, it's just "opinions"...

A opinion that is not grounded upon truth is against christ, no matter how sincere one maybe..

 

[lamblion]

I can understand the participation and persuasion that goes on in apologetics. In apologetics there is a focus on bridging the gap between belief and unbelief. Those who believe in Jesus Christ as their Savior are justified in the eyes of God, while those who do not are condemned for their unbelief.

However with Calvinism and Arminianism, both views are within the historic range of Christianity. Both sides are regarded as comprising of Christians, not unbelievers. In fact there are many godly Christians on either side - as well as "outside" either tradition. So at its essence the Cal-Arm debate is an "in house" debate.

So I'm wondering - what is supposed to be the significance of attempting to convince someone of one view or the other?


LDG

The whole idea in the dilema between these two parties is to find out if one or the other is wrong in their presentation to the doctrine of salvation in it's entireity.
The signifacance in convincing one to agree with one party or the other is to get one to understand the error in the doctrine that the opposing party holds. Calvin and arminian both are men that broke away from the teachings of the catholic faith to come to a complete understanding of the true teachings of the Bible due to salvation & ect. In this it is safe to say that both these men and those that follow their doctrine are in attempt to clearlfy the means of salvation and it's presentation in the scriptures.

Calvin says that only the elect are saved and those that are not elect, due to sovereign grace, are doomed to damnation. This has it's errors in light of Romans-8. If this is the case, we then have a God that sovereignly chooses some to go to hell and some to go to heaven. God says that He wishes that none should perish but that all should come to a saving knowlege of the truth

Arminian says that salvation is for all men and that anyone, by their own freewill, that accepts that gift of salvation is born into the family of God, yet in the depths of salvation Arminians conclude that salvation can be lost. This also has it's errors in light of a scope of doctine that teaches salvation is eternal in it's nature.

Both parties belief that what they teach is the truth and that the opposing party is wrong and in error according to the scriptures. The fact is that both parties have their errors and in order to come to a complete undertanding of the truth we should combine both men.