Calvinist Arminian dialog

[OzSpen]

But Arminians view of prescient election places the onus of salvation on man not on God. If God has foreknowledge of all free will actions then the reprobate cannot choose away from God's foreknowledge which invalidates the Arminian claim. Frankly, the Arminian claim makes God contingent on man's decision which removes God as the first cause of creation because God then would be contingent on man. The creator cannot be contingent on His creation.

Election is biblical; that cannot be denied. However, if God knows who will accept Him then election equals those who have chosen Him which makes election equal to knowledge.

These are your assertions about Arminians. I note that you provided not one piece of evidence to support your statements from Arminius or Arminians.

Why do you do this? Your generalisations are from your own mind when you don't provide evidence to back up your claims.

Oz

 

[tulipbee]

And I noticed that you provided not one single piece of scriptural evidence to support your case for DOUBLE predestination.

Please provide exegetical, scriptural evidence that thereprobate receive eklektos to damnation.

Oz

It depends on what you meant by "Double Predestination".

We still must not confuse Double Predestination with Double Election (i.e., that the reprobate are elected unto damnation).

The Scriptures use "elect" [eklektos] only in regards to the saved. It is NEVER used to refer to the reprobate.

"Double Predestination" does not mean that God elects some unto salvation and elects others to perdition !

"Double Predestination" does mean the Supreme Being has complete sovereignty in the eternal fate of every individual.

But, He elects those who are saved.

Election isn't a factor in the perdition of the rest.

By "election" we mean not just the Lord's choice in whom He redeems. Therefore the term might be more properly called "Effectual Election". And we touch upon this aspect of the matter when we use the Reformed Theology descriptor of "Effectual Calling".

To wit: God in election doesn't only choose those He shall save, but -in fact- saves them.

[ We find this doctrine in Romans 8:29-30. ]

The Most High does not just choose those He saves, He also calls them and saves them.

The reprobate aren't elected unto damnation (like the saved are elected unto salvation).

We're all sinners ...including the Elect.

God don't have to do anything to make the reprobate deserve eternal Hell.

In theology this is called Preterit Reprobation. The Lord simply leaves those He has deemed not to save in their sin.

This doesn't in any fashion lessen God's absolute control over damnation. The reprobate are predestined to Hell.

Thus we have Double Predestination: The Supreme Being's ultimate sovereignty over everybody's eternal destiny.

But while the Elect are saved from their sin, the reprobate are left in their sin.

There's election unto salvation yet no election unto damnation.

God causes one group of sinners to be saved [the Elect], and leaves everyone else in their sin to suffer perdition.


Did the Lord create the reprobate merely to have people to send to Hell ?

This is really Double Election, and nowhere does the Scriptures speak of anyone except Believers being "elected" !

So, no, it's NOT "double election" in the sense of election-unto-damnation.

Look closely at the verse:

[ The NIV reading being more literal. The text doesn't contain the word "doom" (NASB). ]

Christ as the stumbling block was the disobedience appointed. And, He's a stumbling block to everyone because everyone is born an unbeliever. Thus the Gospel stumbles all of us before we are regenerated.

That's Preterit Reprobation. Not double-election.

 

[OzSpen]

It depends on what you meant by "Double Predestination".

We still must not confuse Double Predestination with Double Election (i.e., that the reprobate are elected unto damnation).

.

That seems to be contrary to what you wrote at #159. I find the view you are promoting to be double minded. You know what you mean by double predestination and you stated it there.

At #159 you have already told us what you meant by double predestination when you wrote:

Double Predestination is the Scriptural doctrine of the Lord's sovereignty in election and reprobation.

However, I was raising with Hentenza her false information about John Calvin. He did believe in double predestination and this is what he meant when he wrote:

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The predestination by which God adopts some to the hope of life, and adjudges others to eternal death, no man who
would be thought pious ventures simply to deny....By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he
determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms,
but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created
for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death (Institutes of the
Christian Religion 3.21.5). [/FONT]
​

He was crystal clear about his view of double predestination:

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death[/FONT]

You wrote:

But while the Elect are saved from their sin, the reprobate are left in their sin.

There's election unto salvation yet no election unto damnation.

That is not how John Calvin saw it.

Sincerely, Oz

 

[tulipbee]

These are your assertions about Arminians. I note that you provided not one piece of evidence to support your statements from Arminius or Arminians.

Why do you do this? Your generalisations are from your own mind when you don't provide evidence to back up your claims.

Oz

​

Who cares about Arminius who enhanced more false doctrines. Hentenza meant the Arminian doctrine of prescient election has it that God choses those whom He foresees as choosing Him.

Christians utterly disavow THAT !

Calvinism teaches that the Most High saves outside anything like that He foresees in the person.

"This effectual call is
of God's free and
special grace alone,
not from anything at
all foreseen in man"
(WCF; Ch. 10, Sec. 2)

But this doesn't mean, for example, He saves illiterate people by giving them Bibles to read !

The Lord calls His Elect, and works their salvation, primary through prior regeneration ...which is immediate ("without means", i.e. supernaturally), instant, and monergistic.

Yet -to what degree conversion is providential- it's methodology acts within the person's real circumstances.

Hence, during the era most people couldn't read, the Gospel calling was "from hearing" (Romans 10:17). Today it's probably a lot more from reading. And, the Lord held back on presenting the Gospel Call over the Internet until people actually had computers connected to the Internet !

All the little details of what, in theology, is labeled the External Calling coincide with our particular and individual circumstances.

Arminianism, though, says those saved autonomously "made a decision for Christ". Whereas, Calvinism has it that people are "slaves to sin" (John 8:34 NIV), and thus constitutionally incapable of deciding "for" Christ ...much less actually doing so !

The Holy Spirit must supernaturally intervene if anyone is to be saved.

Christians absolutely reject the semi-Pelagian notion that God merely ratifies a future choice he foresees us making !

Yet this DOESN'T mean that the providential aspects of our conversion to Christ disregard individual circumstances.

God does not (for example) convert English-speaking people by giving them Bibles in Chinese to read !

THAT, though, is a long way off from the Arminian view of His merely going along with what He foresees as our future "decision for Christ".

 

[OzSpen]

Red herring!

​

Who cares about Arminius who enhanced more false doctrines. Hentenza meant the Arminian doctrine of prescient election has it that God choses those whom He foresees as choosing Him.

Christians utterly disavow THAT !

Calvinism teaches that the Most High saves outside anything like that He foresees in the person.

"This effectual call is
of God's free and
special grace alone,
not from anything at
all foreseen in man"
(WCF; Ch. 10, Sec. 2)

But this doesn't mean, for example, He saves illiterate people by giving them Bibles to read !

The Lord calls His Elect, and works their salvation, primary through prior regeneration ...which is immediate ("without means", i.e. supernaturally), instant, and monergistic.

Yet -to what degree conversion is providential- it's methodology acts within the person's real circumstances.

Hence, during the era most people couldn't read, the Gospel calling was "from hearing" (Romans 10:17). Today it's probably a lot more from reading. And, the Lord held back on presenting the Gospel Call over the Internet until people actually had computers connected to the Internet !

All the little details of what, in theology, is labeled the External Calling coincide with our particular and individual circumstances.

Arminianism, though, says those saved autonomously "made a decision for Christ". Whereas, Calvinism has it that people are "slaves to sin" (John 8:34 NIV), and thus constitutionally incapable of deciding "for" Christ ...much less actually doing so !

The Holy Spirit must supernaturally intervene if anyone is to be saved.

Christians absolutely reject the semi-Pelagian notion that God merely ratifies a future choice he foresees us making !

Yet this DOESN'T mean that the providential aspects of our conversion to Christ disregard individual circumstances.

God does not (for example) convert English-speaking people by giving them Bibles in Chinese to read !

THAT, though, is a long way off from the Arminian view of His merely going along with what He foresees as our future "decision for Christ".

 

[Hentenza]

What you described as your view is Classical Arminianism.

Oh heavens no. Not even close. In classical Aminianism God gives an invitation to salvation to those that He already knows are not going to accept it. See the contradiction?

 

[Hentenza]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Why do you misrepresent John Calvin's teaching like this? This demonstrates that you do not know what Calvin taught about predestination.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The facts are: Calvin most definitely did believe in double predestination. This is what he wrote and taught:[/FONT]


From where did you get the idea that Calvin did not teach double predestination? Did you get it from another Calvinist?

This quote from the Institutes of the Christian Religion refutes your statement about Calvin.

Oz

lol This is a typical Arminian quote mine. You need to keep reading. The term double predestination is actually a pejorative and use to fully twist Calvin's views of the "election" of the reprobate. It has been used as a synonym for a "symmetrical" view of predestination which sees election and reprobation being worked out in an equally parallel mode of divine operation.

This twisting of double predestination suggests a parallelism of foreordination and predestination by means of a positive symmetry, which results in a positive-positive view of predestination, i.e., God positively and actively intervenes in the lives of the elect to bring them to salvation and in the same way God positively and actively intervenes in the life of the reprobate to bring him to sin.


The classic position of Reformed theology views predestination as double in that it involves both election and reprobation but not symmetrical with respect to the mode of divine activity. A strict parallelism of operation is denied. Rather predestination is viewed in terms of a positive-negative relationship based on God's knowledge.



In the Reformed view God from all eternity decrees some to election and positively intervenes in their lives to work regeneration and faith by a monergistic work of grace. To the non-elect God withholds this monergistic work of grace, passing them by and leaving them to themselves. He does not monergistically work sin or unbelief in their lives. Therefore, the mode of operation in the lives of the elect is not parallel with that operation in the lives of the reprobate.

 

[OzSpen]

Oh heavens no. Not even close. In classical Aminianism God gives an invitation to salvation to those that He already knows are not going to accept it. See the contradiction?

Please provide the quotes from Arminianism that proves what you stated.

You seem to be speaking out of a Calvinistic premise regarding election and imposing your view on Arminianism. God's foreknowledge knows who will respond and who will not respond. There is no contradiction in my understanding of God's foreknowledge in action.

 

[OzSpen]

lol This is a typical Arminian quote mine. You need to keep reading. The term double predestination is actually a pejorative and use to fully twist Calvin's views of the "election" of the reprobate. It has been used as a synonym for a "symmetrical" view of predestination which sees election and reprobation being worked out in an equally parallel mode of divine operation.

That is a straw man fallacy. I caught you out when you said that Calvin did not believe in double predestination. Will you ever be able to get to the point of saying, 'Yes, Oz, I was wrong in saying that Calvin didn't believe in double predestination. You have provided me with the evidence to demonstrate that Calvin did believe in double predestination'.

Just in case you missed it, here it is again from The Institutes of the Christian Religion:

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The predestination by which God adopts some to the hope of life, and adjudges others to eternal death, no man who
would be thought pious ventures simply to deny....By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he
determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms,
but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created
for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death (Institutes of the
Christian Religion 3.21.5). [/FONT]

 

[Hentenza]

Please provide the quotes from Arminianism that proves what you stated.

You seem to be speaking out of a Calvinistic premise regarding election and imposing your view on Arminianism. God's foreknowledge knows who will respond and who will not respond. There is no contradiction in my understanding of God's foreknowledge in action.

If God's foreknowledge knows who will respond and who will not respond then how can the reprobate, which God already knows will not respond, be extended an offer of salvation?

If this is not what Arminians believe then please debunk my statement. Thanks.

 

[Hentenza]

That is a straw man fallacy.

A strawman is when someone misrepresents the other person's argument. I have not done such.

I caught you out when you said that Calvin did not believe in double predestination.

If you think you provided an aha moment then why did you not address my post?

 

[OzSpen]

Why have you engagaged in plagiarism here - stealing somebody else's ideas without giving him credit?

Some of your material here is from R C Sproul on '"Double" predestination'.

For the sake of integrity in your posts, I urge you to give credit to your sources when you use another person's views.

Oz

lol This is a typical Arminian quote mine. You need to keep reading. The term double predestination is actually a pejorative and use to fully twist Calvin's views of the "election" of the reprobate. It has been used as a synonym for a "symmetrical" view of predestination which sees election and reprobation being worked out in an equally parallel mode of divine operation.

This twisting of double predestination suggests a parallelism of foreordination and predestination by means of a positive symmetry, which results in a positive-positive view of predestination, i.e., God positively and actively intervenes in the lives of the elect to bring them to salvation and in the same way God positively and actively intervenes in the life of the reprobate to bring him to sin.

The classic position of Reformed theology views predestination as double in that it involves both election and reprobation but not symmetrical with respect to the mode of divine activity. A strict parallelism of operation is denied. Rather predestination is viewed in terms of a positive-negative relationship based on God's knowledge.

In the Reformed view God from all eternity decrees some to election and positively intervenes in their lives to work regeneration and faith by a monergistic work of grace. To the non-elect God withholds this monergistic work of grace, passing them by and leaving them to themselves. He does not monergistically work sin or unbelief in their lives. Therefore, the mode of operation in the lives of the elect is not parallel with that operation in the lives of the reprobate.

 

[Hentenza]

Why have you engagaged in plagiarism here - stealing somebody else's ideas without giving him credit?

Some of your material here is from R C Sproul on '"Double" predestination'.

For the sake of integrity in your posts, I urge you to give credit to your sources when you use another person's views.

Oz

The majority of my post came from an article given to me by one of my students of my bible class and is not copyrighted. I thought it was well written but did not realize that some of the material came from Sproul. My apologies.

Now that we have that out of the way, can you debunk the post or are you gong to continue attacking the poster?

 

[OzSpen]

If God's foreknowledge knows who will respond and who will not respond then how can the reprobate, which God already knows will not respond, be extended an offer of salvation?

If this is not what Arminians believe then please debunk my statement. Thanks.

Arminians believe 1 Timothy 2:3-4,

This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Saviour, 4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

God desires all reprobates to be saved. They are the ALL PEOPLE of 1 Tim 2:4.

And did you know that Jesus provided propitiation for all people (this is not universalism, but unlimited atonement) when the Scripture states,

He [Jesus Christ the righteous] is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world (ESV).

How can the reprobate be extended the offer of salvation? That's simple! God extends the offer of salvation to all people and all are reprobates. You seem to be confusing God's foreknowledge with your Calvinistic understanding of deterministic predestination to damnation and salvation.

For God, there is no contradiction between Christ's unlimited atonement, God loving the whole world, the Gospel of salvation being offered to all - and only SOME responding.

Why? Because this is how he said it would happen:

'But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God' (John 1:12 ESV).

It seems to me that your refusal to accept individual response to the Gospel has mixed up God's foreknowledge, the Gospel call, unlimited atonement, and your Calvinistic view of election/predestination.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

The majority of my post came from an article given to me by one of my students of my bible class and is not copyrighted. I thought it was well written but did not realize that some of the material came from Sproul. My apologies.

Now that we have that out of the way, can you debunk the post or are you gong to continue attacking the poster?

That confirms that you got the information from somebody else and did not give them credit. That also is plagiarism.

I am not attacking you, the poster. That is the farthest thing from my mind.

When you misrepresent another person's views, as you did with John Calvin on double predestination, I'll draw that to your attention because it is the truth. When will you acknowledge that you were wrong when you stated that Calvin did not believe in double predestination - when he did?

Oz

 

[Hentenza]

Arminians believe 1 Timothy 2:3-4,

God desires all reprobates to be saved. They are the ALL PEOPLE of 1 Tim 2:4.

And did you know that Jesus provided propitiation for all people (this is not universalism, but unlimited atonement) when the Scripture states,


How can the reprobate be extended the offer of salvation? That's simple! God extends the offer of salvation to all people and all are reprobates. You seem to be confusing God's foreknowledge with your Calvinistic understanding of deterministic predestination to damnation and salvation.

For God, there is no contradiction between Christ's unlimited atonement, God loving the whole world, the Gospel of salvation being offered to all - and only SOME responding.

Why? Because this is how he said it would happen:

It seems to me that your refusal to accept individual response to the Gospel has mixed up God's foreknowledge, the Gospel call, unlimited atonement, and your Calvinistic view of election/predestination.

Oz

1. If God wanted all to be saved then all will be saved. But we know that many are not. This alone refutes our interpretation of 1 Tim. 2:4.

2. If God extends the offer of salvation to those that He already knows will not accept Him then Arminianism proposes that salvation is by other than God since God cannot have two realities because He then would have to include a second reality. This is contrary to God's perfect knowledge. Are you suggesting that God does not have perfect knowledge?

3. If Christ's atonement extends to those that God already knows will not accept Him then God is contingent of the acceptance. If God is contingent on anything then God is not the first cause. This would obviously be a contradiction of God's attributes.

Paul explains the concept of the reprobate quite simple in Romans 1:

28 And just as they did not see fit [u]to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, [v]haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.


Since the reprobate will not be saved, and since God has always known that the reprobate will not be saved, then Jesus atonement will not cover the sins of the reprobate and God will pass them by.

 

[Hentenza]

That confirms that you got the information from somebody else and did not give them credit. That also is plagiarism.

I am not attacking you, the poster. That is the farthest thing from my mind.

When you misrepresent another person's views, as you did with John Calvin on double predestination, I'll draw that to your attention because it is the truth. When will you acknowledge that you were wrong when you stated that Calvin did not believe in double predestination - when he did?

Oz

I am not misrepresenting Calvin's views. That is for you to prove.

 

[OzSpen]

1. If God wanted all to be saved then all will be saved. But we know that many are not. This alone refutes our interpretation of 1 Tim. 2:4.

That's a non sequitur.

2. If God extends the offer of salvation to those that He already knows will not accept Him then Arminianism proposes that salvation is by other than God since God cannot have two realities because He then would have to include a second reality. This is contrary to God's perfect knowledge. Are you suggesting that God does not have perfect knowledge?

Straw man logical fallacy!

3. If Christ's atonement extends to those that God already knows will not accept Him then God is contingent of the acceptance. If God is contingent on anything then God is not the first cause. This would obviously be a contradiction of God's attributes.

Paul explains the concept of the reprobate quite simple in Romans 1:
28 And just as they did not see fit [u]to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, [v]haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

Another straw man!

Since the reprobate will not be saved, and since God has always known that the reprobate will not be saved, then Jesus atonement will not cover the sins of the reprobate and God will pass them by.

Another non sequitur.

When you engage in the use of these logical fallacies, we cannot have a reasonable discussion.

I you continue to do this, I will not respond as there is no point in responding to logical fallacies. Rational discussion is rendered obsolete.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I am not misrepresenting Calvin's views. That is for you to prove.

At #152, you wrote:

Heck even Calvin did not believe in double predestination.

At #158, I corrected that by saying,

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The facts are: Calvin most definitely did believe in double predestination. This is what he wrote and taught:[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The predestination by which God adopts some to the hope of life, and adjudges others to eternal death, no man who would be thought pious ventures simply to deny....By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death (Institutes of the Christian Religion 3.21.5).[/FONT]
​

Now you have the audacity to state,
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] [/FONT]

I am not misrepresenting Calvin's views. That is for you to prove.

I have proved it to you, but you won't accept it. I will not engage with you further on this matter as you are resistant to correction when what you stated was clearly wrong.

Bye, Oz

 

[Hentenza]

That's a non sequitur.


Straw man logical fallacy!


Another straw man!


Another non sequitur.

When you engage in the use of these logical fallacies, we cannot have a reasonable discussion.

I you continue to do this, I will not respond as there is no point in responding to logical fallacies. Rational discussion is rendered obsolete.

Oz

lol. You need to learn about fallacies. You are hiding behind the typical "attack the poster" fallacy to avoid answering the post. I understand if you can't answer my argument since it debunks Arminianism.

Again, if God knows all who will accept Him, and since God has perfect knowledge, then why would God extend the offer of salvation to those that He already knows will not accept Him?