Calvinist Arminian dialog

[Hentenza]

I agree. In my understanding that's the conflict that I see between the Calvinistic view of double predestination and the justice of God.

There is no Calvinistic view of double predestination. Tis is an Arminian twist. God does not positively act in the lies of the reprobate to keep them reprobate. God knows that they will not turn from their ways and merely passes them over.

Let me post the question yet again: If God has perfect knowledge, and If God knows who will believe and who will not, then why would God tend an offer of salvation to those that He ALREADY knows will not believe?

That's why the biblical teaching by the Arminians on free will/human responsibility makes sense - based on the biblical material. We have it in both OT and NT:

1. 'Choose this day whom you will serve' (Josh 24:15); and
2. 'But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God' (John 1:12).

Lets take John 1:12 as an example: Did God know, before the foundation of the world, those who would receive Him and believe in His name or did this knowledge came to Him progressively as each individual person received Him and believed in Him?


I'm sure you will not respond to this post either by using some feeble excuse of an imaginary fallacy. lol

 

[SeventhValley]

Calvin for right or wrong says from his institutes book III

" He long before determined
once and for all to receive into
salvation, and those whom, on the
other hand, He would devote to
destruction. We assert that, with
respect to the elect, this plan was
founded upon His freely given mercy,
without regard to human worth; but
by His just and irreprehensible but
incomprehensible judgment He has
barred the door of life to those whom
he has given over to damnation."

As you can see Calvin states God dose not work off of foreknowledge of those who choose him but chooses humans without regard of foreknowledge of acceptance of salvation for salvation or damnation.

Calvin viewed double predestination as the only just way for God to elect and damn.

 

[Skala]

So knowing they cannot repent because they are not elected to repent, that is ok. Isn't there something wrong with telling someone to do something they are incapable of doing and then sending them to everlasting torment even though they never had an avenue of escape?

Their inability to repent has nothing to do with lack of being elected. It's the default state of fallen man to not be able to repent, because by fallen nature he is hostile to God and enslaved to sin.

Election makes possible what is impossible because of sin. But their inability is not because they are not elected, but rather it is based on something else: their own sinfulness.

Big difference when there is a cure as opposed to having no way of escape. When one is born as you would say being one not elected, do they go to hell for being born seeing as how they could never not sin?

Just as in your view, they go to hell because of the sins they willingly commit. you can't blame non-mercy for the punishment a criminal gets. the reason he is being punished is because he commit the crimes in the first place.

When you ask a person who is on death row why he is being executed, he doesn't say "because the judge didn't have mercy on me", but rather he will say "because of the heinous crimes I committed".

Mercy's job is not to condemn, but to save the already-condemned. Yet you argue as if the non-elect can blame non-mercy for their condemnation. It's not logical.

 

[SeventhValley]

From the Arminian articles of Remonstrance

That God elects based on foreknowledge.

Article I — That God, by an eternal,
unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ , his
Son, before the foundation of the world,
hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful
race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ's
sake, and through Christ, those who,
through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall
believe on this his Son Jesus, and shall
persevere in this faith and obedience of
faith, through this grace, even to the end;
and, on the other hand, to leave the
incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and
under wrath, and to condemn them as
alienate from Christ, according to the word
of the Gospel in John iii. 36: "He that
believeth on the Son hath everlasting life;
and he that believeth not the Son shall not
see life; but the wrath of God abideth on
him," and according to other passages of
Scripture also.

 

[SeventhValley]

Nothing bad about believing double predestination or predestination off foreknowledge.

Just preach repent and be baptized their is no need to figure out how it works.

 

[Hentenza]

Nothing bad about believing double predestination or predestination off foreknowledge.

Just preach repent and be baptized their is no need to figure out how it works.

Do you think that those who God knows will not repent will heed the preaching of repentance and baptism?

 

[SeventhValley]

Do you think that those who God knows will not repent will heed the preaching of repentance and baptism?

I could offer you a canned Calvinist or Arminian answer...

Or since it is not my place to judge God I can just preach to all that I can.

 

[SeventhValley]

Moody had some good points that go well with the quote from Spurgeon that started this thread.

" The next excuse I want to take up is
"election." I meet a great many in the
inquiry-room who tell me they are very
anxious to be saved, but they do not know if
they are elected. "If I were only sure that I
were elected," they say, "I would soon be in
earnest about salvation. But then I don't
know that I'm one of the elect, so I have a
very good excuse." Now! I want to give no
uncertain sound upon this point. I want to
say that an unconverted person has nothing
whatever to do with the doctrine of
election. After you have become children of
God, then we can talk about election -- then
we can talk about how sweet and beautiful
the doctrine is. But those who are not God's
children have nothing at all to do with it.
You do not like anyone to read your private
letters, do you? Well, the doctrine of
election was written, in a private letter, to
the children of God. No wonder the world
puzzles over it. No wonder they cannot
understand it. It was never meant for them.
What they have to do with is the
"Whosoever" and the "Him that cometh," of
the free invitations of Christ.
Suppose I am taking a walk near this hall
tonight, and say to the policeman at the
door, "Who is invited to this meeting?"
"Those who have tickets," he replies. I have
no ticket, so it is not for me. I walk on
further, and come to another meeting. "This
is only for those who belong to the --
Society," I am told, so I know it is not for
me. I go on further, and come to a large
public building -- a club. "Only members
admitted," I read at the door. It is not for
me either. I go further still and come to
another building, and over the door this is
written: "Whosoever will, let him come in."
Ah! it is for me this time. Whosoever -- that
means me -- and in I go. My friends, God
puts it just like that. All are invited to come
to Christ. What have you to do with Paul's
epistle about election? Why, you have
nothing to do with it -- not till you become
a Christian. You have no business with the
private letters of other people, and the
"whosoever" comes before election. "-D.L. Moody

 

[iwbswiaihl2]

God also wants all to be saved but not all will be saved, right? Is this a contradiction? Look, you cannot deny that God has perfect knowledge. His knowledge does not develop progressively but He knew all since before the foundation of the world. Do you disagree?

Foreknowledge of an event does not mean that He predestined the event, whatever the event may be. God knew that Adam was going to sin, did God make Adam sin? You are the one that said God does not call the reprobate to repentance because He knows the reprobate will not repent, did you say that or not? But I showed you that God does command all men everywhere to repent. Show me one verse that says everyone cannot repent and that will settle the issue, otherwise the God of Truth would have all to obey Him, and when He commands all to repent, He does not exclude any from having the ability to obey. Does 1 John 2:2 say that Jesus is the propitiation for the saints sin and not only for their sin but the sin of the whole world? Does that mean that Jesus paid the sin debt for the whole world or not? If one believes the scriptures, it means what it says, their sin debt is paid, but is not of benefit to the reprobate because they never repent and turn to Christ. Only by being adopted into the family does one get to be a child of God, but the sin debt has been paid before they become His children, to Him He knew who His children would be, but the children only know by faith, being adopted into the family by faith in the Beloved Son.

I disagree. We are talking about corporate Israel not about individuals. Paul explicitly explains that all of Israel will be saved and praying for them is uniting with them to plea for their salvation. Remember that prayer is answered according to God's will not according to our will.

Why would he plea for their salvation if he knew that all Israel was going to be saved, that makes no sense. Only those who receive Christ will be saved. Only those that are children of Abraham will be saved and they are those who by faith believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Just as Galatians says in chapter 3:6-9 just as Abraham “believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”7 Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.” 9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham. All one has to do is to read chapter 20 of Revelations and you will see that a multitude of those Jews that go into the 1000 years reign will have their children that are born during the 1000 years and many of those being born will still not accept the Lord and will be destroy at the end of the 1000 years. No one goes into the 1000 years of reign on earth that is not saved, but their children will not be unless they believe on the Lord.

 

[iwbswiaihl2]

Their inability to repent has nothing to do with lack of being elected. It's the default state of fallen man to not be able to repent, because by fallen nature he is hostile to God and enslaved to sin.

It has every thing to do with their inability as you say it happens. They are in that default state as you word it, but they had no control over that, they were born like that, not having the ability to repent would mean they go to an eternal judgment because they were born, not because they chose to sin. You do not choose something that is built in by default. Did they choose to sin or just do what is their nature as you say? And you see nothing wrong with calling them to repentance even though that is impossible according to your view. I guess there would be nothing wrong if the government were to say that on the first day of November of this year everyone that cannot run a mile in 6 minutes or less will be taken out to sea and thrown into the ocean. Seeing as how the government is the minister of God, all would be ok because those elected to live would be able to finish the race in 6 minutes or less.

Election makes possible what is impossible because of sin. But their inability is not because they are not elected, but rather it is based on something else: their own sinfulness.

No again, its based on their being born, they had no choice but to sin, and no ability to change, how are they at fault if one believes as you say?

Just as in your view, they go to hell because of the sins they willingly commit. you can't blame non-mercy for the punishment a criminal gets. the reason he is being punished is because he commit the crimes in the first place.

You yourself say that is their default setting, they had no choice, if so, what was their choice that was available?

When you ask a person who is on death row why he is being executed, he doesn't say "because the judge didn't have mercy on me", but rather he will say "because of the heinous crimes I committed".

But according to your logic, those in hell would say, I was born is why I am here.

Mercy's job is not to condemn, but to save the already-condemned. Yet you argue as if the non-elect can blame non-mercy for their condemnation. It's not logical.

Mercy as you describe it is never shown to those set in default not to be one of the elected. What is not logical is you not seeing that God would not send millions and millions of people to hell for being born set on your default setting of hopelessness from birth. That's what's not logical nor godly. For God sent His Son into the world to save sinners not to condemn the world. Hell was made for the devil and his angels not for any default hell bound people from birth.

 

[OzSpen]

There is no Calvinistic view of double predestination. Tis is an Arminian twist. God does not positively act in the lies of the reprobate to keep them reprobate. God knows that they will not turn from their ways and merely passes them over.

Why do you refuse to believe what John Calvin said about his belief in doctrine of double predestination?It is not an Arminian twist. It is Calvin's own teaching. When will you get it?

Here the quote is again. [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]

You are the one who is misrepresenting John Calvin's teaching when you refuse to accept his belief in and teaching about double predestination. In this one paragraph, he emphasised it twice:

1. '[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The predestination by which God adopts some to the hope of life, and adjudges others to eternal death';[/FONT]
2. [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]'[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death'[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Why do you, a Calvinist, refuse to believe what Calvin believed by affirming that God predestines to life and God predestines to death. God predestines to the hope of life and adjudges (predestines) others to eternal death.[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]To deny this is to deny what Calvin taught.[/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Oz[/FONT]

 

[OzSpen]

Calvin for right or wrong says from his institutes book III

" He long before determined
once and for all to receive into
salvation, and those whom, on the
other hand, He would devote to
destruction. We assert that, with
respect to the elect, this plan was
founded upon His freely given mercy,
without regard to human worth; but
by His just and irreprehensible but
incomprehensible judgment He has
barred the door of life to those whom
he has given over to damnation."

As you can see Calvin states God dose not work off of foreknowledge of those who choose him but chooses humans without regard of foreknowledge of acceptance of salvation for salvation or damnation.

Calvin viewed double predestination as the only just way for God to elect and damn.

Your quote from Calvin is found in the same paragraph I quoted above, Institutes of the Christian Religion, III.21.5.

Calvin most definitely did affirm his belief in double predestination - predestination to salvation and predestination to damnation.

Oz

 

[now faith]

What is becoming clear to me,is that the study of Calvin's teaching has become some what similar to Ellen White,Joseph Smith,or any other beliefs that rely more one the person than the Word.

Calvinist draw a line,you are either Calvinist or Armenians.

First you are Christians,then I suppose Baptists then your own brand of theology.

But this has become reverse,theology,Baptist,Christian.

I have been in Baptist Churches that deny the Free Will Baptist,and deny Calvinism.

Calvin and Luther both had their roots in the Roman Catholic Church although reformers they were still Roman Cathloic.

Today the Baptist and Cathloic are far separated,but if this debate continues and goes viral,you are going to have a total split among Baptist with new non Baptist being reformed into Calvinist and Baptist being reformed into nondenominational.

Myself raised freewill Baptist,moved to Word of Faith,because of the inability of the Baptist I joined to admit the truth of the Word when it was crystal clear and being dodged from the pulpit

 

[OzSpen]

Would you please learn the difference between Armenians and Arminians?

What is becoming clear to me,is that the study of Calvin's teaching has become some what similar to Ellen White,Joseph Smith,or any other beliefs that rely more one the person than the Word.

Calvinist draw a line,you are either Calvinist or Armenians.

First you are Christians,then I suppose Baptists then your own brand of theology.

But this has become reverse,theology,Baptist,Christian.

I have been in Baptist Churches that deny the Free Will Baptist,and deny Calvinism.

Calvin and Luther both had their roots in the Roman Catholic Church although reformers they were still Roman Cathloic.

Today the Baptist and Cathloic are far separated,but if this debate continues and goes viral,you are going to have a total split among Baptist with new non Baptist being reformed into Calvinist and Baptist being reformed into nondenominational.

Myself raised freewill Baptist,moved to Word of Faith,because of the inability of the Baptist I joined to admit the truth of the Word when it was crystal clear and being dodged from the pulpit

 

[now faith]

Would you please learn the difference between Armenians and Arminians?

Can you take that up with my spell ck?

If I get no red line I let it fly

Honestly my device or vice depending on your perspective,will change spelling as soon as I hit space,and will refuse to allow me to correct.

But if I were to rely on my own spelling,you would assume the post had been in tongues

But it is nice to hear from the merry ol" land of OZ

 

[OzSpen]

Can you take that up with my spell ck?

If I get no red line I let it fly

Honestly my device or vice depending on your perspective,will change spelling as soon as I hit space,and will refuse to allow me to correct.

But if I were to rely on my own spelling,you would assume the post had been in tongues

But it is nice to hear from the merry ol" land of OZ

That's because both Armenian and Arminian are correct nouns. Your spell checker will recognise both of them as correct. However, Armenians are people from the land of Armenia. Arminians belong to the theologial system known as Arminianism.

The issue is with the typist and not with the spell checker. Blaming the tool (spell check) will not get you out of this one. You are the one who needs to know the difference between Armenian and Arminian. Down Under we have a slogan that seems to fit here: A bad workman blames his tools.

So what makes Oz a "merry ol' land"?

Oz

 

[tulipbee]

....
Myself raised freewill Baptist,moved to Word of Faith,because of the inability of the Baptist I joined to admit the truth of the Word when it was crystal clear and being dodged from the pulpit

They will tell you anything for $$$$$$$

A lot of Dispies also teach the "Prosperity Gospel" in one form or another and to one degree or another.

The hardcore Prosperity Gospel adherents, however, are Word-of-Faith.

 

[now faith]

That's because both Armenian and Arminian are correct nouns. Your spell checker will recognise both of them as correct. However, Armenians are people from the land of Armenia. Arminians belong to the theologial system known as Arminianism.

The issue is with the typist and not with the spell checker. Blaming the tool (spell check) will not get you out of this one. You are the one who needs to know the difference between Armenian and Arminian. Down Under we have a slogan that seems to fit here: A bad workman blames his tools.

So what makes Oz a "merry ol' land"?

Oz

Not much at the moment.

As to the idea of correctness in post reformation theology,and the convoluted nonsense that came out of it,I yield the floor.

In my opinion the true reformers were,Wycliffe and Huss.

They brought fourth a translation of Gods Word that allowed the common man to read Gods Word,and made corrections that contradicted,the proprietary text of Rome.

Calvin and Luther both spawned other pious doctrine,that placed authority right back into the

Possession of men rather than Gods Word.

700 years later we are stumbling around attempting to legitimize one or the other.

All the while in a world destined,to hell.

 

[now faith]

That's because both Armenian and Arminian are correct nouns. Your spell checker will recognise both of them as correct. However, Armenians are people from the land of Armenia. Arminians belong to the theologial system known as Arminianism.

The issue is with the typist and not with the spell checker. Blaming the tool (spell check) will not get you out of this one. You are the one who needs to know the difference between Armenian and Arminian. Down Under we have a slogan that seems to fit here: A bad workman blames his tools.

So what makes Oz a "merry ol' land"?

Oz

You would assume with the endless debate,and the posting over and over,of the Dutch Theologian reformer or non reformer,that I may just know the difference between him and a nation of people.

I too am unsubscribing from this thread.

2 Corinthians 10:7 Do ye look on things after the outward appearance? If any man trust to himself that he is Christ's, let him of himself think this again, that, as he is Christ's, even so are we Christ's. 10:8 For though I should boast somewhat more of our authority, which the Lord hath given us for edification, and not for your destruction, I should not be ashamed: 10:9 That I may not seem as if I would terrify you by letters. 10:10 For his letters, say they, are weighty and powerful; but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible. 10:11 Let such an one think this, that, such as we are in word by letters when we are absent, such will we be also in deed when we are present. 10:12 For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise. 10:13 But we will not boast of things without our measure, but according to the measure of the rule which God hath distributed to us, a measure to reach even unto you. 10:14 For we stretch not ourselves beyond our measure, as though we reached not unto you: for we are come as far as to you also in preaching the gospel of Christ: 10:15 Not boasting of things without our measure, that is, of other men's labours; but having hope, when your faith is increased, that we shall be enlarged by you according to our rule abundantly, 10:16 To preach the gospel in the regions beyond you, and not to boast in another man's line of things made ready to our hand. 10:17 But he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. 10:18 For not he that commendeth himself is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth.

 

[OzSpen]

Fowler,

Google helped me discover this interaction in, 'A Calvinist Perspective on “Jesus Loves The Little Children”',

You have plagiarised it from this site. I urge you not to steal another person's idea without giving that person credit.

It is quite a brilliant interaction, but you have done the wrong thing by engaging in plagiarism.

If you are this person who wrote this on the Arminian site, 'Arminian Perspectives', you need to tell us that you are the author. Otherwise I conclude that you have plagiarised it.

Oz

All the children of the world…
Red and yellow, black and white…
They are precious in His sight…
Jesus loves the little children of the world”

Herman: Well, that song was quite obviously written by an Arminian

Calvin: Why do you say that?

Herman: Well, the song says that Jesus loves “all” the little children of the “world”.
That is what Arminians believe, that Christ died for all and loves the world in such a way that He truly desires all to believe in Christ and be saved.

Calvin: Oh, well you have just misunderstood the context of the song.

Herman: What do you mean?

Calvin: Well, the context plainly demonstrates that “all” doesn’t mean “every child without exception.”

Herman: It doesn’t?

Calvin: Of course not. Look at that one line that says, “Red and yellow, black and white”.

Herman: O.K.

Calvin: Well, it seems obvious to me that when he says “all the children of the world” he only means all the different colors of children in the world. You see, he is really concerned about racism and guarding against the false teaching that Jesus might only love red children and not any black children, etc.

Herman: Is that right? I never realized that?

Calvin: Well, most people don’t, but that is just because they pay no attention to context. That is why God gave us Reformed theologians to explain these things to us. I could give you a good book by a Calvinist where he spends about twenty pages explaining why “all the children of the world“ really means “only a relatively few children from among all the various races of the world”.

Herman: Wow, it is amazing to me that I never realized that before. I think I would like to read that book. Thank God he didn’t leave us on our own to interpret songs like this one or we might come to some really bizarre conclusions. I don’t know what we would ever do without those Reformed theologians you mentioned. I think from now on I will just read from them so I don’t misunderstand something else as I am obviously easily confused.

Calvin: Absolutely. Just make sure you don’t put their writings above what the songs actually say while understanding that it is impossible to rightly understand what the songs actually say and mean without reading from them.

Herman: Uh, sure. That makes sense. I think. Are you suggesting that they might be wrong about this song after all?

Calvin: Of course not. They are right because that is what the verse plainly means when considered in context and you can be sure that the song plainly means that because the Reformed theologians say so. Got it?

Herman: Yeah, I got it. Well, I’m off to buy some of those books you recommended. Thanks for all your help. Imagine, if I had never talked to you I would have just gone right on foolishly believing that the song was saying that Jesus actually loved “all” the children of the “world”.

Calvin: No problem. That’s what I’m here for.