Isn't the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism really just perception, pov, and processing?

[Fozzy]

FWIW. The title of this thread is
Isn't the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism really just perception, pov, and processing?

My answer: NO

Defining Aminianism as taught by a Calvinist Pastor (and in plenty of literature as well) "Any one who is not a Calvinist is an Arminian". I believe R C Sproul goes further "Any Calvinist who does not believe ALL 5 points is an Arminian".


Before the foundation of the world God resolved to himself how man could have free will and therefore be responsible for his own freely committed sin. And how this could be, while God remained totally sovereign.

How did God solve this dilemma ?

One thing I am sure of is that he did not run his solution past me for my appraisal before he implemented his solution.

Therefore:

I am happy to admit I do not know the solution.

I am also sure that God did not run his solution past anyone else, whether Calvinist, Arminian.... etc. Anyone saying I am wrong on this ?

So how can a Calvinist state "It MUST be that God predestined the reprobate and the elect as if not, God would not be sovereign?'" How do they know this ? How can they know this?

God is infinite and his ways are incomprehensible yet, the Calvinist says not and by stating "it MUST be..." brings God down to the finite limits of man. Got to be wrong on this.

 

[Fozzy]

The problem with double predestination is the hyperextension of reverse-soteriology as a universal principle. Predestination simply teaches that those who are saved are saved by God's sovereign grace alone. Those who are not saved are left to their own devices. This concept is of course a simplification; for one, it implies a certain temporality or precedence (even logical!) which does not exist in a timeless, eternal God.

Simplifications and metaphors (for everything we understand about God is necessarily some kind of parable or metaphor) are good only insofar as they bring us closer to the thing described. God, being all sovereign, by His power alone grants salvation to those he choses. But that's pretty much where it ends.

The focus of the world, the focus of Christ, and of the Holy Spirit is salvation and not damnation. It follows that God does not save in the same way that he damns. I may even go so far as to say that damnation only exists to facilitate our damnation, in the form of repentance from sin and in the form of salvation from something else.

Yes.
However there are those who take simplification and metaphores and build systematic theologies out of them. Usually into a weighty tome.

"I may even go so far as to say that damnation only exists to facilitate our damnation, in the form of repentance from sin and in the form of salvation from something else."

Something for me to think about.

Many thanks.

 

[bottomofsandal]

God didn't send me a rescue boat, He sent me a Savior, that requires me to step out of the boat, that is my life, and into His life with Him, trusting Him, not a boat.

Your metaphor tells us that you are superior to other men and possess advanced spiritual abilities.
You were aware of The Savior-you saw/heard-you stepped out of the boat-into His life-you trusted Him

How were you able to do all these things?
Why did you succeed where other men failed?
What quality/gift/ability do you possess that empowered your response?

Why did the boat come to you?
Why did The Savior talk to you?
What made you to differ from other men?


1 Corinthians 4:7New King James Version (NKJV)
7 For who makes you differ from another? And what do you have that you did not receive? Now if you did indeed receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?

 

[Hank77]

I believe the hyper-Calvinists believe in double predestination, but they are a very small minority.

Cos God predestined them this way before the foundation of the world. I.e Double Predestination in all but name.

Calvin's own words...

God's eternal decree, by which He compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man. For all are not created in equal condition; rather, eternal life is foreordained for some, eternal damnation for others(Inst. III, 21, 5).

 

[Fozzy]

Who would accuse God of being unjust or unrighteous?

Calvinism in all its forms does. Double predestination. Total depravity etc.

God has not been unjust in condemnation, since all were under condemnation.
Where is human responsibility and accountability ? No one is righteous.

Nice selective quotes.. The Bible ALSO says -

Romans 1:19-21New King James Version (NKJV)
19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes 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, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.


bottomofsandal, if you only read part of the Bible you only get part of the story.

 

[Fozzy]

Your metaphor tells us that you are superior to other men and possess advanced spiritual abilities.
You were aware of The Savior-you saw/heard-you stepped out of the boat-into His life-you trusted Him

How were you able to do all these things?
Why did you succeed where other men failed?
What quality/gift/ability do you possess that empowered your response?

Romans 1:19-21New King James Version (NKJV)
19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes 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, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Why did the boat come to you?
Why did The Savior talk to you?
What made you to differ from other men?

I have run out of colors:
The boat come to all - His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made

Why did The Savior talk to you? God has shown it to them

What made you to differ from other men? Nothing, no difference whatsoever they (all) knew God
This is a standard false dilemma question[/quote][/quote]

 

[bottomofsandal]

Calvinism in all its forms does. Double predestination. Total depravity etc.


Nice selective quotes.. The Bible ALSO says -

Romans 1:19-21New King James Version (NKJV)
19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes 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, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.


bottomofsandal, if you only read part of the Bible you only get part of the story.

Fortunately, I have read the entire Bible.
No need for snarkiness or disrespect, is there?


The old post that you re-posted questioned God's justice, judgment, and condemnation.
The poster alleged God was WRONG and UNJUST to hold people accountable for their sins.
A feeble comparison was made to an 11 month old spilling milk. REALLY? Sin is serious.

The insensitivity to sin is troubling. Glossing over and excusing sin is reprehensible to God.
Romans 1 shows man has NO excuse. I don't know what Biblical contortionism you are advocating.
Romans 9 tell us the clay has no right to question why The Potter has made us the way He did.


Do you have a beef with Calvinists (Baptists, Presbys) ?

 

[ShaulHaTarsi]

Yes.
However there are those who take simplification and metaphores and build systematic theologies out of them. Usually into a weighty tome.

"I may even go so far as to say that damnation only exists to facilitate our damnation, in the form of repentance from sin and in the form of salvation from something else."

Something for me to think about.

Many thanks.

I think I clearly had a typo there, I meant to say "damnation only exists to facilitate our salvation"

In any event, all five points of calvinism follow, but for different reasons. They all indeed do derive from God's sovereignty and our non-sovereignty and inability.

Calvinism in all its forms does. Double predestination. Total depravity etc.

I don't actually buy the argument of God being unjust or unrighteous in either doctrine. Whether you slice it as calvinist or arminian, God created (some?) people in such a manner as to ultimately lead them to eternal damnation. That is an unescapable biblical truth. Jesus speaks of hell. The only way you can call God righteous using this logic is to subscribe to universalism, which, while making the most "sense", clearly flies in the face of all those places Jesus talks about hell.

I think the key problem is with imagining a God who is sitting up in the sky and rubbing his palms together, wondering which of his playthings he'll keep for himself, and which he'll torture and send to eternal damnation. That is the image we get when we think of a God who, out of his own whim, sends people to heaven (and therefore, some to hell). This problem exists likewise with the Arminian God, except that in this case God isn't some little child playing with toy soldiers but a teenager designing characters in an RPG. Here the characters get different powers and gauges, and while the characters won't directly prevail or perish, there is certainly foreknowledge that some will just not make it. But this just lessens the absurdity of the act of damnation, but not necessarily the fact that God does damn people; it's that he does so in a potential, general sense rather than a definite and particular sense.

Of course, I don't think either version is accurate, and both are bad caricatures of His true plans and workings (except that the latter one seems a bit more believable, at first glance). You are correct to claim that how God actually works is a mystery, and how God can be loving and damning at the same time does not make true sense to our formal intellects. My argument is just that Calvinism is no worse than Arminianism in this regard.

 

[bottomofsandal]

Calvin's own words...

God's eternal decree, by which He compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man. For all are not created in equal condition; rather, eternal life is foreordained for some, eternal damnation for others(Inst. III, 21, 5).

I will dig out and dust off my copy of The Institutes, or look this up online later.

Perhaps one of the Calvinists can best answer this?
It appears to be part of a larger passage in a broader context.

 

[bottomofsandal]

I think I clearly had a typo there, I meant to say "damnation only exists to facilitate our salvation"

I saw that and knew what you meant.
I hate it when I make boo-boos, but it happens.
I think actually somebody liked the incorrect post!

 

[bottomofsandal]

I think I clearly had a typo there, I meant to say "damnation only exists to facilitate our salvation"

In any event, all five points of calvinism follow, but for different reasons. They all indeed do derive from God's sovereignty and our non-sovereignty and inability.



I don't actually buy the argument of God being unjust or unrighteous in either doctrine. Whether you slice it as calvinist or arminian, God created (some?) people in such a manner as to ultimately lead them to eternal damnation. That is an unescapable biblical truth. Jesus speaks of hell. The only way you can call God righteous using this logic is to subscribe to universalism, which, while making the most "sense", clearly flies in the face of all those places Jesus talks about hell.

I think the key problem is with imagining a God who is sitting up in the sky and rubbing his palms together, wondering which of his playthings he'll keep for himself, and which he'll torture and send to eternal damnation. That is the image we get when we think of a God who, out of his own whim, sends people to heaven (and therefore, some to hell). This problem exists likewise with the Arminian God, except that in this case God isn't some little child playing with toy soldiers but a teenager designing characters in an RPG. Here the characters get different powers and gauges, and while the characters won't directly prevail or perish, there is certainly foreknowledge that some will just not make it. But this just lessens the absurdity of the act of damnation, but not necessarily the fact that God does damn people; it's that he does so in a potential, general sense rather than a definite and particular sense.

Of course, I don't think either version is accurate, and both are bad caricatures of His true plans and workings (except that the latter one seems a bit more believable, at first glance). You are correct to claim that how God actually works is a mystery, and how God can be loving and damning at the same time does not make true sense to our formal intellects. My argument is just that Calvinism is no worse than Arminianism in this regard.

Thank you for that wonderful post brother!

It might be easier to say what God is NOT doing in salvation, as opposed to what He is doing.
Since God is omniscient He knows what the future holds.
Did God create the future where men are predestined to hell or Heaven?

 

[bottomofsandal]

Romans 1:19-21New King James Version (NKJV)
19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes 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, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.



I have run out of colors:
The boat come to all - His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made

Why did The Savior talk to you? God has shown it to them

What made you to differ from other men? Nothing, no difference whatsoever they (all) knew God
This is a standard false dilemma question

Clearly you like Romans 1

The question that is avoided is: why do some men have successful salvation experiences, while others fail?
Is that fair? The boat metaphor fails fundamentally because the reason salvation succeeded was the man.
The man in the boat is a better chooser. A better listener. A better responder to grace. If so, why?

What makes man to differ from each other?
Why do some men hear and see God?
Where do the spiritual gifts come from such as faith and grace?

Salvation has it's origin in God, not man.
The boat metaphor clearly puts the reason for success on man's actions.
If the same boat and the same Savior approach all men equally...why then is success not 100%?

 

[Hank77]

How were you able to do all these things?

The Gospel message and the Holy Spirit. The scripture says to renew our minds by the Word of God. What is repentance but the renewing of the mind?
Rom 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Why did you succeed where other men failed?

They chose not to believe the report?

What quality/gift/ability do you possess that empowered your response?

There was nothing in myself, nothing I provided.

Why did the boat come to you?

....the boat did not come to me. The boat, in my analogy, was my life/me without God.

Why did The Savior talk to you?

The Gospel message is for all men.
Mat 11:28 `Come unto me, all ye labouring and burdened ones, and I will give you rest,

What made you to differ from other men?

I don't know that I was different from any other lost sinner. Like so many others I just admitted it, and some don't. Some do later on, some never do.

 

[Fozzy]

I don't know what Biblical contortionism you are advocating.

I have not advocated anything but the scripture you (or any one else) can go back and see.

Romans 9 tell us the clay has no right to question why The Potter has made us the way He did.

Therefore no right to announce "It must be that God predestined the reprobate..."

Case closed.

 

[Fozzy]

I think I clearly had a typo there, I meant to say "damnation only exists to facilitate our salvation"

In any event, all five points of calvinism follow, but for different reasons. They all indeed do derive from God's sovereignty and our non-sovereignty and inability.



I don't actually buy the argument of God being unjust or unrighteous in either doctrine. Whether you slice it as calvinist or arminian, God created (some?) people in such a manner as to ultimately lead them to eternal damnation. That is an unescapable biblical truth. Jesus speaks of hell. The only way you can call God righteous using this logic is to subscribe to universalism, which, while making the most "sense", clearly flies in the face of all those places Jesus talks about hell.

I think the key problem is with imagining a God who is sitting up in the sky and rubbing his palms together, wondering which of his playthings he'll keep for himself, and which he'll torture and send to eternal damnation. That is the image we get when we think of a God who, out of his own whim, sends people to heaven (and therefore, some to hell). This problem exists likewise with the Arminian God, except that in this case God isn't some little child playing with toy soldiers but a teenager designing characters in an RPG. Here the characters get different powers and gauges, and while the characters won't directly prevail or perish, there is certainly foreknowledge that some will just not make it. But this just lessens the absurdity of the act of damnation, but not necessarily the fact that God does damn people; it's that he does so in a potential, general sense rather than a definite and particular sense.

Of course, I don't think either version is accurate, and both are bad caricatures of His true plans and workings (except that the latter one seems a bit more believable, at first glance). You are correct to claim that how God actually works is a mystery, and how God can be loving and damning at the same time does not make true sense to our formal intellects. My argument is just that Calvinism is no worse than Arminianism in this regard.

Many thanks.

 

[Fozzy]

Clearly you like Romans 1

The question that is avoided is: why do some men have successful salvation experiences, while others fail?
Is that fair?

Yes, I would say so. As I posted previously. I don't think God ran his solution past any one. I am of the persuasion similar to ShaulHaTarsi. i.e from post 68:

"Of course, I don't think either version is accurate, and both are bad caricatures of His true plans and workings (except that the latter one seems a bit more believable, at first glance). You are correct to claim that how God actually works is a mystery, and how God can be loving and damning at the same time does not make true sense to our formal intellects. My argument is just that Calvinism is no worse than Arminianism in this regard."

 

[bottomofsandal]

Therefore no right to announce "It must be that God predestined the reprobate..."

Case closed.

As I said earlier, you need to ask the person who posted this for illumination.


Everyone is born a reprobate. Everyone is born with a hellbound sinful nature.
Here is what I suspect the, "it must be that God predestined the reprobate" to point out to us.
God has mercifully and graciously chosen the elect, and justly left other men reprobate.
Logically, these unsaved were predestined unsaved because God had not chosen them.
Since God predestined the elect before the foundation of the world, then so were the unsaved predestined.

 

[bottomofsandal]

Yes, I would say so. As I posted previously. I don't think God ran his solution past any one. I am of the persuasion similar to ShaulHaTarsi. i.e from post 68:

"Of course, I don't think either version is accurate, and both are bad caricatures of His true plans and workings (except that the latter one seems a bit more believable, at first glance). You are correct to claim that how God actually works is a mystery, and how God can be loving and damning at the same time does not make true sense to our formal intellects. My argument is just that Calvinism is no worse than Arminianism in this regard."

Since you agree with this ^^^ comment...
Why then do you argue unsaved man was not predestined when God predestined the elect?
Or do you only subscribe and indulge the "mysteries" you find palatable as being more plausible?

 

[Fozzy]

Everyone is born a reprobate. Everyone is born with a hellbound sinful nature.
Here is what I suspect the, "it must be that God predestined the reprobate" to point out to us.
God has mercifully and graciously chosen the elect, and justly left other men reprobate.
Logically, these unsaved were predestined unsaved because God had not chosen them.
Since God predestined the elect before the foundation of the world, then so were the unsaved predestined.

In one post you said you were not a Calvinist yet every thing you write is Calvinistic !

Since you agree with this ^^^ comment...
Why then do you argue unsaved man was not predestined when God predestined the elect?
Or do you only subscribe and indulge the "mysteries" you find palatable as being more plausible?

Saying that God is the author of man's sin, which in brief is what Calvinism says, is where I stop well short.

 

[ShaulHaTarsi]

Since you agree with this ^^^ comment...
Why then do you argue unsaved man was not predestined when God predestined the elect?
Or do you only subscribe and indulge the "mysteries" you find palatable as being more plausible?

The fact that God actively saves people does not at all imply that God, either actively or passively damns them. It is a mystery, but it is a biblical one. Our Lord will say "Depart from me, I never knew you". He doesn't say "Don't even try to get close to me because I didn't have you in mind in the first place".

The Bible is replete with verses that suggest God eternally and actively chooses the elect, but is also replete with verses implying that those who are damned are so out of their own damn (pun intended) fault.

Let's present it from a different perspective. Instead of presenting Predestination as an ontological reality, let's see it how it was meant to be seen, as a personal, soteriological reality. To say that whatever happens is somehow willed by God is to state the obvious. What is not so obvious is realizing that from our personal perspective, our salvation is entirely monergistic. This is something that's not so obvious, because God gave us a sense of self-awareness and appearance of free will and autonomy. Truly surrendering that will means submitting to a true monergistic form of salvation! Thus, we are left with a fully comprehensive view of salvation, where God completely and definitively saves us, and where if we view ourselves as participating in our own salvation, we affirm the same self-centeredness and inwardness which leads to our own damnation.

Saying that God is the author of mans sin, which in short is what Calvinism says, is where I stop well short.

As such, Man is the author of Sin, but God is the author of salvation. In light of what I said above, the question isn't so much whether God is the author of sin, but whether sin and salvation are written by the same author