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

[Fozzy]

Is the call to repent and believe a genuine call to all people (everyone) or only those predestined able to hear and comprehend it?

What about the lost that Jesus came to save?

 

[ShaulHaTarsi]

Is the call to repent and believe a genuine call to all people (everyone) or only those predestined able to hear and comprehend it?

What about the lost that Jesus came to save?

It's a genuine call to everyone to repent, but we know that not everyone is within the same disposition to receive it. To put it another way, the response to the call to repent happens supernaturally and particularly, not naturally and generally. It is the active love of Christ which saves, and which a priori changes the person to be in such a disposition as to properly answer to the call. Those of us with a changed nature realize the change that has happened but are confused as it comes through seemingly logical means. Yet, it's just as unfathomable to think about how someone can indefinitely harden their hearts and reject that call.

 

[bottomofsandal]

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


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

The allegation of God being "the author" of sin has been disproved ad nauseam.
Why are you putting words in my mouth or pretending to know what I think?
I could accuse you of being a Universalist, but name-calling accomplishes nothing.

Have you read the Calvin Commentaries, The Institutes, Spurgeons sermons. Been to a Monergism website?
You lack knowledge of Calvinism, so your arguments cannot really be taken seriously. It's like eisegesis and exegesis. Shouldn't we study and familiarize ourselves with Wesley-ism. Catholicism, Presbyterianism, Arminianism, Antinomianism? The whole point of the thread is finding the similarities and cultivating unity in the bond of peace.

 

[ShaulHaTarsi]

For the record, I'm still trying to figure out if I'm a Calvinist or not. There's a spectrum here (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/adrian...its-not-so-simple-as-arminians-vs-calvinists/), which I find interesting.

 

[bottomofsandal]

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.


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

Monergism is not a popular pov here. Synergism seems to be the acceptable flavor.

 

[bottomofsandal]

For the record, I'm still trying to figure out if I'm a Calvinist or not. There's a spectrum here (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/adrian...its-not-so-simple-as-arminians-vs-calvinists/), which I find interesting.

I was thinking the same thing friend...walks like a duck...
I wonder if people will keep liking your posts...LOL

There used to be a brother here named Calminian.
I enjoyed his posts. I enjoy your posts as well.

 

[bottomofsandal]

As the title of the thread postulates. For your consideration...



5. Reformed Arminian (often called Classical or Evangelical Arminianism.)

• The really key point that separates all Arminians from all Calvinists is this, that they do not believe in irresistible grace, in other words they do not believe that in some way God overcomes our resistance to being saved in order to save us.
• Would very much see themselves in the Reformed part of the church, and as the heirs of a man like Wesley who by the end of his life could agree with the Calvinist Simeon, although would surely have been considered strong Arminian during his earlier years. Arguably Arminius himself was a Reformed Arminian.
• Believes (as do all the groups above this one) in the so-called “Five Solas of the Reformation“
• Like the other groups above will passionately believe in Penal Subsitution, holding that it is central to our understanding of the work of Jesus.
• Deny some or all of the so-called TULIP, though very likely to believe in a form of Total Depravity, and Total Inability, i.e. that without God’s help we are incapable of responding to the gospel. (see for example the Society of Evangelical Arminians).
• Likely to believe that someone who is truly saved cannot be un-born again.
• Believes in regeneration, and that salvation is only possible if God acts upon the human heart. Unlikely to believe that this process is irresistible.
• May well believe that election is in some way resultant from faith foreseen i.e. that it is not entirely unconditional
• Will boldly say that Jesus died for all.
• Still believes that God is sovereign over the universe and over every event that happens (as does every group above this) and yet that he limits himself, thereby giving man free will, but God remains able at any time to restrict this.
• Would join all Calvinists in upholding that as per the words of Romans 8:28, God is working all things together for good to those who love him.
• Some Reformed Arminians will in actual fact believe very similar things to those held in the TULIP but will express them in different ways.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/adrian...its-not-so-simple-as-arminians-vs-calvinists/

thanks for the link saul

 

[ShaulHaTarsi]

As the title of the thread postulates. For your consideration...



5. Reformed Arminian (often called Classical or Evangelical Arminianism.)

• The really key point that separates all Arminians from all Calvinists is this, that they do not believe in irresistible grace, in other words they do not believe that in some way God overcomes our resistance to being saved in order to save us.
• Would very much see themselves in the Reformed part of the church, and as the heirs of a man like Wesley who by the end of his life could agree with the Calvinist Simeon, although would surely have been considered strong Arminian during his earlier years. Arguably Arminius himself was a Reformed Arminian.
• Believes (as do all the groups above this one) in the so-called “Five Solas of the Reformation“
• Like the other groups above will passionately believe in Penal Subsitution, holding that it is central to our understanding of the work of Jesus.
• Deny some or all of the so-called TULIP, though very likely to believe in a form of Total Depravity, and Total Inability, i.e. that without God’s help we are incapable of responding to the gospel. (see for example the Society of Evangelical Arminians).
• Likely to believe that someone who is truly saved cannot be un-born again.
• Believes in regeneration, and that salvation is only possible if God acts upon the human heart. Unlikely to believe that this process is irresistible.
• May well believe that election is in some way resultant from faith foreseen i.e. that it is not entirely unconditional
• Will boldly say that Jesus died for all.
• Still believes that God is sovereign over the universe and over every event that happens (as does every group above this) and yet that he limits himself, thereby giving man free will, but God remains able at any time to restrict this.
• Would join all Calvinists in upholding that as per the words of Romans 8:28, God is working all things together for good to those who love him.
• Some Reformed Arminians will in actual fact believe very similar things to those held in the TULIP but will express them in different ways.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/adrian...its-not-so-simple-as-arminians-vs-calvinists/

thanks for the link saul

What's even more interesting is that the author of the article himself appears to be a Calvinist (or at least someone with a sufficiently Calvinistic view) as he's featured on John Piper's site: http://www.desiringgod.org/authors/adrian-warnock

It seems like Spurgeon is the one to read for this line of thinking.

 

[DingDing]

Both are saved. God saves everybody the same way.

What then accounts for the differing viewpoints of salvation?

Isn't everyone participating in an identical way in their salvation?

No.

 

[Marvin Knox]

When using the term "Calvinist" in referring to your own beliefs - a person has to be careful to be sure that others understand exactly what is meant by the term as you use it.

For instance some don't believe that anyone can be a true Calvinist unless they embrace the idea of limited atonement. Like John Calvin before me - I do not subscribe to what is currently taught as "limited atonement".

In addition - any attempted nuance when explaining the other supposed 4 points of Calvinism also disqualifies one as a true Calvinist in the eyes of some people.

To some - I don't qualify as a true Calvinist and yet I align pretty much with John Calvin himself on most doctrines - including limited atonement.

That's fine with me as I don't much like the term Calvinist anyway.

But it make it a little hard to converse unless one is able to qualify what they mean by the terms involve.

For instance EmSw referred to me earlier as a "Calvinist" which would be fine with me if he would agree with my terms as to exactly what that means.

Some people just don't give a person much of a chance at explaining what they believe here in the forum.

Then again - some people do give you a chance. But then they turn right around and misrepresent your beliefs.

That's very frustrating and also non productive IMO.

 

[ShaulHaTarsi]

Perhaps there's a difference between an "Orthodox Calvinist" and someone who likes to stick to the "Reformed" side of things.

I remember before I became Christian, and even some time afterwards, I just assumed "Calvinist" was one of those dirty words, like "Existentialist".

 

[bottomofsandal]

When using the term "Calvinist" in referring to your own beliefs - a person has to be careful to be sure that others understand exactly what is meant by the term as you use it.

For instance some don't believe that anyone can be a true Calvinist unless they embrace the idea of limited atonement. Like John Calvin before me - I do not subscribe to what is currently taught as "limited atonement".

In addition - any attempted nuance when explaining the other supposed 4 points of Calvinism also disqualifies one as a true Calvinist in the eyes of some people.

To some - I don't qualify as a true Calvinist and yet I align pretty much with John Calvin himself on most doctrines - including limited atonement.

That's fine with me as I don't much like the term Calvinist anyway.

But it make it a little hard to converse unless one is able to qualify what they mean by the terms involve.

For instance EmSw referred to me earlier as a "Calvinist" which would be fine with me if he would agree with my terms as to exactly what that means.

Some people just don't give a person much of a chance at explaining what they believe here in the forum.

Then again - some people do give you a chance. But then they turn right around and misrepresent your beliefs.

That's very frustrating and also non productive IMO.

True, it would be nice to move from debate to dialogue.
Ah, but we must have the folks who like to rattle their sabre.

Universal atonement would mess up the TULIP maybe...j/k
I have heard it explained as limited in application or efficacy.

In my experience, and perhaps yours as well, most Calvinists are really only 3 or 4 point Calvinists.
Some will say 4 1/2 because of The Atonement, or 3 1/2 because they disagree with another tenet.

The one attribute I enjoy about Calvinists is they always emphasize the glory of God.
Arminians and SPs seem to talk more about man, what man did, freewill, my choice, my efforts, etc.

 

[bottomofsandal]

Perhaps there's a difference between an "Orthodox Calvinist" and someone who likes to stick to the "Reformed" side of things.

I remember before I became Christian, and even some time afterwards, I just assumed "Calvinist" was one of those dirty words, like "Existentialist".

Many people's only knowledge and exposure to Calvinism has been HYPER-Calvinism...

When people say double predestination, God is the author of sin, Calvinists are robots...

 

[ShaulHaTarsi]

GOD IS SOVEREIGN. BEEP. LIMITED ATONEMENT. BEEP. HERESY DETECTED. WARNING WARNING WARNING

 

[EmSw]

When using the term "Calvinist" in referring to your own beliefs - a person has to be careful to be sure that others understand exactly what is meant by the term as you use it.

For instance some don't believe that anyone can be a true Calvinist unless they embrace the idea of limited atonement. Like John Calvin before me - I do not subscribe to what is currently taught as "limited atonement".

In addition - any attempted nuance when explaining the other supposed 4 points of Calvinism also disqualifies one as a true Calvinist in the eyes of some people.

To some - I don't qualify as a true Calvinist and yet I align pretty much with John Calvin himself on most doctrines - including limited atonement.

That's fine with me as I don't much like the term Calvinist anyway.

But it make it a little hard to converse unless one is able to qualify what they mean by the terms involve.

For instance EmSw referred to me earlier as a "Calvinist" which would be fine with me if he would agree with my terms as to exactly what that means.

Some people just don't give a person much of a chance at explaining what they believe here in the forum.

Then again - some people do give you a chance. But then they turn right around and misrepresent your beliefs.

That's very frustrating and also non productive IMO.

How can a non-Calvinist even know what 'Calvinists' believe, when Calvinists don't even know themselves?

 

[bottomofsandal]

GOD IS SOVEREIGN. BEEP. LIMITED ATONEMENT. BEEP. HERESY DETECTED. WARNING WARNING WARNING

Too funny!

 

[EmSw]

Many people's only knowledge and exposure to Calvinism has been HYPER-Calvinism...

When people say double predestination, God is the author of sin, Calvinists are robots...

So, is Hyper-Calvinism a heresy? Is it truth? Seems like all Calvinists take and believe as they wish.

 

[bottomofsandal]

So, is Hyper-Calvinism a heresy? Is it truth? Seems like all Calvinists take and believe as they wish.

But really don't all faith groups and denoms do this?
Are all Arminians here 100% in identical lock-step?


We have all fellowshipped with people who don't agree with us on salvation, justification, sanctification, etc. Are we to believe every person in every faith group/denomination holds EXACTLY the same views? Every Lutheran, Catholic, Presby, Baptist, non-denom, Methodist, etc. is 100% in agreement regarding everything? No. Why then would you expect Calvinists to be cookie cutter?

What did Augustine say about unity, liberty, and charity?
BTW...fun fact. Augustianism = Calvinism

 

[EmSw]

But really don't all faith groups and denoms do this?
Are all Arminians here 100% in identical lock-step?

Arminians believe man has free will to choose as he pleases. So yes, there will be various beliefs.

Do you believe Calvinists have the free will to choose as they desire?

We have all fellowshipped with people who don't agree with us on salvation, justification, sanctification, etc. Are we to believe every person in every faith group/denomination holds EXACTLY the same views? Every Lutheran, Catholic, Presby, Baptist, non-denom, Methodist, etc. is 100% in agreement regarding everything? No. Why then would you expect Calvinists to be cookie cutter?

Because you have no free-will choice in the matter. Shouldn't God give every person the same belief if they have no choice in the matter? Why would God divide Himself?

What did Augustine say about unity, liberty, and charity?
BTW...fun fact. Augustianism = Calvinism

I have no idea; Augustine is not a mentor of mine, nor will he ever be.

If you hold to Augustine's views, then you hold to Catholic views.

 

[bottomofsandal]

Arminians believe man has free will to choose as he pleases. So yes, there will be various beliefs.

Do you believe Calvinists have the free will to choose as they desire?

Man has a limited freewill which only performs according to his nature.
Man has limited abilities and can only operate within these confines.


A totally freewill is impossible since The Bible says we are slaves.
You may have the desire (will) to do something, but lack the ability.
Conversely, you may have the ability to do something, but lack the will.