My Views on Calvinism and Arminianism (From a 'Neitherist.')

Biblicist · Jun 30, 2017

ChristIsSovereign said:
I was wondering... since God is beyond time...

Is God really beyond time? I would be more inclined to say that even though the Father can pre-ordain certain events to happen sometime in the future that he is still unable to know exactly what will happen in every given situation.

ChristIsSovereign · Jun 30, 2017

Biblicist said:
Is God really beyond time? I would be more inclined to say that even though the Father can pre-ordain certain events to happen sometime in the future that he is still unable to know exactly what will happen in every given situation.

“He determines the number of the stars and calls them each by name. Great is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit.” (Psalm 147:4-5)

Biblicist · Jun 30, 2017

ChristIsSovereign said:
“He determines the number of the stars and calls them each by name. Great is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit.” (Psalm 147:4-5)

That's true, but it still has no bearing on the view of God being able to transcend time.

ChristIsSovereign · Jun 30, 2017

Biblicist said:
That's true, but it still has no bearing on the view of God being able to transcend time.

“For a thousand years in Your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.” (Psalm 90:4)

"Additionally, the science of physics tells us that time is a property resulting from the existence of matter. As such, time exists when matter exists. But God is not matter; God, in fact, created matter. The bottom line is this: time began when God created the universe. Before that, God was simply existing. Since there was no matter, and because God does not change, time had no existence and therefore no meaning, no relation to Him." (From the GotQuestions article 'What is God's relationship with time?')

Uber Genius · Jul 1, 2017

ChristIsSovereign said:
I was wondering... since God is beyond time... that in some ways, Calvinism and Arminianism are both in fact true in their own ways?

Probably Not true as they are contradictory inferences of the Biblical data.

Also you forgot to account for "Molinist" although one could argue "Catholic" fits the bill. I hold to almost all of the Westminster Confession accept the anti-molinist clauses.

Scripture does seem to indicate man has free will. That he requires some drawing of the HS, and is free to act once drawn. That he can later reject God, that no works are possible to transact salvation.

So depravity is not total. Men under the influence but still free can be persuaded to act and freely choose Christ.

Unconditional election occurs corporately not individually.

Limited Atonement is in fact made available to all the world not just the elect.

Grace is resistible. Otherwise what does trust got to do with it. God is transacting with someone completely controlled by his influence.

Perseverance is a function of continuing to trust God. Not all men do this.

I'm a 0-point Calvinist.

lots of equivocation and false analogies necessary to infer these points. Proof-texting doesn't produce a proper understanding of systematic theology.

ChristIsSovereign · Jul 1, 2017

Uber Genius said:
Probably Not true as they are contradictory inferences of the Biblical data.

Also you forgot to account for "Molinist" although one could argue "Catholic" fits the bill. I hold to almost all of the Westminster Confession accept the anti-molinist clauses.

Scripture does seem to indicate man has free will. That he requires some drawing of the HS, and is free to act once drawn. That he can later reject God, that no works are possible to transact salvation.

So depravity is not total. Men under the influence but still free can be persuaded to act and freely choose Christ.

Unconditional election occurs corporately not individually.

Limited Atonement is in fact made available to all the world not just the elect.

Grace is resistible. Otherwise what does trust got to do with it. God is transacting with someone completely controlled by his influence.

Perseverance is a function of continuing to trust God. Not all men do this.

I'm a 0-point Calvinist.

lots of equivocation and false analogies necessary to infer these points. Proof-texting doesn't produce a proper understanding of systematic theology.

Everyone has their different positions. To see them all worship the same God is what is important.

Si_monfaith · Sep 26, 2017

God can never be seen as the author of sin or evil regardless of the truth that all human choices originate in Him. Why is it so?

If man hadn't chosen the knowledge of good and evil in the garden of eden, man could not know that whatever God did was evil or sin.

It was not God's will for man to possess the knowledge of good and evil. Only God can help you to not think in terms of the knowledge of good and evil.

Radagast · Sep 26, 2017

ChristIsSovereign said:
This is not meant to be a point of debate. I am just putting forth a hypothesis. This is not the Word of God. I am neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian, but embrace both soteriological standpoints in a paradoxical way. The Bible teaches both, I believe.

You can't logically embrace both, it seems to me.

Both Calvinism and Classical Arminianism try to balance the seeming paradox of God's sovereignty and man's free will. Calvinism puts the emphasis more on God's sovereignty (denying certain versions of the "free will" concept) and Arminianism puts the emphasis more on man's free will (limiting God in various ways depending on the version of Arminianism).

And "Catholic" as an option makes no sense, because the Calvinist/Arminian divide is mirrored within Catholicism as the Thomist/Molinist divide (although few modern Catholics are Thomists).

ChristIsSovereign said:
Is the atonement limited?

"Limited atonement" is a lousy phrase for this point of doctrine. "Particular redemption" is perhaps better. The Calvinist would agree that Christ's sacrifice is "of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world." The question is: did God intend to save only the elect/believers (and succeed in doing so), or did he intend to save every single human being (and somehow fail in doing what he intended).

ChristIsSovereign said:
the way John Calvin scapegoated Arminius was absolutely unacceptable.

John Calvin died in May 1564 in Switzerland. Jacobus Arminius was born in October 1560 in the Netherlands. I'm pretty sure that they never met, and that Calvin didn't "scapegoat" any 3-year-old boys.

gordonhooker · Sep 27, 2017

ChristIsSovereign said:
Calvinism and Arminianism also twist Scripture also to fit their own framework. I was a Calvinist for over a year yet I couldn't get over 1 Timothy 4:10. It stood in the way of the Limited Atonement no matter how much I twisted it to mean otherwise. I would agree with gotQuestions on the issue, myself, that the atonement is unlimited even if the other four points of Calvinism are true. (I really do not have an opinion about Calvinism myself... I just have adverse psychological torment when I think about five-point Calvinism... Negates evangelizing and makes me question my very salvation. There is no assurance in five-point Calvinism because we have to wonder if Jesus ever died for us.)

Hmmmm what is Arminianism?

I jest I just think that all these labels and differing views on post reformation Christian thinking and in fighting is quite funny, how many denominations are out there now 1000's even 10,000's.

Radagast · Sep 27, 2017

gordonhooker said:
Hmmmm what is Arminianism?

Know your Reformation history!

Arminianism is a theological position differing from Calvinism, developed by Jacobus Arminius. It is very common among conservative non-Calvinist Protestants today.

Arminianism was condemned by the Synod of Dort (1618–1619), held in the Netherlands with delegates from England, Scotland, and continental Europe. In response, the Synod articulated what are sometimes called the "Five Points of Calvinism." See www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/confessions/canons-dort

gordonhooker · Sep 27, 2017

Radagast said:
Know your Reformation history!

Arminianism is a theological position differing from Calvinism, developed by Jacobus Arminius. It is very common among conservative non-Calvinist Protestants today.

Arminianism was condemned by the Synod of Dort (1618–1619), held in the Netherlands with delegates from England, Scotland, and continental Europe. In response, the Synod articulated what are sometimes called the "Five Points of Calvinism." See www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/confessions/canons-dort

I said I jest.....

My Views on Calvinism and Arminianism (From a 'Neitherist.')

What soteriological position do you hold?

5-Point Calvinism (Traditional Calvinism)

4-Point Calvinism (Amyraldism)

Hybrid (Mix of Calvinism and Arminianism)

5-Point Arminianism (Classical Arminian)

4-Point Arminianism (Once Saved, Always Saved)

Semi-Pelagianism (Modern Arminianism)

Pelagianism (No Original Sin)

Universalism (All Will Be Saved)

Lutheran

Catholic

Full Gospel believer

Well-Known Member

Full Gospel believer

Well-Known Member

"Super Genius"

Well-Known Member

Let God alone answer through us

comes and goes

Franciscan tssf

comes and goes

Franciscan tssf

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency