Quiz: Are you Calvinist or Arminian?

[Taodeching]

Here are quotations from the early church fathers supporting the five points of Calvinism, most of whom from before the time of Augustine:
Calvinism in the Early Church (The Doctrines of Grace taught by the Early Church Fathers) | Reformed Theology at A Puritan's Mind

Here are passages from the Bible supporting the five points of Calvinism:
What is Calvinism and is it biblical? What are the five points of Calvinism? | GotQuestions.org

Did the Early Church Fathers teach Calvinistic Doctrines?

Prior to the writings of Augustine, the Church universally held that mankind had a totally free will. Each man was responsible before God to accept the Gospel. His ultimate destiny, while fully dependent on God’s grace and power, was also dependent on his free choice to submit to or reject God’s grace and power. In the three centuries from the Apostles to Augustine the early Church held to NONE of the five points of Calvinism, not one. The writings of the orthodox Church, for the first three centuries, are in stark contrast to the ideas of Augustine and Calvin. Man is fully responsible for his choice to respond to or reject the Gospel. This was considered to be the Apostolic doctrine passed down through the local church elders ordained by the Apostles, and their successors. Below we have listed a few representative quotes from the earlier writers in order to give the flavor of the earliest tradition regarding election and free will. Some deal with the subject of perseverance and apostasy.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dissing the Fathers

Calvin’s low opinion of the Greek fathers comes across loud and clear in the following sentence:

Further, even though the Greeks above the rest—and Chrysostom especially among them—extol the ability of the human will, yet all the ancients, save Augustine, so differ, waver, or speak confusedly on this subject, that almost nothing certain can be derived from their writings. (Emphasis added.)

The above sentence is pure dynamite. One, Calvin was aware of the early fathers (“all the ancients”) affirmation of free will. Two, that he believed the church fathers spoke “confusedly” meaning there was no patristic consensus on free will. Three, nothing worthwhile can be learned from the early church fathers on this matter. Four, the sole exception among the early church fathers is Augustine.

These are all very interesting theses, but like any set of theses they need to be backed up evidence and arguments. It is disappointing, therefore, to find that Calvin disdains to provide supporting evidence.

Therefore, we shall not stop to list more exactly the opinions of individual writers; but we shall only select at random from one or another, as the explanation of the argument would seem to demand.

Calvin Dissing the Fathers – Orthodox-Reformed Bridge

 

[Humble_Disciple]

 

[Humble_Disciple]

If the Pope is a buster, 1517 will regulate!

 

[Chi.C]

Quiz: Are you Calvinist or Arminian?

This is a short quiz to see if you are Calvinist or Arminian. While the average person seems to have a natural revulsion to Calvinism, you might be a Calvinist without even realizing it.

A simpler question would be "Can God be the Author of sin?"

 

[Humble_Disciple]

A simpler question would be "Can God be the Author of sin?"

God is not the author of sin. Our free will is in bondage, unable to do what's pleasing in God's sight without enabling grace, because of Adam's sin:

Compatibilism is an attempt to reconcile the theological proposition that every event is causally determined, ordained, and/or decreed by God (i.e., determinism, not to be confused with fatalism)—with the free will of man...

The foundation of the compatibilistic concept of free will is the means by which “will” is defined. From a theological viewpoint, the definition of the will is viewed in light of the revealed, biblical truths of original sin and the spiritual depravity of man. These two truths render the definition of “will” in regard to fallen man as “captive to sin” (Acts 8:23), a “slave of sin” (John 8:34; Romans 6:16-17) and subject only to its “master,” which is sin (Romans 6:14). As such, although the will of man is “free” to do as it wishes, it wishes to act according to its nature, and since the nature of the fallen will is sinful, every intent of the thoughts of the fallen man’s heart is “only evil continually” (Genesis 6:5, cf. Genesis 8:21). He, being naturally rebellious to that which is spiritually good (Romans 8:7-8; 1 Corinthians 2:14), “is bent only on rebellion” (Proverbs 17:11). Essentially, man is “free” to do as he wishes, and he does just that, but man simply cannot do that which is contrary to his nature. What man “wills” to do is subject to and determined solely by his nature.

Here is where compatibilism makes the distinction between man having a free will and being a “free agent.” Man is “free” to choose that which is determined by his nature or by the laws of nature. To illustrate, the laws of nature prohibit man from being able to fly, but this does not mean that man is not free. The agent, man, is only free to do that which his nature or the laws of nature allow him to do. Theologically speaking, though the natural man is unable to submit himself to the law of God (Romans 8:7-8) and unable to come to Christ unless the Father draws him to Him (John 6:44), the natural man still acts freely in respect to his nature. He freely and actively suppresses the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18) because his nature renders him unable to do otherwise (Job 15:14-16; Psalm 14:1-3; 53:1-3; Jeremiah 13:23; Romans 3:10-11). Two good examples of Jesus’ confirmation of this concept can be found in Matthew 7:16-27 and Matthew 12:34-37.
What is compatibilism? | GotQuestions.org

 

[Taodeching]

. Our free will is in bondage

Not really, we choose to do bad but can resist it. That is why I consider Calvinism a Christian heresy because it places unnecessary ideas onto Christianity

 

[Humble_Disciple]

Not really, we choose to do bad but can resist it. That is why I consider Calvinism a Christian heresy because it places unnecessary ideas onto Christianity

Um... Okay... I hope you realize that Martin Luther considered On The Bondage of the Will his greatest work, which he based on the Bible and early Christian theology.

Total depravity doesn't mean that we are as evil as can possibly be. Instead, it means that we are, due to Adam's sin, unable to respond to the Gospel without God's inward act of enabling grace.

There are numerous passages of scripture, as well as quotations from the church fathers, in support of this doctrine. Those who reject total depravity usually have no understanding of its meaning and doctrinal foundations.

I am assuming, in good faith, that you're not a Pelagian, and therefore believe in the necessity of God's grace for salvation. You might just be confused, misinformed, or inconsistent.

 

[Fervent]

The "hold-out" passages like 1 Timothy 2:4, 1 Timothy 4:10 and 1 John 2:2 began to be understood in context for me.
For example, when I realized that God is indeed the Saviour of all men in the earthly sense ( Psalms 107 ), then my understanding about 1 Timothy 4:10 changed.

The one thing that ultimately convinced me were the passages that detailed what was actually accomplished at the cross, and for whom it was accomplished for.
For example:

" But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement." ( Romans 5:8-11 ).

Follow the pronouns and answer the questions...

"Who is this passage speaking to and about?"
The believers at Rome.

"What was accomplished at the cross?"
The reconciliation of a people.

"What people?"
See Matthew 1:21, John 10:11.

In other words, for me it was a gradual thing to come to agree with all "Five Points".
Unconditional election was first.

That's some tortured logic if I've ever seen it. Where does Paul imply that he is using inclusive language to be exclusive to believers in any way rather than simply from convenience? Even if we accept the verses as indirect support for the hypothesis of limited atonement a single instance of a contrary expression should be sufficient to eliminate all indirect evidence of such. So then the question is how do you deal with 1 John 2:2?

 

[Taodeching]

Um... Okay... I hope you realize that Martin Luther considered On The Bondage of the Will his greatest work, which he based on the Bible and early Christian theology.

So

There are numerous passages of scriptures, as well as quotations from the church fathers, in support of this doctrine. Those who reject total depravity using have no understanding of its meaning and doctrinal foundations.

No it's a twist of Scripture and the Church Fathers which of course has to be done so the house of cards don't collapse. I absolutely, wholly, and completely reject the man made doctrine of calvinism

 

[Humble_Disciple]

I absolutely, wholly, and completely reject the man made doctrine of calvinism

"Calvinism" is just a convenient term for what Augustine taught against Pelagius and Luther taught against Rome, before Calvin even wrote his Institutes of Christian Religion. Those who reject it usually don't understand the doctrines of grace, what they are, and what their doctrinal foundations are.

Can you prove wrong that, without God's enabling grace, fallen man is unable to respond to the Gospel? Also, do you have any particular reason for rejecting the necessity of God's enabling grace?

 

[Taodeching]

"Calvinism" is just a convenient term for what Augustine taught against Pelagius and Luther taught against Rome, before Calvin even wrote his Institutes of Christian Religion. Those who reject it usually don't understand the doctrines of grace, what they are, and what their doctrinal foundations are.

Can you prove wrong that, without God's enabling grace, fallen man is unable to respond to the Gospel? Also, do you have any particular reason for rejecting the necessity of God's enabling grace?

Look at the Fathers and Scripture away from the twisted ideas of calvinism. No Church nor Scripture taught such silliness as calivinism. I will leave this thread

 

[Fervent]

"Calvinism" is just a convenient term for what Augustine taught against Pelagius and Luther taught against Rome, before Calvin even wrote his Institutes of Christian Religion. Those who reject it usually don't understand the doctrines of grace, what they are, and what their doctrinal foundations are.

Can you prove wrong that, without God's enabling grace, fallen man is unable to respond to the Gospel? Also, do you have any particular reason for rejecting the necessity of God's enabling grace?

Considering Augustine lied about what the Donatists taught, Pelagius was found to be orthodox every time he defended himself whether before a council or a pope and was only found to be a heretic when Augustine and his allies were responsible for presenting his position it really doesn't say much to link Calvinism with the polemic against Pelagius(especially while pretending John Cassian's presentation of the position of the historic church which agreed with neither Augustine's pessimism nor Pelagius' supposed optimism doesn't exist). The entire system is built upon a Latin mistranslation of Romans 5 and the speculations of a philosopher with extreme gnostic tendencies for why babies had to be baptized.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

If you've ever prayed for a loved one's salvation, you've, by definition, prayed for God's enabling grace to overcome their fallen free will.

I've already provided evidence in this thread, from the Bible and the church fathers, for the necessity of God's enabling grace in salvation.

Usually, when someone rejects a doctrine like unconditional election or irresistible (enabling) grace, it's because they don't understand the meaning of the doctrine and its biblical foundation.

More often than not, "Calvinism" doesn't mean what its haters think it means.

Calvinists don't venerate John Calvin. To do so would violate the Reformation principles of Sola Christus and Soli Deo Gloria.

I believe that Calvin was wrong about infant baptism, premillennialism, and the separation of church and state, but Calvin was not a prophet and neither did he claim to be.

"Calvinism" is just a convenient term for the doctrines of grace, as taught by figures like Augustine against Pelagius and Luther against Rome, that John Calvin just happened to popularize.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

 

[Humble_Disciple]

Irresistible grace is one of the easiest to defend doctrines of the entire Bible. The problem is that too many people are unfamiliar with its meaning and its Biblical basis.

The doctrine of irresistible grace recognizes that the Bible describes natural man as “dead in his trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1; Ephesians 2:5; Colossians 2:13), and, because man is spiritually dead, he must first be made alive or regenerated in order to understand and respond to the gospel message...

As Jesus told Nicodemus in John 3:3, one must be “born again to see the kingdom of God.” John 1:12-13 tells us that being born again is not the result of something we do—“the will of man”—but is a sovereign act of God. Just as Lazarus could not bring himself back to life or respond to Jesus’ command without being brought back to life, neither can sinful man. Ephesians 2:1-10 makes it very clear that while we are still dead in our trespasses and sin God makes us alive...

The reason God’s grace is irresistible and efficacious (always bringing forth the desired result) is that God “has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into” His kingdom (Colossians 1:13)...

This is the call of God that Jesus spoke of in John 6:37-47. The certainty of this inward call is seen in John 6:37: “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.” John 6:44 confirms this: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him and I will raise him up at the last day.”

Other verses where irresistible grace can be seen include 2 Corinthians 4:1-6; Acts 13:48; Acts 16:14 and Romans 8:30. In 2 Corinthians 4:1-6, after explaining why some people do not believe the gospel (it is veiled to them and their minds have been blinded toward it), Paul writes, “For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Corinthians 4:6). The God who said, “Let there be light” (Genesis 1:3) is the same God who gives the light of salvation to those He chooses, and the result is just as sure. The same truth is seen in a different way in Acts 13:48. Here it is said that “as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.” God saves those He chooses to save; therefore, His saving grace is always effective or efficacious. In Acts 16:14, we have another example of God’s irresistible grace in action. The Lord opened the heart of Lydia “to respond the things spoken of by Paul.” Finally you have what is called the “golden chain of redemption” in Romans 8:29-30. Here we see that everyone God calls to salvation (the inward call) will be saved (justified).
Irresistible Grace - is it biblical? | GotQuestions.org

The only way for God's purpose of election or predestination to be fulfilled is through His irresistible (enabling) grace.

God’s grace can be resisted, and the Holy Spirit’s influence can be resisted even by one of the elect. However, what the doctrine does correctly recognize is that the Holy Spirit can overcome all such resistance and that He will draw the elect with an irresistible grace that makes them want to come to God and helps them to understand the gospel so they can and will believe it.
Irresistible Grace - is it biblical? | GotQuestions.org

 

[Humble_Disciple]

Irresistible grace is simply the teaching that saving faith is a divine gift, irrespective of our free-willed efforts to believe or disbelieve.

Luke 17:5, Mark 9:24, and numerous scripture passages already presented in this thread illustrate this doctrine.

God's enabling grace will, someday and somehow, overcome the stubborn resistance of God's elect ones, renewing their hearts and minds for the reception of saving faith.

 

[Chi.C]

God is not the author of sin. Our free will is in bondage, unable to do what's pleasing in God's sight without enabling grace, because of Adam's sin:

Determinism and compatibilism have their pedigree with greek philosophy. By adding these unscriptural philosophies into the understanding of the bible, are you not violating the scriptures.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

Anti-Calvinists are usually also ignorant of church history, that the basic doctrines of Calvinism were already taught by Augustine against Pelagius and Luther against Rome. The doctrines we know today as “Calvinism” are only called that because it was John Calvin who popularized them.

This ignorance, however, is no excuse for Calvinists to act like they are somehow superior to non-Calvinists. It will only further harden people against doctrines that man, in his natural state, already resists.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

For those looking for a brief, Biblical defense of the five points of Calvinism, here is the free ebook of Five Points: Towards a Deeper Experience of God’s Grace by John Piper.
https://document.desiringgod.org/five-points-en.pdf?ts=1446647340

 

[Humble_Disciple]