• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

The Arminian View

msortwell

Senior Member
Mar 9, 2004
1,245
147
66
Gibson, Wisconsin
✟206,301.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
msortwell:

Great points, in pointing out that God does not, in fact, bless every individual equally. Some men are born in poverty, some in riches. Some men are born in remote nations of the earth with no access to the gospel. Others are born into Christian families. Some men are born healthy, others not so healthy.

Everything - even the air we breath - is a gift from God, and he is perfect in His distribution. He gives gifts as He sees fit, without answering to anyone or asking permission.

God revealed himself to Israel alone, and left all the other nations in utter ignorance and darkness. The NT authors argue that this is why Israel had such a big advantage.

Yet in light of this, some Christians make the bold claim that God treats everyone equally, and reveals himself to everyone equally? They assert that God doesn't bless one man in a different way than another? Or that God doesn't love some people in a different way that He loves other people?

Just want to emphasize that I am not using this point to condemn Arminian thought. However Arminian doctrine does not directly address the question regarding equal treatment. But IF an Arminian, as an individual, concludes that God is NOT obligated to bring an equal opportunity for salvation to all men, then the similarity between major implications of our differing theological systems becomes more apparent.
 
Upvote 0

nobdysfool

The original! Accept no substitutes!
Feb 23, 2003
15,018
1,006
Home, except when I'm not....
✟21,146.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
Well Cindy, all I can say is, I seem to have attracted your special attention and apparent hatred. I am not intimidated, nor will I be. You have shown us all what is in your heart. May God have mercy....

And for the record, I do not hate you, and never have....
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

nobdysfool

The original! Accept no substitutes!
Feb 23, 2003
15,018
1,006
Home, except when I'm not....
✟21,146.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
Proof-texting is a lot different than exegeting passages and interpreting the Bible via the analogy of faith method.

That is, drawing understanding from the clearer passages, not the vague passages.

It seems to me that the above post is nothing but proof-texting, and has zero actual exegesis.

But I feel like biting :D



2) Convenient to ignore the very prior verse which says that God had mercy/grace on Noah. An innocent man doesn't need mercy, only a sinner does.
3) the statement doesn't suddenly undo Paul's teaching in Romans 5, nor does it even logically contradict the idea that mankind is born corrupt
4) Who says it wasn't?
a) Dunno, ask God when you get to heaven.
b) Because God converts sinners all the time, it's how we are saved?



2) A bold lie. - Psa 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.
a) Exactly....
b) Huh? David is talking about himself, not his mother, as you said in point A.
3) And?



2) Show us how, don't just assert it.
a) Yes and?
b, c, d) when the baby grows up, he will do the same. that implies it is in his nature to do it. If it's a 100% certainty that every single infant will grow up into a sinner, that proves that the problem is more than surface-level actions of sin, but it is a problem with the nature. Jesus' words: "A bad tree bears bad fruit". The fruit doesn't make the tree bad, the tree makes the fruit bad. A human sins because he's a sinner, he doesn't become a sinner by sinning. The pharisees had the same mindset you have, cindy, that sin is only outward physical actions of sin. But Jesus was constantly trying to correct them. He told them that even if they think of lust, they are guilty of adultery. It does't just take the physical act of adultery to be guilty of adultery. Yet that seems to be your belief: that you are only guilty of sin for actually physically committing sin, not that sin is a condition. It seems you would have fit in well with the Pharisees who believed sin was a problem that only lied on the surface level of the person, when Jesus was trying to teach them that the sin problem was down deep in the person. "Mat 15:18 But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person." It's the heart that is the problem, not the outward sins that the heart produces. If sin is simply something that exists on the surface, then why did Jesus tell us that he Pharisees were like empty tombs, beautiful on the outside (they were moral on the outside, they didn't actually commit sins), but inside they were full of dead men's bones (the problem is on the INSIDE, not the OUTSIDE). That's the doctrine of original sin/depravity

The rest doesn't need to be responded to, because this answers all of it.

Congrats...you didn't refute...a single thing.

Well done, and it saved me the time it would have taken to respond, if I were so inclined. Given the preface to the post you responded to, I probably wouldn't have bothered. There are some here who demand answers, and when the answers are given, it is like throwing gasoline on a fire. I can only conclude that they really don't want answers, they want unqualified agreement, and expect those otherwise minded to abase themselves in humble adoration of the over-arching wisdom of their posts slandering and denigrating Calvinism and by extension Calvinists. it seems they expect us to fall on our swords, in face of their obvious intent to decimate and thoroughly destroy what we believe, (as though they could do such a thing....).

I haven't had this much excitement and fun in a long time! All this does is sharpen and focus what I believe, even more strongly. There's nothing like a challenge to help you understand more clearly what you believe!
 
Upvote 0

msortwell

Senior Member
Mar 9, 2004
1,245
147
66
Gibson, Wisconsin
✟206,301.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Hi All

I have asked this question before as I believe it gets to the absolute root of this debate.

God's Sovereignty vs Mans guilt/responsibility.

If God elects some to salvation but elects/passes over others for damnation. How can God hold them responsible for what God himself did ?

Arminian type thought is opposed to this terrible decree of J Calvin.

Every calvinist I have ever met always evades this question. It is not a trick question. This is the fundamental divide ever since Augustin wrote his 'retractions' in the 5th century.

I am not sure that you don't understand HOW he can hold the non-elect responsible for their sins. As God, whom the Scriptures describe clearly as sovereign over His creation, He as the ability to do so.

What you are working towards is the resolution regarding whether or not He DOES hold men accountable that have no ability within themselves to be anything but rebellious sinners.

It seems that the following text makes it clear that He does exactly that, and offers His fundamental reason for doing so.


Rom 9:14-24

What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15 For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion." 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth." 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.

19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault ? For who has resisted His will?" 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?

22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? NKJV

This text seems specifically designed to address your objection.

If you do not believe that it does, perhaps you would offer an explanation regarding how its use in responding to your concern would be a misapplication or misinterpretation?
 
Upvote 0

herodotus

Newbie
Jun 16, 2011
2
0
✟22,612.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I'm not Cindy but can see where she is coming from. (looks like her postings have been blocked again. tut tut).

Calvinist God: “You may choose between (a) or (a), and you're free to choose whichever is most compatible and consistent with your nature, but you're not free to abstain from choosing, and the choice that you make, will ultimately be YOUR choice. So what's your choice?”
Person: “I guess I choose (a).”

C God: “Great. Now I will reveal the gracious gift or perhaps, just punishment for choosing (a).”

Person: “Whoa…wait...what?”

C God: “You made your choice! YOU chose it out of your own free agency!”

Person: “Wait! All I had was choice (a). What other choice COULD I make?”

C God: “What choice DID you make?

Person: “I chose (a).”

C God: “Exactly!”

Person: “But what choice did I HAVE?”

C God: “Apparently, the choice that you MADE.”

Person: “But it wasn’t MY choice.”

C God: “Sure it was.”

Person: “But I couldn’t choose anything OTHER THAN (a), so how was that MY choice?”

C God: “You admitted it yourself. You chose (a). You said so yourself.”

Person: “Ok, I chose it, but I didn’t have any OTHER choice.

C God: “Exactly! Finally you admit it.”

Person: “But my choice wasn’t REALLY a choice, since I had no OTHER choice.”

C God: “Would you like to know the ramifications of your choice?”

Person: “Not really.”

C God: “I chose to be gracious towards you.”

Person: “You did?”

C God: “I did.”

Person: “Wait! See, YOU’RE the One who did the choosing.”

C God: “I never said that I didn’t make a choice. I simply said that you ALSO had a choice, and YOU made your choice.”

Person: “Well, I guess it turned out ok, so I’m happy.”

C God: “Good. I’m glad that you’re happy.”

Person: “What about these others?”

C God: “I chose something different.”

Person: “Are they happy with THEIR choice?”

C God: “No.”


Person: “Well…they made their choice. They should just accept that.”

Calvinist God: “Exactly!”
 
Upvote 0

herodotus

Newbie
Jun 16, 2011
2
0
✟22,612.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Bit long post. Sorry. But worth a deko.

I wonder if Calvinists were on the losing end of secret selection, that they would feel differently? Calvinists have postulated whether their children could be predestined to Hell, but they don’t seem to be bothered too much by it. In fact, Erwin Lutzer supposed that since his children were born into a Christian home, that his children must be “one of the elect,” which is rather silly when considering the term, “PK.” No offense to Preachers. I’m just pointing out the fact that simply by virtue of being born into a Christian home, does not automatically guarantee spiritual victory. So Lutzer’s comment seems odd. The prevailing attitude seems to be, “God picked me, so why should I care? Why should I be an advocate for Reprobates? After all, they made THEIR choice.”

* At this point, I should probably define what (a) actually represents. (a) represents a sequence of events. Determinism & Compatibilism have no problem explaining why a person follows sequence (a), but conversely is absolutely terrible at explaining why a person did NOT choose sequence (b) through (z). All Compatibilism really serves to do is to camouflage raw Determinism, so as to make it *appear* as though a person had a choice in choosing sequence (a), when in fact, their choice of (a) was both divinely purpose-driven and predetermined, and thus excluding (b) through (z) from any possibility of ever occurring, and thus a person's freedom to do it, must by necessity be excluded. Remember that according to Calvinism, sin has a "purpose," and thus if there is a divine purpose in (a), then a person's freedom to do (b) through (z) would conflict and obstruct (a)'s alleged purpose, and thus anything other than (a) could never come about, and any choice to the contrary would be a mere illusion of Compatibilism. On the other hand, if God was determining events for you based upon what He foreknows about you (i.e. Middle Knowledge), then that's fine, because God would be acting in connection to something undetermined, unscripted and unncessitated about you. In other words, God is saying, "Since that is how you've chosen to be, here is what I will do." You see this demonstrated beautifully at Jeremiah 18:1-13, which is not one of the Calvinists most often quoted "Potter" passages. Arminians love to remind Calvinists of it, when discussing the Calvinist's most often cited proof-text passage, Romans 9, and Calvinists often insist that the Holy Spirit is bringing about a "new truth" at Romans 9, and thus Jeremiah 18:1-3 becomes irrelevant. Anyway, that's one defense. Not all Calvinists think alike; that you can be absolutely sure of. That's why I crack up whenever I hear a Calvinist insist that they've been "misrepresented," since Calvinists vary so much with each other! Even Calvinist, Phil Johnson, admitted that if you had a room full of 100 Calvinists, you'd be hard-pressed to find just 2, that believed exactly the same way in everything. Often Calvinists will chide other Calvinists as not being "truly Reformed." That's the whipping stick used to keep renegade C's in line.


Th bold bit is what I think Cindy and others say you miss. No Arminian 'whines' its not fair as you wrongly allege. No arminian question omnipotence or anything else. I can see why they think you are 'autistic'.


Just my 10 bucks worth.
 
Upvote 0

msortwell

Senior Member
Mar 9, 2004
1,245
147
66
Gibson, Wisconsin
✟206,301.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
So sad and strange. As the initiator of this thread I have to say I found the direction to went far too familiar. What was the thrust of the thread? Answer: to solicit from Arminians their own beliefs on a few select items. What was the result? Answer . . . [Deleted] . . . we should be different.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Kevin777

Contributor
Dec 1, 2009
161
10
✟15,338.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Bit long post. Sorry. But worth a deko.

Calvinists have postulated whether their children could be predestined to Hell, but they don’t seem to be bothered too much by it.

The prevailing attitude seems to be, “God picked me, so why should I care? Why should I be an advocate for Reprobates? After all, they made THEIR choice.”


I am a Calvinist and these two comments don't apply to me.

I have nothing but Godly Hope for my son, I know that the same Grace
that saved me is powerful enough to save anyone, including my son...and I pray for that and I ask for it and I rest in that.

Now as far as the "God picked me " thing, some of the greatest missionaries of all time were Calvinists....look it up

and I for myself share the Gospel far more now than I ever did than
when I was Arminian in my thinking.

I share more now because I have much confidence in the saving power
of Grace, and as far as I am concerned, every person i meet I share with because I have true Hope for all God puts in my life

And the Calvinist Theology fully supports me in these beliefs
 
Upvote 0

msortwell

Senior Member
Mar 9, 2004
1,245
147
66
Gibson, Wisconsin
✟206,301.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
One question I have not been able to get a consistent answer to . . .

According to the view generally held in the Arminian camp . . . Does God afford every man that is ever born the exact same likelihood of (or the same opportunity for) being saved, or are some men less privileged than others?

A biblical basis for answers offered would be appreciated.

Again, this is not for the purpose of debate, but rather to compare and contrast the Arminian and Calvinist views.
 
Upvote 0

heymikey80

Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur
Dec 18, 2005
14,496
921
✟41,809.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I'm not Cindy but can see where she is coming from. (looks like her postings have been blocked again. tut tut).

Calvinist God: “You may choose between (a) or (a) ...
=snip= No. That's a mischaracterization of the viewpoint. The available choices include (a) & (b). The problem is, humans invariably function with a willing commitment to (a), because they're (a)-ful.

And saying you choose (b) doesn't mean you really choose (b), either. Right answers don't mean you made the right choice.
 
Upvote 0

msortwell

Senior Member
Mar 9, 2004
1,245
147
66
Gibson, Wisconsin
✟206,301.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
ne question I have not been able to get a consistent answer to . . .

According to the view generally held in the Arminian camp . . . Does God afford every man that is ever born the exact same likelihood of (or the same opportunity for) being saved, or are some men less privileged than others?

A biblical basis for answers offered would be appreciated.

Again, this is not for the purpose of debate, but rather to compare and contrast the Arminian and Calvinist views.


If you want to know arminan/orthodox/ or any non-calvinist views go to one of their web sites E.G http evangelicalarminians org

As many have witnessed this forum is governed by Calvinists and any reasonable debate by non-calvinist gets thwarted. Cindy asked a genuine question which hi-lights the difference between Calvinist and arminian thinking. What happens over and over again by a few hard-liners.

1. The question or non-calvinist post gets misquoted and twisted. Its a 'gotcha' question. No Its a real question.
2. The question is ignored and a side track/ red herring is thrown in.
3. The 'rant' technique.
E.G nobdyfool answered "God allows man to sin" - oops. He realizes his mistake the has a rant at Cindy who was pointing out that Behe boy was wrong in accusing toddlers of being murderers and adulterers ( as if a 3 year old was even married). Nobdy then responds to something entirely different and concludes "Now what was the question ?"

What is the end result ? Many of us watching this farce now hold american calvinism in even less respect. Which is why the thread was mirrored as is being used as a witness against you. Not just the one sided debate, when we tried to PM Cindy we find she has been blocked. Also with others. Even worse the issue raised about the greek text and getting around the texts with 'all, 'every' etc. We are Greek Orthodox. Hence we speak Greek. Your work arounds were beyond belief. Not just sad..

Given that calvanist as a whole have never been united e.g Calvin/Luther, 4 point vs 5 point only, Hyper vs Hypo. Trying to straight jacket arminian is plainly ridiculous.


Most of us believe you guys/girls ought to get out into the real world. Meet Christians.

The only way to prove what is claimed above regarding "the other side" is to provide a well reasoned, thoughtfully conceived answer to the question raised. This affords "the other side" the opportunity to behave badly and prove the point themselves.

It simply does not work to produce the ugly accusations made above, outside of the context of the bad behaviour. It only serves to tempt those of the opposing view to behave badly.
 
Upvote 0

msortwell

Senior Member
Mar 9, 2004
1,245
147
66
Gibson, Wisconsin
✟206,301.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I doubt if all Arminians believe in your concept of "orginal sin". As far as what groups believe, I only can what the Holy Spirit wants me to believe and do at this time.

It would be better if an Arminian would respond to you, but lacking their weighing in, I will provide the following.

The Arminian view holds that man's nature was sufficiently damaged by Adam's sin to preclude any man trusting in the gospel absent a work of the Holy Spirit upon their heart. This working of the Spirit is absolutely necessary for a man to respond to the gospel with saving faith.

The Pelagian view holds that man was not morally affected by Adam's sin. Rather, each man born since Adam has had the theoretical possibility of fully obeying God's law and remaining just before God. Moreover, under the current dispensation, any man has, absent any work by the Holy Spirit, the capacity to accept the gospel of Christ as truth and thus be reconciled to God.

Any Arminians or Pelagians that can offer corrections or clarifications to my explanations . . . please do.

Bling . . . your belief, as you have explained them thus far (or more precisely - as I have understood them thus far), seem more aligned to the Pelagian view.
 
Upvote 0

nobdysfool

The original! Accept no substitutes!
Feb 23, 2003
15,018
1,006
Home, except when I'm not....
✟21,146.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
ne question I have not been able to get a consistent answer to . . .

According to the view generally held in the Arminian camp . . . Does God afford every man that is ever born the exact same likelihood of (or the same opportunity for) being saved, or are some men less privileged than others?

A biblical basis for answers offered would be appreciated.

Again, this is not for the purpose of debate, but rather to compare and contrast the Arminian and Calvinist views.


If you want to know arminan/orthodox/ or any non-calvinist views go to one of their web sites E.G http evangelicalarminians org

In other words, no one will answer the questions....

As many have witnessed this forum is governed by Calvinists and any reasonable debate by non-calvinist gets thwarted. Cindy asked a genuine question which hi-lights the difference between Calvinist and arminian thinking. What happens over and over again by a few hard-liners.
This forum is not governed by Calvinists. If anything Calvinists are in the minority here. The reason non-Calvinists debate gets thwarted is because the Calvinists show a better grasp of Scripture, and know our beliefs more thoroughly, and can defend them. The non-Calvinists don't seem to be able to bring the same level of knowledge and confidence to the debate. Many of the non-Calvinist arguments are emotion-based, and illogical. It's just that simple.

1. The question or non-calvinist post gets misquoted and twisted. Its a 'gotcha' question. No Its a real question.
Favorite tactic of the non-Calvinist.

2. The question is ignored and a side track/ red herring is thrown in.
Another favored non-Calvinist tactic...

3. The 'rant' technique.
E.G nobdyfool answered "God allows man to sin" - oops. He realizes his mistake the has a rant at Cindy who was pointing out that Behe boy was wrong in accusing toddlers of being murderers and adulterers ( as if a 3 year old was even married). Nobdy then responds to something entirely different and concludes "Now what was the question ?"
Baloney. How is that statement a "mistake"??? There is nothing wrong about my statement that God allows man to sin. Please explain how this isn't exactly what has happened, is happening, and will continue to happen until after Jesus returns. It is 100% accurate. How about providing the post citations, and/or quotes where this "ranting" supposedly occurred? Behe's Boy was quoting Cindy, who originally posted about children being murderers. But the outrage was directed at Behe's Boy, when he was stating that he couldn't imagine such a scenario. The outrage should have been directed at Cindy for such filth. Talk about a "gotcha" scenario! And it was promulgated by the non-Calvinists.

You can find Cindy's original post here. Now, who was wrong in this situation? Not Behe's Boy! Seems to me that some apologies are in order....

What is the end result ? Many of us watching this farce now hold american calvinism in even less respect. Which is why the thread was mirrored as is being used as a witness against you. Not just the one sided debate, when we tried to PM Cindy we find she has been blocked. Also with others. Even worse the issue raised about the greek text and getting around the texts with 'all, 'every' etc. We are Greek Orthodox. Hence we speak Greek. Your work arounds were beyond belief. Not just sad..
Are we to be concerned about the approbation of men, or fidelity to Scripture, and therefore, to God? Cindy was blocked for some truly egregious actions (and it's rather odd that "Cindy" was/is a man....), and rightly so.

As for Greek, modern Greek is different than Koine Greek, and as such, unless one knows the culture of the times, trying to apply modern understanding to ancient writings guarantees that there will be misinterpretation, and wrong conclusions drawn. You can have an opinion, but trying to damn others because they disagree is not right.

Given that calvanist as a whole have never been united e.g Calvin/Luther, 4 point vs 5 point only, Hyper vs Hypo. Trying to straight jacket arminian is plainly ridiculous.
Funny, it's usually the non-Calvinist who insists that all Calvinists "must" march in lock-step, such that a mistake or misstatement by one becomes an indictment of the entire group. We've seen that time and time again in this forum. and it is plainly ridiculous and only highlights the level of ignorance of what Calvinism ACTUALLY teaches, as opposed to the fairy tales some of the non-Calvinists try to pass off as "the truth of Calvinism".


Most of us believe you guys/girls ought to get out into the real world. Meet Christians.
Historically, the most successful evangelical efforts have been driven by Calvinists, and as to getting out into the real world, we do that every day. It seems to me that the Greek Orthodox are far more likely to be out of touch with the real world.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

cygnusx1

Jacob the twister.....
Apr 12, 2004
56,208
3,104
UK Northampton
Visit site
✟94,926.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
God allowed mankind to corrupt itself

so ?

show me any Christian who doesn't believe God allowed sin to enter ?

first diagnose your own explanation for why God permitted sin to exist , then ask others if they agree with you .
 
Upvote 0

msortwell

Senior Member
Mar 9, 2004
1,245
147
66
Gibson, Wisconsin
✟206,301.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
See all of nobdys posts where he backtracks his position. We all expected that he would back track. It caused quite a laugh when he did as predicted. Or should that be predestined.

Here is part of the difficulty. You encourage others to "See all of . . ."

The man has 10,824 posts. I would need some help focusing my attention upon the claimed "backtracks."

BTW - My question, which only asked the Arminian view regarding the degree to which God affords equal opportunity for salvation to all men, has not been answered by a self-professing Arminian.
 
Upvote 0

nobdysfool

The original! Accept no substitutes!
Feb 23, 2003
15,018
1,006
Home, except when I'm not....
✟21,146.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
See all of nobdys posts where he backtracks his position. We all expected that he would back track. It caused quite a laugh when he did as predicted. Or should that be predestined.

Backtrack??? I've done no such thing! Give us specific links or quotes where you think I backtracked, or admit that I did not.

And who is "we"?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0