The Paradox of Calvinism and Arminianism (An Opinion)

[ChristIsSovereign]

I left the PuritanBoard because I couldn't reconcile my views with theirs. (Changed my e-mail and signed out forever.)

I guess I'll call this 'Paradoxical Calvinism.' I'm going to post my five points.

1. We are totally depraved, indeed. Are we absolutely unable to choose Christ? In a way, yes. I believe that we can only choose Christ if we know the true Christ, not the Christ that all the false gospels promote. We cannot accept Christ if we don't know Him from the Scriptures.
2. God, indeed, unconditionally elects His own. Does that mean that He set in forth hard determinism with regards who becomes saved? Absolutely not. All who come to Christ genuinely are among God's elect.
3. Christ's atonement is limited and unlimited at the same time. Did Christ die for the elect only? In a particular way, yes, but entirely, no. Did Christ die for the whole world? Absolutely.
4. God regenerates all of His elect with due time. Could there be different ways He regenerates his elect? Absolutely. Repentance is a universal aspect of all the various methods God uses to regenerate His own, for sure.
5. God's elect shall not pass away. They might backslide somewhat, but God will sling them back into the race.

This is a slightly more liberal take on Calvinism. On the Calvinistic spectrum, I am an Amyraldist. I hold to hypothetical universalism myself. (Not everyone is going to heaven, silly.)

Yet, Arminianism has influenced my beliefs for the better. Here's some questions/statements.

1. What if God foreordained our free will choices to come to Him, therefore unconditionally electing us yet allowing us to choose Him at the same time?
2. Why wasn't Arminianism considered a heresy, like all of the other non-Calvinistic belief systems?
3. Why are there so many genuine Arminian Christians if Calvinism (the legalistic kind) is true? There has to be some truth buried within Arminius' theology.
4. This is just a personal question. Why are Calvinists so legalistic? Isn't legalism what the Bible taught against? Legalism would be faith by works. We are saved by grace through faith alone. None of our worldly wise deeds count as anything to God.
5. Arminians do overemphasize on man. Yet Calvinists overemphasize on God's sovereignty. We need to emphasize on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
6. Calvinism is true in the aspect that God foreordains all. God regenerates us and we choose. Yet did we choose? Yes. It is perfectly God's act towards us, but we act towards Him too.
7. God is more sovereign than the Arminians and the Calvinists assume Him to be. God is more sovereign since He foreordains every free will choice that man enacts.

As always, this is just my opinion on the matter. God bless.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

I left the PuritanBoard because I couldn't reconcile my views with theirs. (Changed my e-mail and signed out forever.)

I guess I'll call this 'Paradoxical Calvinism.' I'm going to post my five points.

1. We are totally depraved, indeed. Are we absolutely unable to choose Christ? In a way, yes. I believe that we can only choose Christ if we know the true Christ, not the Christ that all the false gospels promote. We cannot accept Christ if we don't know Him from the Scriptures.
2. God, indeed, unconditionally elects His own. Does that mean that He set in forth hard determinism with regards who becomes saved? Absolutely not. All who come to Christ genuinely are among God's elect.
3. Christ's atonement is limited and unlimited at the same time. Did Christ die for the elect only? In a particular way, yes, but entirely, no. Did Christ die for the whole world? Absolutely.
4. God regenerates all of His elect with due time. Could there be different ways He regenerates his elect? Absolutely. Repentance is a universal aspect of all the various methods God uses to regenerate His own, for sure.
5. God's elect shall not pass away. They might backslide somewhat, but God will sling them back into the race.

This is a slightly more liberal take on Calvinism. On the Calvinistic spectrum, I am an Amyraldist. I hold to hypothetical universalism myself. (Not everyone is going to heaven, silly.)

Yet, Arminianism has influenced my beliefs for the better. Here's some questions/statements.

1. What if God foreordained our free will choices to come to Him, therefore unconditionally electing us yet allowing us to choose Him at the same time?
2. Why wasn't Arminianism considered a heresy, like all of the other non-Calvinistic belief systems?
3. Why are there so many genuine Arminian Christians if Calvinism (the legalistic kind) is true? There has to be some truth buried within Arminius' theology.
4. This is just a personal question. Why are Calvinists so legalistic? Isn't legalism what the Bible taught against? Legalism would be faith by works. We are saved by grace through faith alone. None of our worldly wise deeds count as anything to God.
5. Arminians do overemphasize on man. Yet Calvinists overemphasize on God's sovereignty. We need to emphasize on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
6. Calvinism is true in the aspect that God foreordains all. God regenerates us and we choose. Yet did we choose? Yes. It is perfectly God's act towards us, but we act towards Him too.
7. God is more sovereign than the Arminians and the Calvinists assume Him to be. God is more sovereign since He foreordains every free will choice that man enacts.

As always, this is just my opinion on the matter. God bless.

I'm a Calvinist, and I left the Puritan Board a well. Many (not all) there are the type the Calvinists who give the name of Christ and His church a black eye. Their arrogance and lack of compassion (their fruit) prove their theology errant. Having said that, there is nothing wrong with Calvinism. There is something wrong with some who twist it into something it's not.

I think, like a great multitude of people, you misunderstand Calvinism, or are objecting to hyper-Calvinism more than you are Calvinism. On the Calvinist scale, I'm a moderate.

Secondly, your 5 points aren't coherent. They don't make sense as a set.

Types of Calvinism – A Comprehensive List

 

[JLB777]

I'm a Calvinist, and I left the Puritan Board a well. Many (not all) there are the type the Calvinists who give the name of Christ and His church a black eye. Their arrogance and lack of compassion (their fruit) prove their theology errant. Having said that, there is nothing wrong with Calvinism. There is something wrong with some who twist it into something it's not.

I think, like a great multitude of people, you misunderstand Calvinism, or are objecting to hyper-Calvinism more than you are Calvinism. On the Calvinist scale, I'm a moderate.

Secondly, your 5 points aren't coherent. They don't make sense as a set.

Types of Calvinism – A Comprehensive List

Do Calvinist's ever use scripture, or does their belief's come from another man's beliefs?

Just asking?



JLB

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Do Calvinist's ever use scripture, or does their belief's come from another man's beliefs?

Just asking?



JLB

Calvinists refer to, and rely on, scripture more than any other group I have ever met.

 

[Geralt]

responding only to your calvinism points:

1. We are totally depraved, indeed. Are we absolutely unable to choose Christ? In a way, yes. I believe that we can only choose Christ if we know the true Christ, not the Christ that all the false gospels promote. We cannot accept Christ if we don't know Him from the Scriptures.

Anyone can choose, problem is right understanding. The issue is not inability to choose, but inability to 'correctly' make a choice for God - which is grounded on 'revelation'-> meaning God-given understanding from above. 1Cor2. As such the inability of the 'natural man', 1Cor2:14

2. God, indeed, unconditionally elects His own. Does that mean that He set in forth hard determinism with regards who becomes saved? Absolutely not. All who come to Christ genuinely are among God's elect.

What you really mean is 'destiny'. Does God set a destiny for men and women? Well it looks like it, based on Romans 9 (Jacob and Esau) or Judas in Jn17:12. Go on please read it carefully. What it teaches is that God sets a purpose/destiny for people, yet as we see in other passages these people (like Judas) are condemned for their actions.

This is the balance Calvinism treats the "whole" of scripture - God is sovereign in his choices and plans, yet men and women are held accountable for their actions.

3. Christ's atonement is limited and unlimited at the same time. Did Christ die for the elect only? In a particular way, yes, but entirely, no. Did Christ die for the whole world? Absolutely.

"Died for the whole world" - is a statement unqualified. what people (who believe in this) really mean is that Christ died for the "sins" of the entire humanity.

but this only focuses on some passages of scripture, and disregard the rest that explicitly states Christ death was exclusive. for example Mt1:21

Mat 1:21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save "his people" from their sins.

see, here is where arminian and calvinim hermeneutics are in contrast. both maybe sola scriptura, but only calvinism is total scriptura - takes the whole scripture, and not just selected parts that fits a pleasant view of theology.

4. God regenerates all of His elect with due time. Could there be different ways He regenerates his elect? Absolutely. Repentance is a universal aspect of all the various methods God uses to regenerate His own, for sure.

the problem here is the definition of regeneration. in Calvinism it is always John 3:33f, born again = regeneration. It is BIRTH (regeneration) not GROWTH (sanctification). and Christ's analogy of human physical birth to the spiritual birth means:

- you do not decide to be born again, it is not anyone's decision. Nicodemus made that mistake

- you are not in control

- you are not AWARE you are or have been born again. this is in contrast to non-calvinists suggesting they can 'resist'. ridiculous, can a baby 'resist' being born physically when he is not even aware he is being born.

- it is entirely God the Spirit's work (monergistic)

5. God's elect shall not pass away. They might backslide somewhat, but God will sling them back into the race.

True, God upholds those who are his. God's will is never thwarted, He is able because we are In Christ. Jude1:24

 

[Adstar]

Yet, Arminianism has influenced my beliefs for the better. Here's some questions/statements.

1. What if God foreordained our free will choices to come to Him, therefore unconditionally electing us yet allowing us to choose Him at the same time?
2. Why wasn't Arminianism considered a heresy, like all of the other non-Calvinistic belief systems?
3. Why are there so many genuine Arminian Christians if Calvinism (the legalistic kind) is true? There has to be some truth buried within Arminius' theology.
4. This is just a personal question. Why are Calvinists so legalistic? Isn't legalism what the Bible taught against? Legalism would be faith by works. We are saved by grace through faith alone. None of our worldly wise deeds count as anything to God.
5. Arminians do overemphasize on man. Yet Calvinists overemphasize on God's sovereignty. We need to emphasize on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
6. Calvinism is true in the aspect that God foreordains all. God regenerates us and we choose. Yet did we choose? Yes. It is perfectly God's act towards us, but we act towards Him too.
7. God is more sovereign than the Arminians and the Calvinists assume Him to be. God is more sovereign since He foreordains every free will choice that man enacts.

As always, this is just my opinion on the matter. God bless.

Well i selecteded Arminianism in your poll but i do not agree with point 1.. If God foreordained our free will choice then that choice is not ours and thus it is not fee will... So that point is calvinisim that is trying to look Arminain.. Asfar as i can see..

I consider calvinisism false..

Point 6.. You cannot say we chose and in point one say God ordains us to chose.. We either have free will or we don't..

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Well i selecteded Arminianism in your poll but i do not agree with point 1.. If God foreordained our free will choice then that choice is not ours and thus it is not fee will... So that point is calvinisim that is trying to look Arminain.. Asfar as i can see..

I consider calvinisism false..

Point 6.. You cannot say we chose and in point one say God ordains us to chose.. We either have free will or we don't..

Who killed Christ?

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

I have done away with Calvinism or any theological framework for a good while. I idolized theology and realize how much I assume things out of my own vainglory. I redact what I say. Did I reject the Bible? No. I have to read the Bible, not all these theologians. I need to grow closer to Christ.

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

I'm a Calvinist, and I left the Puritan Board a well. Many (not all) there are the type the Calvinists who give the name of Christ and His church a black eye. Their arrogance and lack of compassion (their fruit) prove their theology errant. Having said that, there is nothing wrong with Calvinism. There is something wrong with some who twist it into something it's not.

I think, like a great multitude of people, you misunderstand Calvinism, or are objecting to hyper-Calvinism more than you are Calvinism. On the Calvinist scale, I'm a moderate.

Secondly, your 5 points aren't coherent. They don't make sense as a set.

Types of Calvinism – A Comprehensive List

You have confirmed my discerning feelings about the PuritanBoard. I probably did misunderstand Calvinism, and if I did subscribe to Calvinism, I'd definitely be a moderate. Right now, I am feeling broken by Christ showing me my hypocrisy, pride, and arrogance within me. I posted this article out of arrogance, thinking I was wise. Now I know I was a fool and am deeply regretting my past mistakes.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

I was fortunate to learn of Reformed theology from a moderate Calvinist. In his preaching, he never once directly mentioned Calvin or Reformed theology, but the doctrines of grace so infused all of his teaching and preaching that after a few years at the church, I woke up one day convinced of these doctrines, where as for many years hated them.

We have seasons in life, and there are some regrettable ones, but even those, particularly those, are used by the Potter to help form us into the image of the Son.

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

I was fortunate to learn of Reformed theology from a moderate Calvinist. In his preaching, he never once directly mentioned Calvin or Reformed theology, but the doctrines of grace so infused all of his teaching and preaching that after a few years at the church, I woke up one day convinced of these doctrines, where as for many years hated them.

We have seasons in life, and there are some regrettable ones, but even those, particularly those, are used by the Potter to help form us into the image of the Son.

Amen. I actually don't dislike the Doctrines of Grace. I do have some issues with them here and there, veering between a Moderate Calvinist and a Classical Arminian.

I feel compassionate towards the Arminian cause now. The Calvinists have absolutely scapegoated Arminianism to the point where I would bank on the Arminians being the hated remnant in the Church.

I am still:

1. Cessationist.
2. Anti-prosperity gospel.
3. Anti-easy believism.
4. Anti-tongues.

Essentially I still hold to all the positions I used to hold that weren't related to the Doctrines of Grace.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Amen. I actually don't dislike the Doctrines of Grace. I do have some issues with them here and there, veering between a Moderate Calvinist and a Classical Arminian.

I feel compassionate towards the Arminian cause now. The Calvinists have absolutely scapegoated Arminianism to the point where I would bank on the Arminians being the hated remnant in the Church.

I am still:

1. Cessationist.
2. Anti-prosperity gospel.
3. Anti-easy believism.
4. Anti-tongues.

Essentially I still hold to all the positions I used to hold that weren't related to the Doctrines of Grace.

Funny, I see Calvinists as the most hated group in the church.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Here's some questions/statements.
1. What if God foreordained our free will choices to come to Him, therefore unconditionally electing us yet allowing us to choose Him at the same time?

He did - as the Westminster Confession of Faith clearly teaches.

2. Why wasn't Arminianism considered a heresy, like all of the other non-Calvinistic belief systems?

It was by many hyper-Calvinists and still is.

3. Why are there so many genuine Arminian Christians if Calvinism (the legalistic kind) is true? There has to be some truth buried within Arminius' theology.

There are also many non-genuine Christians in Christendom - in so called Calvinist churches as well as in so-called Arminian churches.

There is much truth in Arminius theology including unlimited atonement which I and Calvin himself would agree with.

4. This is just a personal question. Why are Calvinists so legalistic? Isn't legalism what the Bible taught against? Legalism would be faith by works. We are saved by grace through faith alone. None of our worldly wise deeds count as anything to God.

It seems to me that there are many more legalistic people who stand against Calvinism than support it. We see them here in the forum arguing vociferously against Calvinism (eternal security in particular).

5. Arminians do overemphasize on man. Yet Calvinists overemphasize on God's sovereignty. We need to emphasize on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

6. Calvinism is true in the aspect that God foreordains all. God regenerates us and we choose. Yet did we choose? Yes. It is perfectly God's act towards us, but we act towards Him too.

Exactly.

It is just as the Westminster Confession of Faith clearly teaches. The WCF is the most widely accepted confession within Calvinism.

It tells us that God ordains whatsoever comes to past without violence being done to the will of man. It tells us that God uses means to bring to past what He has predestined to come to past.

In the case of salvation, those means are the preaching of the gospel and the acceptance or rejection of that gospel by the will of men.

7. God is more sovereign than the Arminians and the Calvinists assume Him to be. God is more sovereign since He foreordains every free will choice that man enacts.

This is the clear teaching of the WCF and John Calvin himself.

Me too.

For which I get a lot of static here in the forum sometimes from both sides of the isle.

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

He did - as the Westminster Confession of Faith clearly teaches.

It was by many hyper-Calvinists and still is.

There are also many non-genuine Christians in Christendom - in so called Calvinist churches as well as in so-called Arminian churches.

There is much truth in Arminius theology including unlimited atonement which I and Calvin himself would agree with.

It seems to me that there are many more legalistic people who stand against Calvinism than support it. We see them here in the forum arguing vociferously against Calvinism (eternal security in particular).



Exactly.

It is just as the Westminster Confession of Faith clearly teaches. The WCF is the most widely accepted confession within Calvinism.

It tells us that God ordains whatsoever comes to past without violence being done to the will of man. It tells us that God uses means to bring to past what He has predestined to come to past.

In the case of salvation, those means are the preaching of the gospel and the acceptance or rejection of that gospel by the will of men.


This is the clear teaching of the WCF and John Calvin himself.

Me too.

For which I get a lot of static here in the forum sometimes from both sides of the isle.

I am a 'Calvinist' somewhat theologically, but I do accept the Biblical mysteries in Hebrews about how some do fall away. Mysteries aren't meant to be understood sometimes, just accepted, for the Bible is the inspired Word of God. (I have a hunch that the Bible is Jesus' document to believers, for the Word is Christ in John 1:1.)

I agree that there are legalists on both sides of the spectrum. I just notice Calvinist legalism more because I was a member of the PuritanBoard and those guys are completely prideful, dogmatic, schismatic, sectarian, and have their faces up the Confessions as if they were the word of God.

I really do like John MacArthur, e.g. He is a Calvinist that is not proud or belligerent about Augustine, Owen, Calvin, etc.

I definitely have Arminian tendencies. I honestly believe God led me to reject the systematic theology of Calvinism and 'start over,' per se. I am not of either camp and I am not sure if I'll accept either Arminianism or Calvinism as the 'Word of God' or if I'll just accept that the Bible says different things that are equally true and veracious. The latter, I hope, will be my ultimate position.

I got ostracized from the PuritanBoard for disagreeing on the limited atonement. They said that my view went against the Confessions and I have to agree, but what could I do? Live knowingly in error to fit with some judgmental and cocky Calvinist 'brethren?' (This is not mocking of Calvinists in general, just those PuritanBoard elitists.) They seem bask in the pride that they're the 'special Reformed' Calvinists who follow the Confessions to the T. Yes, I was thinking... Pharisee. The guys on the PuritanBoard are Pharisees. Jesus would condemn them as whitewashed tombs. They keep to all the Law but in their hearts, they are full of corpses. (Most of them, at least... I don't want to condemn every PuritanBoard member because some of them are great.)

The Arminian legalists... I think they're just riotous spirits who have no regard for Christian love. They are the flip side of Calvinist legalism. There are a handful of websites that are legalist and 'Arminian.' (More like semi-Pelagian... Which is grossly incorrect.)

I'm comfortable to say that I am a classical Arminian. I do agree with some of the Calvinists' teachings and can really appreciate their dedication to knowing God.

Calvinists would say that embracing Amyraldism is just one step towards Arminianism. I would agree in a backwards sense. Rejecting the limited atonement brought me to a more gracious understanding of God, while not negating the sovereignty of God and His divine foreknowledge. In my view, Calvinism is the logical opposite of Roman Catholicism, and I think they are both too far to the extreme. My views would be a bit more Mennonite. But God bless the Calvinists who look to Him for their spiritual life versus those 'Edwardsian' New Calvinists.

The other thing is how a lot of prominent Calvinist authors throughout time mentioned Arminianism in their works and denounced it constantly. Why? It's not heresy at all. I researched the classical view of Arminius and he was pretty well-grounded Scripturally. Not perfect, but that's the same with Calvin too! Yet why did Calvinists scapegoat him? Why didn't they accept him as a brother? We are to agree to disagree on the non-essentials, honestly. The Bible commands against sectarianism, which any sectarians obviously violate, and which I think many Calvinists violate also, acting like Jehovah's Witnesses by reading the works of fellow Calvinists only.

I agree that the vitriol that some Arminians show against Calvinists is unnecessary and vile. I would side with the Calvinists when semi-Pelagian 'Arminians' attack them without provocation. Yet I side with the classic Arminians of the Reformation period when it comes to Calvin and his successors scapegoating him and his followers.

Just my dollar or two.

God bless you.

 

[Marvin Knox]

I do accept the Biblical mysteries in Hebrews about how some do fall away.

It's nice to have someone to talk to who is open to a so-called Calvinist position which is different from the full on 5-point type.

Regarding the Hebrews passage:
If you view the Hebrews 6 passage as talking about loss of salvation for true believers, then you must also say that the people referred to cannot be won again to repentance. This goes against the many passages which instruct us as believers to lead exactly such people into a repentant position either through instruction and admonition or through church discipline.

I invite you to reread the passage in light of this. My two cents worth as one who believes in the eternal security of the believer.

I really do like John MacArthur, e.g. He is a Calvinist that is not proud or belligerent about Augustine, Owen, Calvin, etc.

Me too. Also Wayne Grudem. I've never been a member of the Puritan Board.

I definitely have Arminian tendencies. I honestly believe God led me to reject the systematic theology of Calvinism and 'start over,' per se. I am not of either camp and I am not sure if I'll accept either Arminianism or Calvinism as the 'Word of God' or if I'll just accept that the Bible says different things that are equally true and veracious. The latter, I hope, will be my ultimate position.

Of course - nothing is the Word of God but the Word of God.

I've found those "paradox's" you refer to to be fairly easily rectified if one is open to letting the Lord speak and is willing to reject full on Calvinist's interpretations and also reject full on Arminian interpretations. In other words try to believe both sides of the paradox and resist the tendency which most folks have to pick the side you like and dig in.

I look at it as a fulfillment of what Jesus said concerning the idea of believing both sides, "To him who has even more will be given."

I got ostracized from the PuritanBoard for disagreeing on the limited atonement. They said that my view went against the Confessions and I have to agree, but what could I do? Live knowingly in error to fit with some judgmental and cocky Calvinist 'brethren?' (This is not mocking of Calvinists in general, just those PuritanBoard elitists.) They seem bask in the pride that they're the 'special Reformed' Calvinists who follow the Confessions to the T.

Interesting how full on 5-point TULIP types believe they are the true Calvinists of what we would call the Reformed camp.

You are right in saying that "limited atonement" as usually presented by them is not biblical. Interestingly - it isn't even in the Westminster Confession of Faith to which I generally subscribe. It blows their minds when they are asked to show where limited atonement can be found in that cherished document.

John Calvin also rejected limited atonement as usually presented by 5-pointers. So you and I are in pretty good company there IMO.

Rejecting the limited atonement brought me to a more gracious understanding of God, while not negating the sovereignty of God and His divine foreknowledge.

Me too - and I've found that once non-Calvinists understand that you don't believe in limited atonement and embrace the biblical truth that Jesus died for the sins of the entire word they are more open to dialog concerning the other 4 points (rightly presented of course - which they sometimes aren't by Calvinists).

The other thing is how a lot of prominent Calvinist authors throughout time mentioned Arminianism in their works and denounced it constantly. Why? It's not heresy at all. I researched the classical view of Arminius and he was pretty well-grounded Scripturally. Not perfect, but that's the same with Calvin too! Yet why did Calvinists scapegoat him? Why didn't they accept him as a brother? We are to agree to disagree on the non-essentials, honestly. The Bible commands against sectarianism, which any sectarians obviously violate, and which I think many Calvinists violate also, acting like Jehovah's Witnesses by reading the works of fellow Calvinists only.

I agree.

I agree that the vitriol that some Arminians show against Calvinists is unnecessary and vile. I would side with the Calvinists when semi-Pelagian 'Arminians' attack them without provocation.

Me too.

One of the big problems I have here in the forum is having to correct the misrepresentations of Reformed doctrine ("straw men") often put forward against Calvinism.

The other big problem I have here in the forum is having to correct the misrepresentations of so call Arminian beliefs put forward against Calvinism.

I.E. - Calvinists deny free will and make God an arbitrary despot who created men as robots and manipulates them like puppets. AND Arminians deny the grace of God and teach a salvation based on works.

Now - both of these two characterizations can be and often are correct in certain cases - but they are not the norm for either group IMO.

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

It's nice to have someone to talk to who is open to a so-called Calvinist position which is different from the full on 5-point type.

Regarding the Hebrews passage:
If you view the Hebrews 6 passage as talking about loss of salvation for true believers, then you must also say that the people referred to cannot be won again to repentance. This goes against the many passages which instruct us as believers to lead exactly such people into a repentant position either through instruction and admonition or through church discipline.

I invite you to reread the passage in light of this. My two cents worth as one who believes in the eternal security of the believer.

Me too. Also Wayne Grudem. I've never been a member of the Puritan Board.

Of course - nothing is the Word of God but the Word of God.

I've found those "paradox's" you refer to to be fairly easily rectified if one is open to letting the Lord speak and is willing to reject full on Calvinist's interpretations and also reject full on Arminian interpretations. In other words try to believe both sides of the paradox and resist the tendency which most folks have to pick the side you like and dig in.

I look at it as a fulfillment of what Jesus said concerning the idea of believing both sides, "To him who has even more will be given."

Interesting how full on 5-point TULIP types believe they are the true Calvinists of what we would call the Reformed camp.

You are right in saying that "limited atonement" as usually presented by them is not biblical. Interestingly - it isn't even in the Westminster Confession of Faith to which I generally subscribe. It blows their minds when they are asked to show where limited atonement can be found in that cherished document.

John Calvin also rejected limited atonement as usually presented by 5-pointers. So you and I are in pretty good company there IMO.

Me too - and I've found that once non-Calvinists understand that you don't believe in limited atonement and embrace the biblical truth that Jesus died for the sins of the entire word they are more open to dialog concerning the other 4 points (rightly presented of course - which they sometimes aren't by Calvinists).

I agree.

Me too.

One of the big problems I have here in the forum is having to correct the misrepresentations of Reformed doctrine ("straw men") often put forward against Calvinism.

The other big problem I have here in the forum is having to correct the misrepresentations of so call Arminian beliefs put forward against Calvinism.

I.E. - Calvinists deny free will and make God an arbitrary despot who created men as robots and manipulates them like puppets. AND Arminians deny the grace of God and teach a salvation based on works.

Now - both of these two characterizations can be and often are correct in certain cases - but they are not the norm for either group IMO.

Amen to everything you said. I am in fact mostly Arminian now, considering everything. The doctrines of grace are definitely misleading in at least a few places.

 

[JLB777]

Calvinists refer to, and rely on, scripture more than any other group I have ever met.

Ok, how about posting a scripture that teaches us God chosses some for eternal life, and chooses others for eternal damnation.

Here is mine that shows each person must choose to believe, or not.


16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. John 3:16-17

• God did not send His Son into the world to condemn.

God does not condemn anyone to eternal damnation, but desires all to be saved.

• whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

JLB

 

[bling]

I left the PuritanBoard because I couldn't reconcile my views with theirs. (Changed my e-mail and signed out forever.)

I guess I'll call this 'Paradoxical Calvinism.' I'm going to post my five points.

1. We are totally depraved, indeed. Are we absolutely unable to choose Christ? In a way, yes. I believe that we can only choose Christ if we know the true Christ, not the Christ that all the false gospels promote. We cannot accept Christ if we don't know Him from the Scriptures.
2. God, indeed, unconditionally elects His own. Does that mean that He set in forth hard determinism with regards who becomes saved? Absolutely not. All who come to Christ genuinely are among God's elect.
3. Christ's atonement is limited and unlimited at the same time. Did Christ die for the elect only? In a particular way, yes, but entirely, no. Did Christ die for the whole world? Absolutely.
4. God regenerates all of His elect with due time. Could there be different ways He regenerates his elect? Absolutely. Repentance is a universal aspect of all the various methods God uses to regenerate His own, for sure.
5. God's elect shall not pass away. They might backslide somewhat, but God will sling them back into the race.

This is a slightly more liberal take on Calvinism. On the Calvinistic spectrum, I am an Amyraldist. I hold to hypothetical universalism myself. (Not everyone is going to heaven, silly.)

Yet, Arminianism has influenced my beliefs for the better. Here's some questions/statements.

1. What if God foreordained our free will choices to come to Him, therefore unconditionally electing us yet allowing us to choose Him at the same time?
2. Why wasn't Arminianism considered a heresy, like all of the other non-Calvinistic belief systems?
3. Why are there so many genuine Arminian Christians if Calvinism (the legalistic kind) is true? There has to be some truth buried within Arminius' theology.
4. This is just a personal question. Why are Calvinists so legalistic? Isn't legalism what the Bible taught against? Legalism would be faith by works. We are saved by grace through faith alone. None of our worldly wise deeds count as anything to God.
5. Arminians do overemphasize on man. Yet Calvinists overemphasize on God's sovereignty. We need to emphasize on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
6. Calvinism is true in the aspect that God foreordains all. God regenerates us and we choose. Yet did we choose? Yes. It is perfectly God's act towards us, but we act towards Him too.
7. God is more sovereign than the Arminians and the Calvinists assume Him to be. God is more sovereign since He foreordains every free will choice that man enacts.

As always, this is just my opinion on the matter. God bless.

I am glade your open to reviewing your understanding of salvation.

1. We agree with the concept salvation would have to be unconditional and not the result of some “work” on man’s part, but is this Loving act on God’s part also showing God’s Love to be unconditional?
   
   
2. In the first century some beggars were truly begging for pure charity and that was not considered “work”, so by the first century definition of “work” a person can do something (like be willing to accept charity) and it not be “work”.
   
   
3. If God is truly the epitome of Love, than God would have to arrange (predestine/foreordain/control) almost everything to provide the very best opportunities for each individual mature adult to have the opportunity to accept His pure charity which includes salvation to be fair and just. God has foreknowledge from the beginning of time of all man’s autonomous free will choices, but that does not mean the choices made by these individuals at man’s time were not truly free will choices with likely alternatives (the perceived pleasures of sin for a season).
   
   
4. Man must have this limited autonomous free will choice in order to obtain Godly type Love, since Godly type Love is not instinctive to man (really robotic/ it cannot be programmed into man) and Godly type Love cannot just be forced on the human like Love Me in heaven or go to hell. The only way humans on earth can obtain this Love is by what Christ taught us (and actually we see in the world) “…he that is forgiven much Loves much…” so if we have been forgiven of an unbelievable huge debt created by sin we will automatically have an unbelievable huge Love (Godly type Love). To be forgiven we first have to sin (which we all do) and then all we have to do is humbly accept God’s charity in the form of forgiveness, but it has to be us doing it. This Love enables us to Love God and others with all our heart, soul, mind and energy.
   
   
5. Do you feel: God’s Love and Power is great enough to provide every mature adult with this very limited amount of autonomous free will to truly make the one choice to accept or reject God’s charity (Love/mercy/grace/forgiveness) and thus become like God with Godly type Love?
   
   
6. Those that go to hell repeatedly refused God’s Love to the point of never wanting it and thus would not be happy in heaven where there is only Godly type Love, God can use their foolishness to provide incentive for others that still can accept His Love, but it hurts God they did not accept His help.
   

There is a lot more we can talk about if you would like more?

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

Ok, how about posting a scripture that teaches us God chosses some for eternal life, and chooses others for eternal damnation.

Here is mine that shows each person must choose to believe, or not.


16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. John 3:16-17

• God did not send His Son into the world to condemn.

God does not condemn anyone to eternal damnation, but desires all to be saved.

• whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

JLB

I am glade your open to reviewing your understanding of salvation.

1. We agree with the concept salvation would have to be unconditional and not the result of some “work” on man’s part, but is this Loving act on God’s part also showing God’s Love to be unconditional?
   
   
2. In the first century some beggars were truly begging for pure charity and that was not considered “work”, so by the first century definition of “work” a person can do something (like be willing to accept charity) and it not be “work”.
   
   
3. If God is truly the epitome of Love, than God would have to arrange (predestine/foreordain/control) almost everything to provide the very best opportunities for each individual mature adult to have the opportunity to accept His pure charity which includes salvation to be fair and just. God has foreknowledge from the beginning of time of all man’s autonomous free will choices, but that does not mean the choices made by these individuals at man’s time were not truly free will choices with likely alternatives (the perceived pleasures of sin for a season).
   
   
4. Man must have this limited autonomous free will choice in order to obtain Godly type Love, since Godly type Love is not instinctive to man (really robotic/ it cannot be programmed into man) and Godly type Love cannot just be forced on the human like Love Me in heaven or go to hell. The only way humans on earth can obtain this Love is by what Christ taught us (and actually we see in the world) “…he that is forgiven much Loves much…” so if we have been forgiven of an unbelievable huge debt created by sin we will automatically have an unbelievable huge Love (Godly type Love). To be forgiven we first have to sin (which we all do) and then all we have to do is humbly accept God’s charity in the form of forgiveness, but it has to be us doing it. This Love enables us to Love God and others with all our heart, soul, mind and energy.
   
   
5. Do you feel: God’s Love and Power is great enough to provide every mature adult with this very limited amount of autonomous free will to truly make the one choice to accept or reject God’s charity (Love/mercy/grace/forgiveness) and thus become like God with Godly type Love?
   
   
6. Those that go to hell repeatedly refused God’s Love to the point of never wanting it and thus would not be happy in heaven where there is only Godly type Love, God can use their foolishness to provide incentive for others that still can accept His Love, but it hurts God they did not accept His help.

There is a lot more we can talk about if you would like more?

I agree with you both. The Bible is not meant to cause confusion. I chose Calvinism before. I was 'predestined' to be an Arminian. Get that?

 

[Marvin Knox]

I............... I chose Calvinism before. I was 'predestined' to be an Arminian. Get that?

Of course you might have been predestined to be a Calvinist again.

Then again - you might be predestined to end up calling yourself neither one but just a Bible believer.

One thing seems certain at this time. You were predestined to be a Calvinist who became an Arminian.

Only time will tell what else we may learn about your destiny.