What's the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism?

[Epoisses]

SavedbyChrist adds words to 1 John 2:2 and John 3:16 to parade his unbiblical manmade doctrine of Arminianism. (I mean, it's named after A MAN, after all! Gasp!!!)

He changes "propitiation" to "potential propitiation", and "so" to "intensely", and "whoever believes" to "every single person in human history" (even though whoever believes is by definition a sub-group of the human race)

If that's not twisting scripture, I don't know what is.

Why don't you explain those big words. I would love to hear it.

 

[elman]

How can we NOT resist God's grace?

By grieving the spirit. By turning from righteousness to wickedness. If we do we will not revcieve eternal life.

 

[elman]

Coulda fooled me as you pop up in every single thread about the subject.

You wrongfully apply labels. It is not the only theological errors you make on a regular basis.

 

[Skala]

No! More extremeism. This is like the antitype of legalism. Legalists want to make it all about them and Calvinists make it all about God to the point that man is a robot with no free-will.

Here's an example. We know that 2/3rds of the angel's sided with God and 1/3rd sided with Satan in the rebellion in heaven. So what's the difference? All the angel's were equal in the fact that they were all holy, sinless and created by God.

So why didn't they all side with God? Ummmmm....Free-will!!!!!

They have it and so do we. Robots are best left for science-fiction.

I'm sorry you reject the Bible's description of the miraculous, gracious work of conversion that God does in us.
God working to change us and save us is "extremeism". Amazing.

 

[elman]

Calvinism is truth. Arminianism is falsehood. There is your difference. Thanking you!

God is love. We can turn from righteousness to wickedness and if we do we will not receive eternal life.

 

[Skala]

God is love. We can turn from righteousness to wickedness and if we do we will not receive eternal life.

Notice folks: Nothing about putting faith in Christ's finished work on the cross as what saves us. (in Elmanism)

 

[elman]

Notice folks: Nothing about putting faith in Christ's finished work on the cross as what saves us. (in Elmanism)

Notice folks his rejection of the Bible specifically Ezekiel 18.

 

[Skala]

Notice folks his rejection of the Bible specifically Ezekiel 18.

Playing devils advocate:I reject Ezek 18, but you reject Genesis 1 through Ezek 17, and Ezek 19 through Revelation 22.

 

[elman]

Playing devils advocate:I reject Ezek 18, but you reject Genesis 1 through Ezek 17, and Ezek 19 through Revelation 22.

So you admit it? I am down for us both admitting there are parts of the Bible we both reject. Are you with me?

 

[Skala]

So you admit it? I am down for us both admitting there are parts of the Bible we both reject. Are you with me?

I don't admit to rejecting any part of the Bible.

But you admit that you reject most of it.

I'm not sure why you think you could demonize someone who believes MORE of the Bible than you do.

 

[elman]

I don't admit to rejecting any part of the Bible.

But you admit that you reject most of it.

I'm not sure why you think you could demonize someone who believes MORE of the Bible than you do.

I am not sure why you think you could demonize someone who believes God is loving and kind and resists the portrayal of God as evil.

 

[AlphaTeam]

The Bible speaks of regeneration with three analogies:

1) birth
2) resurrection
3) creation

Do you notice a similarity in those three things? They are all monergistic activities. In other words, you cannot assist in your own birth (because they aren't born yet), nor can a dead man assist in his own resurrection (because he's dead), nor can a person assist in their own creation. (because he doesn't exist)

If a person is the recipient of any of these things, his volition is not involved at all. Which means neither cooperation nor uncooperation are factored in. His volition is not involved, either for or against. So there is no such thing as "against his will" or "saying no" or "Freely wanting"



He will always succeed in regeneration, and the natural response of the regenerate person is to freely and willingly desire, and thus choose, Christ.

Does that make sense?

So basically, your answer is that human can not stop it from happening, if God wills it.

I have one basic problem with it: Hell! The result of that worldview is that God could save all the world and He did not. I do not agree with this logic.

I also do not agree with how Calvinist explain the human depravity. You see, even after the fall, we humans, are still made on the image of God, we still have a soul, we still have free will, we still have conscience. It is true that we are fallen, "dead", but yet we all (all humans) were once (at least) enlightened (not saved). So even as "dead" we still know the truth, or at least it exists. So we can chose to resist it.

An example of that is Adam. after the fall, he was dead, yet he heard the voice of God, hided, obeyed and interacted with God. although he was "dead", there was a mysterious connection between him and God.

 

[AlphaTeam]

What it means is that Christ successfully saved and made perfect atonement for every single person he died for. And since this is not everyone (that would be universalism), it must be less than everyone, or Limited.

The distinction is drawn from realizing that the Bible never speaks of Christ's death as merely potentially or possibly securing salvation for us, but actually, and effectually doing so.

No where does the Bible talk about Christ's atoning work for us as merely making salvation "possible", but actually saving us.

What about 1 John 2:1-2:

My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

 

[seeingeyes]

As you can see, both views say that God elects people before the foundation of the world.

Arminians say that the reason for God's choice of you was because he foresaw obedience in you.

Calvinists say that the reason for God's choice of you was grace alone, as there is no such thing, apart from saving grace, as obedience in you.

Any questions? Can we move on now? Can we quit pretending that only Calvinists believe that God elects people before the foundation of the world? Because that would be fantastic.

Yes, both theories accept election, they just define it a little differently. It's semantics.

But the true difference is this: One God can save every fallen man but doesn't want to. The other God wants to save every fallen man, but can't.

 

[Skala]

S
I have one basic problem with it: Hell! The result of that worldview is that God could save all the world and He did not. I do not agree with this logic.

The same is true of your soterioloigical view. In you rview, God could save everyone, yet does not. I'm not sure why you think it's unique to Calvinism.

I also do not agree with how Calvinist explain the human depravity. You see, even after the fall, we humans, are still made on the image of God, we still have a soul, we still have free will, we still have conscience. It is true that we are fallen, "dead", but yet we all (all humans) were once (at least) enlightened (not saved). So even as "dead" we still know the truth, or at least it exists. So we can chose to resist it.

I think you need to study the Bible's doctrine of sin and what the implications of being unregenerate are.

It says we are unable to please God or obey God (Rom 8:7-8). it says we find the gospel foolishness (1 corinthians). It says we are children of wrath by natrue (Eph 2) We cannot perceive the kingdom, let alone enter it, while unregenerate (john 3).

Just to scratch the surface...

Yet you still insist that man can do all of these things while unregenerate.

 

[Skala]

Yes, both theories accept election, they just define it a little differently. It's semantics.

But the true difference is this: One God can save every fallen man but doesn't want to. The other God wants to save every fallen man, but can't.

What makes you think the other (Arminianism) says God "can't"? I think most Arminians would agree that God could if He wanted to. Nothing is stopping him from doing it.

 

[Skala]

What about 1 John 2:1-2:

My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

Did you notice it doesn't say that he is the potential atonement, but the actual one? Let me copy/paste something I wrote just yesterday about this verse:

One thing I'd like to point out is that if the verse (1 John 2:2) on the surface has difficulties squaring away with the Calvinist viewpoint, it likewise has difficulties squaring away with the non-Calvinist or Arminian (Unlimited Atonement) viewpoint.

Why?

Because the verse doesn't say that Christ is merely the potential propitiation (for whatever group John goes on to mention), but that He is the actual one.

This does not, on the surface, fit into the Arminian's understanding of Unlimited Atonement, either. Arminianism says that Christ's death only made it possible for people to be saved, but this verse doesn't say anything about possibility or potentiality. It says that Christ is the propitiation. Not the potential propitiation.

Therefore it is mind boggling that they (Arminians) think they can claim this verse as their own, or that it only poses problems for Calvinism. When in fact, since they are taking "us and the whole world" to mean "every individual", they must water down, lessen, or change the idea of propitiation into that of potentiality. In other words, the only way this verse does not pose problems for their view is if they change the meaning of words, which ironically is what they accuse Calvinists of doing

It seems to me that since the verse says he is the actual propitiation or atonement, then when John says "not only us, but the whole world", he cannot be referring to every individual, but rather is just using a sweeping generalization to refer to all nations of the world. In fact if you look at what John had already wrote about Christ's death in John 11:51-52, we learn that Christ's death was not for the nation only (not us only), but also to gather into one the children of God that are scattered across the world (but the whole world). There is parallel between John 11:51-52 and 1 John 2:2.

It is a mistake to automatically assume that the dividing line between "us..and the whole world" is believers and unbelievers. What is more likely is since we have John 11:51-52 to guide us, and we have the fact that John is a Jew, writing to Jews (as his direct audience), that the dividing line between "us" and "the whole world" is Jews and Gentiles.

 

[elman]

Yes, both theories accept election, they just define it a little differently. It's semantics.

But the true difference is this: One God can save every fallen man but doesn't want to. The other God wants to save every fallen man, but can't.

Then there is the option that God wants everyone to turn from wickedness and be saved but forces none of them to do that. Like the father in the prodigal son, when they do repent, He rushes to meet them and welcome them home.

 

[elman]

The same is true of your soterioloigical view. In you rview, God could save everyone, yet does not. I'm not sure why you think it's unique to Calvinism.



I think you need to study the Bible's doctrine of sin and what the implications of being unregenerate are.

It says we are unable to please God or obey God (Rom 8:7-8). it says we find the gospel foolishness (1 corinthians). It says we are children of wrath by natrue (Eph 2) We cannot perceive the kingdom, let alone enter it, while unregenerate (john 3).

Just to scratch the surface...

Yet you still insist that man can do all of these things while unregenerate.

The Bible teaches the wages of sin is death. It also teaches the way to inherit eternal life is to love God and man. It further teaches that we destroy our own spiritual existence with our own sin, but if we turn to righteousness we will live and not die. However if we do not turn to righteousness we will die and not live. Specifically it teaches a person who is dead spiritually but alive physically can turn to righteousness. Jesus warns us unless we repent we will perish. You have misunderstood the bible if you think a spiritually deceased person cannot repent. An unregenerated person is the only kind of person that would ever need to repent.

 

[Skala]

The Bible teaches the wages of sin is death. It also teaches the way to inherit eternal life is to love God and man. It further teaches that we destroy our own spiritual existence with our own sin, but if we turn to righteousness we will live and not die. However if we do not turn to righteousness we will die and not live. Specifically it teaches a person who is dead spiritually but alive physically can turn to righteousness. Jesus warns us unless we repent we will perish. You have misunderstood the bible if you think a spiritually deceased person cannot repent. An unregenerated person is the only kind of person that would ever need to repent.

I'm glad you found a part of the Bible that you think is correct.