Why discuss Calvinism vs Arminianism in Evangelism? Starts with Definitions

Mark Quayle said:

. I will try to explain again. Saving faith is the gift of God, the Holy Spirit within, regeneration.

Click to expand...

How do you know if you have it, though, when according to your theology, God will sometimes enlighten a person so he thinks he is saved for a long time? In Arminian theology, if we currently have faith, we know we are saved.

Peter J Barban said:

The Biblical Case for the Free Will of man is merely based on inference. The Sovereignty of God is directly revealed by God in the Bible.

Can you admit these facts?

Click to expand...

The whole Bible confirms free will. Sovereignty is a much misused word. Arminians agree that God is sovereign. But we don't define Sovereignty as total control. That's not what the word means.

renniks said:

I already read the part about the Laodician church. "those whom I love." ( Verse 9) are who is being addressed when he says he stands at the door. For some one who believes in universal atonement, that's everyone.

Click to expand...

Fail. UA has nothing to do with anything I posted pertaining to Rev. 3:22. That assumption is all on you.

Josheb said:

Fail. UA has nothing to do with anything I posted pertaining to Rev. 3:22. That assumption is all on you.

Click to expand...

Um, I don't care what you posted pertaining to Rev 3:22. I was just explaining my POV.

renniks said:

The whole Bible confirms free will. Sovereignty is a much misused word. Arminians agree that God is sovereign. But we don't define Sovereignty as total control. That's not what the word means.

Click to expand...

The Bible does not confirm free will. Otherwise, everyone who believes the Bible would agree on this issue.

Some people use the Bible to infer an "a priori" belief in free will. That fine's, but please be honest about what you are doing.

Al Touthentop said:

The context is expanded by the grammar.

Click to expand...

Not it isn't.

Al Touthentop said:

So it was OK for the church at Philippi to go back to the old covenant but not the Galatians?

Click to expand...

Ugh. Where is Philippi mentioned in Revelation? If Jesus states that it's okay for Philippi to go back to the old covenant then it is okay for them to do so and it becomes incumbent upon us to figure out why he says that. Since you don't - once again - provide any actual scripture I can't address the particular rhetoric of your inquiry. It's probably off-topic any way.

renniks said:

Um, I don't care....

Click to expand...

I hope that changes.

BobRyan said:

You are right to "go to that place" in defense of Calvinsm as it is perfectly logical to ask that question within the constructs of Calvinism .

But obviously - directing every evil thought and evil decision makes God the "actor"

-- you suggest that He "could be" that evil?

by contrast -- 1 John 3
4 Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is transgression of the Law. 5 You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin. 6 No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him. 7 Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous; 8 the one who practices sin is of the devil;



Not without having to then "redefine - good, and just". Even Satan can not manage that one.



Rom 3
3 For what if some did not believe? Will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect? 4 Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. As it is written:
“That You may be justified in Your words,
And may overcome when You are judged.”

'Test Me now and see" Mal 3:10
"taste and SEE" Psalms 34:8
Rev 19: 2 For true and righteous are his judgments: --- stated based on God's response , in action

It is God himself asking man "what more could I have done than that which I have done?" Isaiah 5:4
The case you posit above makes it "abundantly clear" what was left "undone".

If a self-driving car manufacturer makes cars that always drive into buildings can they really ask "what more could I have done than that which I have done?"

What is more - God must not only not be the author and sponsor - master mind of every evil thought and action to be just --- but must also be true when He says "God is not partial" Rom 2:11

"13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man" James 1:13

Not only does God not cause one to think evil or do evil - He also does not even tempt them to do it.

The entire book of Job (special focus on Job 1 and Job 2) is a great example of God's statement be "tested" and "observed" by non-God beings to "see if" the thing is so.

Click to expand...

So you decide if God is good based on your value system. Having decided what is good, you are going to let us know that God shares your values.

I work from a different perspective: God is just and good, therefore all God does is just and good, regardless of what men think.

Peter J Barban said:

The Bible does not confirm free will. Otherwise, everyone who believes the Bible would agree on this issue.

Some people use the Bible to infer an "a priori" belief in free will. That fine's, but please be honest about what you are doing.

Click to expand...

Lack of free will in scripture is something that has to be taught. I'm convinced no one reads the scripture that way unless they have had outside teaching about fate.

BobRyan said:

...we see in the OP is texts so clearly Arminian...

Click to expand...

That is nonsense.

The Bible is neither Calvinist nor Arminian. Either Calvin exegeted the scriptures correctly or Arminius did. Big difference.

The salient point for the conversation just had is that Rev. 3:22 is not a verse about Arminian volitional openness as was asserted.

The verse was proof-texted.
Context was ignored.


I proved that case and you - the op - did nothing to prove your claim. Even if we agree the "anyone" is anyone who invites Jesus in that doesn't mean it's caused by the sinner's depraved will. You didn't even try to make that case. Rev. 3:22 is not an "Arminian verse."

Peter J Barban said:

I work from a different perspective: God is just and good, therefore all God does is just and good, regardless of what men think.

Click to expand...

No, we decide based on what kind of God the Bible tells us he is. Since it confirms there is no darkness in him, he can't be the author of sin, which is what Calvinism makes him.

BobRyan said:

And of course in John 1:11 we have the "action" on the part of both parties.
"He came to His OWN and His OWN received Him not" John 1:11

Just as in Matthew 23
"O Jerusalem - how I wanted to spare your children.. BUT YOU would not"

God's lament - "What MORE could I have done than that which I have already done?" Isaiah 5:4 needs no "inference"

predictably the mere quote of the texts above will be sufficient cause to give rise to the objection if one does not approve of the statements they make.



As predicted. With nothing but the quote of the text above - you post the accusation that it is me 'ignoring context'.

Merely refusing to engage in the creative rendering-gymnastics required in Calvinism to wrench the text into something less objectionable to the direction that Calvinism would prefer - is not the same thing as "ignoring context". I think that when looking at this objectively we can all see .. at least that one point.



Were that remotely the case - we would all see not only "ME" quoting the texts "as-is" no word-smithing gymnastic needed... but so also would Calvinists be repeatedly quoting the above also claiming those texts perfectly state the case for Calvinism.

Instead it is "only me" doing that

How is that not incredibly obvious?

Click to expand...

So you expected me to quote your references, AND the contexts?

No, my friend. I am pretty sure that regardless of what I do and say, you will find a way to distort even the context to fit your view. My mother used to say, "Well, John 3:16 does say, "whosoever". My dad taught in Greek class, the Greek rendered, "whosoever" means "those that". John 3:18 says, "condemned already". You will chime in with, "because they did not believe". I will say, yes, because they failed to believe. You will then think you won your case. I will think you simply do not see the Reformed view. I've been round and round too many times. No thanks.

renniks said:

How do you know if you have it, though, when according to your theology, God will sometimes enlighten a person so he thinks he is saved for a long time? In Arminian theology, if we currently have faith, we know we are saved.

Click to expand...

So how is Arminian theology any better than Reformed? Both are of the same effect in your statement.

My question is, why this quest for a feeling of eternal security? Obey, talk with him, abide in him. The Calvinist and the Arminian get their feeling of being in him, by being in him. His Spirit witnesses to our spirit that we are the children of God. If we obey, we have confidence. but this life is about God --if it must be about me, then it is about HIS use for me.

BTW, you put that "God will sometimes enlighten a person so he thinks he is saved for a long time" a little strangely. God blinds people for his purposes, yes. Do you mean he gives them a little understanding, which they take to be enough? Or lightens the load on their conscience? What exactly are you referring to?

Mark Quayle said:

So how is Arminian theology any better than Reformed? Both are of the same effect in your statement.

Click to expand...

How so? In reformed theology, you can believe you are saved your whole life and go straight to hell.

Mark Quayle said:

BTW, you put that "God will sometimes enlighten a person so he thinks he is saved for a long time" a little strangely. God blinds people for his purposes, yes. Do you mean he gives them a little understanding, which they take to be enough? Or lightens the load on their conscience? What exactly are you referring to?

Click to expand...

I'm referring to Calvin's theology of evanscent grace.
John Calvin explains: “Experience shows that the reprobate are sometimes affected in a way so similar to the elect that even in their own judgment there is no difference between them. Hence, it is not strange, that by the Apostle a taste of heavenly gifts, and by Christ himself a temporary faith is ascribed to them. Not that they truly perceive the power of spiritual grace and the sure light of faith; but the Lord, the better to convict them, and leave them without excuse, instills into their minds such a sense of goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption .... there is a great resemblance and affinity between the elect of God and those who are impressed for a time with a fading faith .... Still it is correctly said, that the reprobate believe God to be propitious to them, inasmuch as they accept the gift of reconciliation, though confusedly and without due discernment; not that they are partakers of the same faith or regeneration with the children of God; but because, under a covering of hypocrisy they seem to have a principle of faith in common with them. Nor do I even deny that God illumines their mind to this extent .... there is nothing inconsistent in this with the fact of his enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which afterwards proves evanescent.” (3.2.11, Institutes,

Mark Quayle said:

My question is, why this quest for a feeling of eternal security?

Click to expand...

Not a feeling, an assurance. Feelings are the problem. Everyone has days when they are feeling anything but redeemed. That's when we need assurance it doesn't rest on our feelings.

renniks said:

I'm referring to Calvin's theology of evanscent grace.
John Calvin explains: “Experience shows that the reprobate are sometimes affected in a way so similar to the elect that even in their own judgment there is no difference between them. Hence, it is not strange, that by the Apostle a taste of heavenly gifts, and by Christ himself a temporary faith is ascribed to them. Not that they truly perceive the power of spiritual grace and the sure light of faith; but the Lord, the better to convict them, and leave them without excuse, instills into their minds such a sense of goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption .... there is a great resemblance and affinity between the elect of God and those who are impressed for a time with a fading faith .... Still it is correctly said, that the reprobate believe God to be propitious to them, inasmuch as they accept the gift of reconciliation, though confusedly and without due discernment; not that they are partakers of the same faith or regeneration with the children of God; but because, under a covering of hypocrisy they seem to have a principle of faith in common with them. Nor do I even deny that God illumines their mind to this extent .... there is nothing inconsistent in this with the fact of his enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which afterwards proves evanescent.” (3.2.11, Institutes,

Click to expand...

Ok. Good. Thanks for clarifying.

So, "plugging that into" your statement, How does that change the dynamic of your point? Here is your post: "How do you know if you have [salvation, (presumably)], though, when according to your theology, God will sometimes enlighten a person so he thinks he is saved for a long time? In Arminian theology, if we currently have faith, we know we are saved."

In Calvinism, if we currently have faith, we know we are saved, too. Both can be fooling themselves, and both can be right. Both end up depending on God as judge. But of the two, only Calvinism depends on God to also be the the cause of salvation, so that the human flights of fancy are of no regard in the truth of the matter.

Charlie24 said:

I haven't changed the subject. I told you that Calvin disregarded the scriptures that God has called all men to repentance.

You said, where did you get that from?

My last post is where I got it from.

As far as repentance, I do not agree that repentance follows faith, quite the contrary.

Of course, I can think of very little where I agree with Calvin.

Click to expand...

Good day, Charlie

Calvin on Acts 17:30... And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

31. Because he hath appointed a day. He maketh mention of the last judgment, that he may awake them out of their dream. For we know how hard a matter it is for men to deny themselves. Therefore, they must be violently enforced unto repentance, which cannot be done better than when they be cited to appear before God's judgment-seat, and that fearful judgment is set before them, which they may neither despise nor escape. Therefore, let us remember that the doctrine of repentance doth then take place, when men, who would naturally desire to flatter themselves, are awaked with fear of God's judgment and that none are fit teachers of the gospel but those who are the criers or apparitors of the highest Judge, who bring those who are to come the Judge to plead their cause, and denounce the judgment hanging over their heads, even as if it were in their own hand. Neither is this added in vain, in righteousness, or righteously. For though all men in the world confess that God is a just Judge, yet we see how they, for the most part, pamper and flatter themselves; for they will not suffer God to demand an account farther than their knowledge and understanding doth reach. Therefore, Paul's meaning is, that men do profit themselves nothing by vain flattery; because they shall not prejudice God's justice by this means, which showeth that all that is an abomination before God which seemeth goodly in the sight of men, because he will not follow the decrees of men, but that form which himself hath appointed.

Gill on the same verse...

but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent; that is, he hath given orders, that the doctrine of repentance, as well as remission of sins, should be preached to all nations, to Gentiles as well as Jews; and that it becomes them to repent of their idolatries, and turn from their idols, and worship the one, only, living and true God: and though for many hundreds of years God had neglected them, and sent no messengers, nor messages to them, to acquaint them with his will, and to show them their follies and mistakes; yet now he had sent his apostles unto them, to lay before them their sins, and call them to repentance; and to stir them up to this, the apostle informs them of the future judgment in the following verse. Repentance being represented as a command, does not suppose it to be in the power of men, or contradict evangelical repentance, being the free grace gift of God, but only shows the need men stand in of it, and how necessary and requisite it is; and when it is said to be a command to all, this does not destroy its being a special blessing of the covenant of grace to some; but points out the sad condition that all men are in as sinners, and that without repentance they must perish: and indeed, all men are obliged to natural repentance for sin, though to all men the grace of evangelical repentance is not given: the Jews (a) call repentance hbwvth twum, "the command of repentance", though they do not think it obligatory on men, as the other commands of the law. The law gives no encouragement

Henry:

3. The great reason to enforce this command, taken from the judgment to come. God commands us to repent, because he hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness (Act_17:31), and has now under the gospel made a clearer discovery of a state of retribution in the other world than ever before. Observe, (1.) The God that made the world will judge it; he that gave the children of men their being and faculties will call them to an account for the use they have made of them, and recompense them accordingly, whether the body served the soul in serving God or the soul was a drudge to the body in making provision for the flesh; and every man shall receive according to the things done in the body, 2Co_5:10. The God that now governs the world will judge it, will reward the faithful friends of his government and punish the rebels. (2.) There is a day appointed for this general review of all that men have done in time, and a final determination of their state for eternity. The day is fixed in the counsel of God, and cannot be altered; but it is his there, and cannot be known. A day of decision, a day of recompence, a day that will put a final period to all the days of time. (3.) The world will be judged in righteousness; for God is not unrighteous, who taketh vengeance; far be it from him that he should do iniquity.

Reading CH Spurgeon's sermon(s) on Acts 17: 30 and 31 now

It seems The reformed Faith as been very consistent in affirming God's command to all to repent.

In Him,

Bill

Dave L said:

The gospel is not an offer. It's an announcement. Offer = job offer.

Click to expand...

I agree with you about the gospel being an announcement, but I also see it as an offer...of a seat in a life boat.
From there on it is up to us to row, bail, seal holes, navigate, signal, live.
We can still jump out any time we believe something else is more important than...eternal life.