Why I dislike Calvinism

[DeaconDean]

One other thought.

Arminian (Remonstrants) theology, is what I term "I" theology. It is all nearly 100% based upon what I will or will not do.

It is true that in the beginning, John Calvin and James Arminius' would have agreed on a great many things.

However, this is not one of them.

According to Arminius, and Arminian theology, everything in predestination, election, and foreknowledge is based solely on what an individual will or will not do.

"5. MY OWN SENTIMENTS ON PREDESTINATION.

IV. To these succeeds the fourth decree, by which God decreed to save and damn certain particular persons. This decree has its foundation in the foreknowledge of God, by which he knew from all eternity those individuals who would, through his preventing grace, believe, and, through his subsequent grace would persevere, according to the before described administration of those means which are suitable and proper for conversion and faith; and, by which foreknowledge, he likewise knew those who would not believe and persevere."

Jacobus Arminius, Works, Volume 1, Orations of James Arminius, A Declaration of the Sentiments of Arminius, Chapter 1, Of Predestination, Section 5, My Own Sentiments On Predestination

Which is being demonstrated in this thread.

No matter how much you deny it, Arminius and Arminian theology said this part of his/their theology, was based on what man would or would not do.

Election, Predestination, Perseverance all hinge on what man does or does not. Pure "I" theology.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[FreeGrace2]

That one statement alone contradicts scripture.

If God elects, predestinates, based upon "foreseen events" namely "accepting or rejecting the Gospel message according to our "free will", that not only makes God a respecter of persons, but it also means that our salvation is partly based upon something we will do in the future!

The probem with your view is that man MUST DO something to be saved. He MUST believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Calvinists can disagree all they want, but Paul's answer to the jailer's question proves this.

Acts 16:30 - He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”

Got it? He wanted to know what he MUST DO to be saved.

Acts 16:31 - They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”

It could not be more clear. One MUST believe in order to be saved.

In other words, that is a works based salvation.

Take it up with the apostle Paul, who refutes such a notion as believing is a work.

Rom 4-
4 Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation.
5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts (beileves) God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.

Like I showed you earlier, why did God "foreknow" certain people? Because He called/elected them first.

Where does the Bible teach that God foreknows people because He first called and elected them??

 

[Doug Melven]

that not only makes God a respecter of persons, but it also means that our salvation is partly based upon something we will do in the future!

In other words, that is a works based salvation.

How does "Whosoever will" make God a respecter of persons?
How does us "Accepting or rejecting based on our freewill" make it a works based salvation?

It seems to me that if God would choose some and reject most that would be a respecter of persons.
God extends salvation to everyone, all we can do is accept it.
There is absolutely nothing I can do to earn salvation. It is a free gift. God will not force somebody to be saved, that would go against there freewill. And there are far to many verses in the Bible that say God offers us a choice.
Choose His way and live. Reject His way and die.
God does not wish for anyone to die. If Grace was irresistable, then everybody would be saved. But everybody doesn't get saved.

For me to accept your doctrine I would have to remove the words
"according to His foreknowledge"
and
"for whom He did foreknow"
I am unwilling to do this.

 

[Doug Melven]

And one last point, if God used His divine "foreknowledge" of forseen faith or as you put it "foreseeing events before they occur", this gives you room to boast in heaven. God saw in you, or something you would do, that others would not do, or He didn't see in others. You can walk around heaven boasting that God saw something in you that even He didn't see in Abraham.

The word foreknowledge in Acts 2:23 and foreknowledge in Romans 8:29 and 1 Pet 1:2 are not the same Greek words.
Foreknowledge in Acts = G4268 forethought
Foreknowledge in Romans and 1 Peter = G4267 Foresee

And for your last point, no it doesn't. What He sees is that the elect will accept Him.
And there is no room to boast if I just accepted Him. Accepting a free offer gives no room to boast.

 

[FreeGrace2]

And for your last point, no it doesn't. What He sees is that the elect will accept Him.

Based on Eph 1:4, the election is of "us", who are believers, and the purpose of this election is for service: to be holy and blameless before Him.

 

[Doug Melven]

Arminian (Remonstrants) theology, is what I term "I" theology. It is all nearly 100% based upon what I will or will not do.

Up to a few years ago I had never even heard of Arminius. My first exposure to him was when I gave a friend who believed in Calvinism a study guide to look over before we and some other guys were going to start it.
Basically this book was about some things we could do to make sure we kept a deep relationship with God.
Staying full of God by Andrew Wommack was the study guide.
And after he had looked it over for a few days he gave it back to me saying it had to much Arminiusm in it.
Since then I have learned that Arminius and Calvin were at odds.
And that is what I know about Arminius' theology.
My beliefs are what I see in the Bible. I will listen to a few TV preachers. But I always check what they say with what the Bible says. I don't really care if 99% of Christians today believe a certain doctrine, If I don't see it in the Word myself, I won't accept it.

 

[DeaconDean]

How does "Whosoever will" make God a respecter of persons?
How does us "Accepting or rejecting based on our freewill" make it a works based salvation?

It seems to me that if God would choose some and reject most that would be a respecter of persons.
God extends salvation to everyone, all we can do is accept it.
There is absolutely nothing I can do to earn salvation. It is a free gift. God will not force somebody to be saved, that would go against there freewill. And there are far to many verses in the Bible that say God offers us a choice.
Choose His way and live. Reject His way and die.
God does not wish for anyone to die. If Grace was irresistable, then everybody would be saved. But everybody doesn't get saved.

For me to accept your doctrine I would have to remove the words
"according to His foreknowledge"
and
"for whom He did foreknow"
I am unwilling to do this.

I love you guys who ALWAYS use "Whosoever Will" argument.

Now show me where "whosoever will" that reject the message have the Holy Spirit working on them.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

The word foreknowledge in Acts 2:23 and foreknowledge in Romans 8:29 and 1 Pet 1:2 are not the same Greek words.
Foreknowledge in Acts = G4268 forethought
Foreknowledge in Romans and 1 Peter = G4267 Foresee

And for your last point, no it doesn't. What He sees is that the elect will accept Him.
And there is no room to boast if I just accepted Him. Accepting a free offer gives no room to boast.

No, He doesn't.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

The word foreknowledge in Acts 2:23 and foreknowledge in Romans 8:29 and 1 Pet 1:2 are not the same Greek words.
Foreknowledge in Acts = G4268 forethought
Foreknowledge in Romans and 1 Peter = G4267 Foresee

Lets take your argument verse by verse.

Acts 2:23, to whom is this verse speaking of?

The New Analytical Greek Lexicon, By Wesley J. Perschbacher, Hendrickson Publishing Company, Peabody, Mass., 1990, p. 345:

"foreknowledge", "prescience", "previous determination", "purpose" (cf. Acts 2:23)

Literal translation:

"this One by the before-determined counsel and "purpose" of God given up having taken by hands lawless, having crucified, you killed,"

Purpose is a valid translation for "prognosei" in Acts 2"23. God's "purpose" was seen in His plan for mankind.

In 1 Pet. 1:2, you skip the first verse. To whom was Peter writing to?

The "elect"...of the Dispersion". People who had "already been saved."

Acts 2:23, 1 Pet. 1:2, all are Strongs #4268.

Rom.8:29 is Strongs #4267 meaning:

"to appoint as the subjects of future privileges," Rom. 8:29; 11:2

Ibid. "proginosko" (Strongs #4267)

And it is "foreknowledge" in Rom. 8:29, but as shown by several sources, why were the "elect" foreknown?

Because they were "called" (8:28) first.

And what is the "prognosis" for those "future privileges"?

Conformity to the image of the Son, an inheritance, glory, adoption. (Cf, Rom. 8:29; Eph. 1:5-6,11)

Sorry.

It is not the way your want it to be.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

What He sees is that the elect will accept Him.
And there is no room to boast if I just accepted Him.

What is it that makes one one of the "elect"?

In other words, why does God elect this man, yet reject the next?

Is it because one man will accept while the other rejects?

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

nm

 

[FreeGrace2]

I love you guys who ALWAYS use "Whosoever Will" argument.

Now show me where "whosoever will" that reject the message have the Holy Spirit working on them.

God Bless

Till all are one.

John 16
8 "And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment;
9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me;
10 and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father and you no longer see Me;
11 and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged.

 

[FreeGrace2]

What is it that makes one one of the "elect"?

In other words, why does God elect this man, yet reject the next?

Since election is about service, and not about salvation, God's choices are all about what He wants done.

The purpose of Election

Is it because one man will accept while the other rejects?

No, it's because God knows who will do what.

John 6:70 - Jesus answered them, "Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil?"

Jesus knew that Judas would betray Him, which was prophesied from the OT. That's why he was chosen.

 

[Doug Melven]

DeaconDean said:
that not only makes God a respecter of persons, but it also means that our salvation is partly based upon something we will do in the future!

In other words, that is a works based salvation.

I replied

How does "Whosoever will" make God a respecter of persons?
How does us "Accepting or rejecting based on our freewill" make it a works based salvation?

You replied

I love you guys who ALWAYS use "Whosoever Will" argument.

My question is still not answered. How does "whosoever will" make God a respecter of persons? If He just makes it available to everyone regardless?
My other question remains unanswered, "How does just accepting or rejecting make it works based.

Illustration: If you have a very valuable object and somebody asks how you got it and you muster up every little bit of pride you have and say, "It was given to me". That would sound kind of silly, would it not? I think it would be humbling.

What is it that makes one one of the "elect"?

In other words, why does God elect this man, yet reject the next?

Is it because one man will accept while the other rejects?

Yes, God is omniscient and knows who will accept or reject. And because He knows who will do what. Now let's look at Romans 8:28-30
And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
8:29
For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
8:30
Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
Verse 28 does not say "He called, then foreknew". It says "those who love Him are the called". Then He goes into 28-29.

 

[DeaconDean]

How does "whosoever will" make God a respecter of persons? If He just makes it available to everyone regardless?

First off, lets backtract.

You said:

"What He sees is that the elect will accept Him."

How does one become one of the elect?

Secondly, whosoever will is not necessarily true because whosoever will won't unless the Holy Spirit is working in and on them first, so its not necessarily "whosoever will".

And again, from Romans 8:29, as it has been shown to you several times, verse 29 starts with a conjunction that refers back to the previous "clause" and not the whole verse.

Why did God have intimate "foreknowledge" of these people? Because He called (elected) them first. And because of that, He knew them and set the goal for them in "predestinating" them to be "conformed to the image of the Son".

It has been shown to you several times that God's "foreknowledge" is always used in scripture of persons and not actions.

Yet you want to use it in the reverse in the "actions" of the people.

You are no better than many who have come and gone in this area. You look at the Greek word, see only one definition and think that is it. (i.e.: forsee)

Now you said:

"How does us "Accepting or rejecting based on our freewill" make it a works based salvation?"

Because you place so much emphasis on the supposedly "free-will" of man to make a decision on his own.

Fact is, you cannot make that decision according to "free-will" because your "free-will" is enslaved to sin, prior to salvation.

That is one reason why I hate Arminian theology. No matter how small it is, in Arminian theology, man takes some credit for his salvation.

As seen mostly in the "free-will" argument.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." -1 Pet. 1:23 (KJV)

"ἀναγεγεννημένοι οὐκ ἐκ σπορᾶς φθαρτῆς ἀλλὰ ἀφθάρτου, διὰ λόγου ζῶντος θεοῦ καὶ μένοντος:" -1 Pet. 1:23 (GNT)

Regeneration come from the Greek word "gennao".

"ἀναγεγεννημένοι" "having been regenerated" is a compound form of "gennao".

Strongs #313:

"(ava+yevvaw) to begat or bring forth again, to regenerate", 1 Pet.1:3, 23

The New Analytical Greek Lexicon, By Wesley J. Perschbacher, Hendrickson Publishing Company, Peabody, Mass., 1990, p. 20

James P. Boyce shows us:

"But 1 Pet. 1:23, by the use of the compound of gennao, shows that all the work of the Spirit, including both the new heart and the leading of it to conscious faith,"

Source

If regeneration and the result is "leading of it to conscious faith", how can you claim any part of the work of the Holy Spirit as yours?

Hum...

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[FreeGrace2]

"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." -1 Pet. 1:23 (KJV)

"ἀναγεγεννημένοι οὐκ ἐκ σπορᾶς φθαρτῆς ἀλλὰ ἀφθάρτου, διὰ λόγου ζῶντος θεοῦ καὶ μένοντος:" -1 Pet. 1:23 (GNT)

Regeneration come from the Greek word "gennao".

"ἀναγεγεννημένοι" "having been regenerated" is a compound form of "gennao".

Strongs #313:

"(ava+yevvaw) to begat or bring forth again, to regenerate", 1 Pet.1:3, 23

The New Analytical Greek Lexicon, By Wesley J. Perschbacher, Hendrickson Publishing Company, Peabody, Mass., 1990, p. 20

James P. Boyce shows us:

"But 1 Pet. 1:23, by the use of the compound of gennao, shows that all the work of the Spirit, including both the new heart and the leading of it to conscious faith,"

Except there isn't anything in 1 Pet 1:23 about regeneration "leading to conscious faith". Just an opinion.

If regeneration and the result is "leading of it to conscious faith", how can you claim any part of the work of the Holy Spirit as yours?

Hum...

Well, it doesn't.

Paul gives us the sequence of faith and regeneration in Eph 2.

First, v.5 - made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.

The red phrase is clarified by the blue phrase. iow, being 'made alive', which is our regeneration, is our salvation, or 'you have been saved'.

So, here, Paul equates "being made alive" with "you have been saved". They go together. Can't have either one without the other one.

All saved people are regenerated. All regenerated people are saved.

Now, to v.8 - For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—

Here is the clincher. We are saved through faith.

iow, no faith, no salvation.

Since regeneration and being saved are equivalent, it is clear that faith precedes regeneration.

You're welcome.

 

[jmldn2]

How can one find security in their salvation if that gift can be lost? Remember, it is a gift, not something we earn nor have to keep up.

 

[Doug Melven]

Secondly, whosoever will is not necessarily true because whosoever will won't unless the Holy Spirit is working in and on them first, so its not necessarily "whosoever will".

And again, from Romans 8:29, as it has been shown to you several times, verse 29 starts with a conjunction that refers back to the previous "clause" and not the whole verse.

We have in God's Word Romans 10:13
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Now that clearly says "whosoever shall". Undeniable, irrefutable, it is there for all to see.
Now if that were not true, God would not have kept His Word. We humans tend to speak in generalities. Someone says, "I will be there at 8". But we know they really mean they will be there around 8. Could be 8:30. This is not true of God. If He says something it must be true. You can't play around with God's Word and say, "Well He really didn't mean that". He meant what He said.
You say I have been shown many times, but I have also shown at least twice that the word "foreknowledge in Acts 2:23 versus Romans 8:29 and 1 Peter 1:2 is not the same Greek Word. You just make assumption that it is and ignore what I have told you.

 

[Doug Melven]

to appoint as the subjects of future privileges," Rom. 8:29; 11:2

That is not true.
Strong's No.:
G4267
Greek:
προγινώσκω
Transliteration:
proginōskō
Pronunciation:
prog-in-oce'-ko
Definition:
From G4253 and G1097; to know beforehand that is foresee: - foreknow (ordain) know (before).