Arminianism and Calvinism

[GodsGrace]

I was simply pointing out your..."WHY I AGREE WITH ARMINIANISM:" post was based upon a false assumption of Calvinism.
For example you said "He DID NOT pick and choose based on nothing, which is what Calvinism teaches."

Calvinism doesn't teach that. Your disagreement with Calvinism is built on a false pretense.

Later on you presented the Calvinist view:
Unconditional election is the doctrine which states that God chose those whom he was pleased to bring to a knowledge of himself, not based upon any merit shown by the object of his grace and not based upon foreseen faith (especially a mere decisional faith). God has elected, based solely upon the counsel of his own will, some for glory and others for damnation (Romans 9:15, 21). He has done this act before the foundations of the world (Ephesians 1:4–8).

You misrepresented their view in your "WHY I AGREE WITH ARMINIANISM:" section.

C
I reread what I wrote and it's correct in that it's saying what I mean it to say.
Also, you're confirming above that God chooses persons He is PLEASED to bring to the knowledge of Himself and NOT based on any merit or foreseen faith.

You say that He has elected merely on the counsel of His own will,
SOME FOR GLORY
AND OTHERS FOR DAMNATION.

You love Romans 9 and Ephesians 1.
Do you realize that this is speaking to God's election of the nations of ISRAEL to bring salvation into the world via that nation. It is NOT speaking to personal salvation.

Could you please post a scripture that speaks to PERSONAL salvation?
It would be appreciated.

 

[Cygnus]

Since this is the Theology forum do you have scripture to support your statement? BTW, inflamatory rhetoric is very much frowned upon here.....just say'n......

When I used the word ignorant it was not in reference to wonderings intelligence but it was used as a term for lack of knowledge.
The "inflamatory rhetoric" was your wrong perception.

 

[GodsGrace]

I believe it's different for everyone. Romans 9:11 tells us "in order that God’s purpose in election might stand". What is that purpose? Who knows.

Romans 9:16 give us a reason for Pharaoh's purpose not to be saved.
16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”g 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

God hardens those whom He will harden based on what THEY want.
See Romans 1:24
God gave them over to the lusts of their heart because that is what they wanted.
You have difficulty understanding this because you don't believe in free will.

Must leave for a while.
Please give me a scripture besides Romans 9 and Ephesians 1 speaking to election.
You won't find it... Romans 9 to 11 is talking about how God elected Israel from which to save the world. Salvation economy...

 

[Cygnus]

C
I reread what I wrote and it's correct in that it's saying what I mean it to say.
Also, you're confirming above that God chooses persons He is PLEASED to bring to the knowledge of Himself and NOT based on any merit or foreseen faith.

You say that He has elected merely on the counsel of His own will,
SOME FOR GLORY
AND OTHERS FOR DAMNATION.

You love Romans 9 and Ephesians 1.
Do you realize that this is speaking to God's election of the nations of ISRAEL to bring salvation into the world via that nation. It is NOT speaking to personal salvation.

Could you please post a scripture that speaks to PERSONAL salvation?
It would be appreciated.

No, Romans 9 speaks of personal individuals.

I agree God used Israel to bring salvation through Christ Jesus.....but that is not the main subject of Romans 9.
Verse 16 tells us....It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. Notice it doesn't say it depends on Israels desire or effort. The verse is individualized. Later we read.... 20 But who are you, a human being,.....Why use human being if the verse is about Israel?

The subject is Gods soverign choice.

 

[Cygnus]

God hardens those whom He will harden based on what THEY want.

He might...but in this instance in Romans 9 scripture tells us the reason...and if you read it you'll see it's not because of what Pharaoh wanted.

17For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”

It's what God wanted.

 

[JLB]

Interestingly, Ive been told by a poster that I'm an Arminian.
As if that should be something to be ashamed of.
I'd like to say that, yes, I do agree with Arminianism.

I'd also like to say that no one that I know of who is a Calvinist is willing to admit this.
I don't really understand this.

The idea here is to post exactly what each side believes.
It will be VERY limited. I've said many times that we cannot learn about religion on the internet. It takes years of study to understand Christianity. It is not learned from reading about it on Wikipedia.

However, this is a starting point.
I'm not sure I even agree with everything Arminians state as their doctrine. I'll only go through the 5 points, which respond to the 5 points of Calvinism, or the TULIP.

I've placed this in Theology because it is, in fact, a study of God.
His character, His ideas, His dealings with humanity -- His creation and the love He might or might not have for us. His sovereignty, His election of a nation and, perhaps, even persons.
IOW, God, and who He is...

I find it interesting that those who have a whole vocabulary of unscriptural words and phrases that their theology is built upon, expose their man made ideas, when they label you with these unbiblical names such as Arminian.


JLB

 

[JLB]

No, Romans 9 speaks of personal individuals.

I agree God used Israel to bring salvation through Christ Jesus.....but that is not the main subject of Romans 9.
Verse 16 tells us....It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. Notice it doesn't say it depends on Israels desire or effort. The verse is individualized. Later we read.... 20 But who are you, a human being,.....Why use human being if the verse is about Israel?

The subject is Gods soverign choice.

Yes God's sovereign choice for purpose not for salvation.

3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymenaccording to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.
Romans 9:3-5

• of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came,

The context is about God choosing who would be the lineage of Christ, not who God chose to be saved or not saved.



JLB

 

[JLB]

I believe it's different for everyone. Romans 9:11 tells us "in order that God’s purpose in election might stand". What is that purpose? Who knows.

The purpose is Christ and through whom He would come.


JLB

 

[Papa Zoom]

Once again...not true. God doesn't "force" you into a relationship. You misrepresent Calvinism.

Two things:
If you disagree with a representation, instead of complaining, offer a correction.
If you don't like the thread, don't participate.

Sometimes people stay in a thread and instead of adding to it in positive way, they act as a derail (even unintended).

Don't be that. Be the other. State your positive case for Calvinism with Scripture support.

 

[reba]

A statement for all members...
Some times labels are simply use for description..
example i can say "cat"
or i could say the thing has four legs, fur, often a long tail, can be many colors, whiskers,

This could be a very informative thread.. or it can fall into the deleted catagory.. please respect the OP

Please leave the snotty rude snarks some place else...
Support your understanding with Scripture ...
do not reply to this post in this thread...


Sheeesh edited to add Yeah what Papa Zoom said

 

[Cygnus]

Two things:
If you disagree with a representation, instead of complaining, offer a correction.
If you don't like the thread, don't participate.

Sometimes people stay in a thread and instead of adding to it in positive way, they act as a derail (even unintended).

Don't be that. Be the other. State your positive case for Calvinism with Scripture support.

I did offer a correction as my other post indicate.
I wes simply pointing out the errors of her post....Where and how what she was presenting as Calvinism wasn't Calvinism.
Wondering's entire objection to Calvinism is based upon a misrepresentation. I don't care if she objects to Calvinism.

 

[PeterJens]

I am a calvanist armenian - a mixture of the two.
So I believe people are lost without hope of finding God, unless He choses them.
I believe once we have revelation there is opportunity to choose to follow or not.
So my experience is people are emotionally and spiritually blind to where they are, and the
answer to this dilemma is a small gate and narrow path that leads to life.
And along the way there are many distractions and possibilities of failure.
Pilgrims progress sums it up in part.

Now I met a guy who believed the mirror image to me on all the points.
He got very angry, and was convinced I was an evil lying deceiptful individual and said so.

I found this ironic, and I really do mean ironic, because the very failure of his approach to
see what I believed and how I stood, and to throw these accusations at me, made him what
he said I was. He felt justified to behave in a non-christian manner because I was so evil.

I found it illuminating how he showed his sinful attitudes simply by saying one thing, then denying
he said it and saying I said things which when read just one post before showed he was lying.
This shows the power some of these ideas has on our souls and how easily our emotions can
deceive us.

 

[Papa Zoom]

I am a calvanist armenian - a mixture of the two.
So I believe people are lost without hope of finding God, unless He choses them.
I believe once we have revelation there is opportunity to choose to follow or not.
So my experience is people are emotionally and spiritually blind to where they are, and the
answer to this dilemma is a small gate and narrow path that leads to life.
And along the way there are many distractions and possibilities of failure.
Pilgrims progress sums it up in part.

Now I met a guy who believed the mirror image to me on all the points.
He got very angry, and was convinced I was an evil lying deceiptful individual and said so.

I found this ironic, and I really do mean ironic, because the very failure of his approach to
see what I believed and how I stood, and to throw these accusations at me, made him what
he said I was. He felt justified to behave in a non-christian manner because I was so evil.

I found it illuminating how he showed his sinful attitudes simply by saying one thing, then denying
he said it and saying I said things which when read just one post before showed he was lying.
This shows the power some of these ideas has on our souls and how easily our emotions can
deceive us.

I honestly don't know where I fall. I used to care about it but no longer do. I understand it's just a label but when I was younger, I tried to figure out what to believe by who was believing it. I like John Piper. He's a Calvinist. Well, he has good teachings on many things and I go to him often to hear what he has to say on a matter. But I studied under a professor who studied under Norman Geisler. I desperately sought a "right theology." But in the end, no one has a perfect theology. If they did, how would they know it? And how would you recognize it? Some claim "the HS led me" and that's fine. I believe in the HS's work. But, with all the competing claims, some are crediting the HS where the HS had nothing to do with their Scriptural conclusions.

I need a term that defines my theology. Panism is all I can come up with: It will all pan out. But I need something more clever.

 

[Cygnus]

I honestly don't know where I fall. I used to care about it but no longer do. I understand it's just a label but when I was younger, I tried to figure out what to believe by who was believing it. I like John Piper. He's a Calvinist. Well, he has good teachings on many things and I go to him often to hear what he has to say on a matter. But I studied under a professor who studied under Norman Geisler. I desperately sought a "right theology." But in the end, no one has a perfect theology. If they did, how would they know it? And how would you recognize it? Some claim "the HS led me" and that's fine. I believe in the HS's work. But, with all the competing claims, some are crediting the HS where the HS had nothing to do with their Scriptural conclusions.

I need a term that defines my theology. Panism is all I can come up with: It will all pan out. But I need something more clever.

Panism....I heard that term applied to the tribulation. Some people are pre-trib, some mid-trib, some post-trib....while others are pan-trib. What ever one is correct...God will pan it out in the end....as you said.

I don't believe whether you believe in Arminianism or Calvinism effects your salvation....as most people who becomed saved don't even understand what Arminianism or Calvinism is.

What I don't like is when false arguments are presented against Arminianism or Calvinism.

 

[MCoop]

Yes God's sovereign choice for purpose not for salvation.

3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymenaccording to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.
Romans 9:3-5

• of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came,

The context is about God choosing who would be the lineage of Christ, not who God chose to be saved or not saved.



JLB

No if you continue to read, it states why Gods Word hasn’t failed simply because the majority of Jews have rejected Christ. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel”.. Then Paul goes on to explain how this grace individually is given, by the election of grace. This has everything to do with individual election to salvation by Gods Sovereign mercy. Those who refuse to believe this must explain vs 6.

 

[Papa Zoom]

Panism....I heard that term applied to the tribulation. Some people are pre-trib, some mid-trib, some post-trib....while others are pan-trib. What ever one is correct...God will pan it out in the end....as you said.

I don't believe whether you believe in Arminianism or Calvinism effects your salvation....as most people who becomed saved don't even understand what Arminianism or Calvinism is.

What I don't like is when false arguments are presented against Arminianism or Calvinism.

I think that's where I got the panism. Trib talk. As for false arguments, I prefer thinking of them as misunderstandings. Unless a person has the facts before them and insists on the strawman approach. I don't think that's the case here. And I suspect that if you were to poll 10 Calvinists on specific beliefs you'd get a variety of responses that wouldn't fit together.

 

[Christ_empowered]

I lean towards Calvinism. I'm not a die hard Calvinist, but...my own salvation experience (I felt that it was more God dealing with me than me making a "decision for Christ"), plus what I've observed in the world around me, plus my liberal Presbyterian upbringing and later exposure to more conservative Calvinists, such as RC Sproul, have made me view God's work of salvation more thru the TULIP lens than anything else.

When I think of Jesus saying "the sheep know my voice," that makes me think that the invisible church is made of people who are chosen by God to not only heart The Good News, but also are given what they/we need to respond with genuine repentance and saving faith.

I don't want this to turn acrimonious, btw. My spiritual mentor is an elderly Pentecostal lady, and she's definitely got an old school Arminian outlook. When we talk about it, though, its interesting....-because- she's a true believer and -because- she knows her Bible, she doesn't dismiss at least some elements of TULIP outright. Similarly, because I respect and appreciate the Pentecostals and others who do not believe in predestination, etc, I'm not one to get angry and dismissive.

 

[Cygnus]

I think that's where I got the panism. Trib talk. As for false arguments, I prefer thinking of them as misunderstandings. Unless a person has the facts before them and insists on the strawman approach. I don't think that's the case here. And I suspect that if you were to poll 10 Calvinists on specific beliefs you'd get a variety of responses that wouldn't fit together.

I know R.C. Sproul took TULIP and improved upon the meaning. For instance he took Total Depravity and said this about it:
"I like to replace the term total depravity with my favorite designation, which is radical corruption." For those who are interested in why can read the article here.

 

[Papa Zoom]

I know R.C. Sproul took TULIP and improved upon the meaning. For instance he took Total Depravity and said this about it:
"I like to replace the term total depravity with my favorite designation, which is radical corruption." For those who are interested in why can read the article here.

He's another one I've read a lot from.

 

[Cygnus]

I lean towards Calvinism. I'm not a die hard Calvinist, but...my own salvation experience (I felt that it was more God dealing with me than me making a "decision for Christ"), plus what I've observed in the world around me, plus my liberal Presbyterian upbringing and later exposure to more conservative Calvinists, such as RC Sproul, have made me view God's work of salvation more thru the TULIP lens than anything else.

I used to lean towards Arminianism...until I heard a preacher speak on Eph 2. Being dead in our sins and trespasses...needing to be made alive in Christ.
He presented the analogy we all have probably heard.....that is, a man was drowning, going down for the last time and needed to be saved. A life preserver was tossed to him and all he had to do was reach out and grab the life preserver and get saved. People use this to support all we need to do is reach out and choose Jesus. Then he went on to say.....that analogy is bad. Being dead in our sins and trespasses we can't reach out and grab the life preserved. In fact we're laying dead on the bottom of the ocean. God himself must jump in and dive to the bottom and bring us out of the ocean and restore life to us. Understanding that Calvinism began to make sense.