Calvinism and Arminianism are both wrong!

[civilwarbuff]

I am not convinced that Paul's thorn in the flesh was physical only.

Maybe he had GUILT about some of his own statements in epistles concerning predestination -- maybe he could see into the future and see that it would result in Calvinism...

Peter wrote of Paul that "in his epistles are some things hard to be understood, which those who are unstable wrestle with to their own destruction"

People who were influenced/possessed by demons showed both mental/psychological as well as physical signs of that influence as shown by the NT encounters. Paul never shows any mental/psychological signs (that we know of) so it seems likely it was some physical ailment. Medicine of those ages was primitive at best and there were times illness was procribed as some spiritual possession; that never seems to be the case for Paul.

 

[Anto9us]

Definition sarx Noun Feminine

1. flesh (the soft substance of the living body, which covers the bones and is permeated with blood) of both man and beasts

2. the body...

3. a living creature...

4. the flesh, denotes mere human nature, the earthly nature of man apart from divine influence, and therefore prone to sin and opposed to

 

[Anto9us]

sorry -- technical trouble trying to paste in the definitions of SARX

My point was to be -- there is an aspect of SARX that means HUMAN NATURE, apart from the purely physical

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4561&t=KJV

 

[Mike]

The rules of this forum which was the A&T still apply to it as the Theology Forum. Please use scripture to contest someone's position. Thanks.

 

[MarkT]

I really doubt that those men were devils/demons. No doubt they believed they were upholding the Mosiac Law by stoning what they saw as a blasphemer.
Romans 11
18 Boast not against the branches. But if you boast, you bear not the root, but the root you.
19 You will say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.
20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Be not arrogant, but fear:
21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also not spare you.
22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in his goodness: otherwise you also shall be cut off.
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.
24 For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, who are the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?
25 For I would not, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in. KJ2000

I didn't say they had a demon. I said they were of their father, the devil.

Demons can be cast out. Jesus cast out demons. But a devil is a man who has the devil's spirit. A devil is a servant just as we are servants only we serve God. Devils serve their father, the devil. Judas, for example, was a devil, and Jesus chose him knowing full well he was a devil, yet he was sent out with the apostles, and they cast out demons.

Of course they were religious men. But they were devils. Devils can not understand because they are not of God.

John 8:43-45Revised Standard Version (RSV)
43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 But, because I tell the truth, you do not believe me.

 

[Anto9us]

Demons can be cast out. Jesus cast out demons. But a devil is a man who has the devil's spirit.

You seem to be making a DISTINCTION between "demons" and "devils".

There IS NO SUCH DISTINCTION in Koine Greek -- daemon -- same exact word, translated into English sometimes as demon, sometimes as devil. Same-same.

 

[MarkT]

You seem to be making a DISTINCTION between "demons" and "devils".

There IS NO SUCH DISTINCTION in Koine Greek -- daemon -- same exact word, translated into English sometimes as demon, sometimes as devil. Same-same.

I'm pretty sure the RSV translation is using the right English words.

 

[Anto9us]

daimonion is a devil, as in "Mary Magdalene, out of whom when seven devils" or demons

diabolos is THE devil

I see where you are coming from

 

[atpollard]

Seriously the majority of translations state "temptation."

Galatians 4:14
Paul's temptation:
[KJV] And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.
[DBY] and my temptation, which was in my flesh, ye did not slight nor reject with contempt; but ye received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus.
[WEB] And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.

Temptation to the Galatians:
[NLT] But even though my condition tempted you to reject me, you did not despise me or turn me away. No, you took me in and cared for me as though I were an angel from God or even Christ Jesus himself.
[ASV] and that which was a temptation to you in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but ye received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.
[HNV] That which was a temptation to you in my flesh, you didn't despise nor reject; but you received me as an angel of God, even as Messiah Yeshua.

A word other than temptation:
[NKJV] my trial which was in my flesh you did not despise or reject, but you received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.
[NIV] and even though my illness was a trial to you, you did not treat me with contempt or scorn. Instead, you welcomed me as if I were an angel of God, as if I were Christ Jesus himself.
[ESV] and though my condition was a trial to you, you did not scorn or despise me, but received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus.
[HCSB] You did not despise or reject me though my physical condition was a trial for you.[fn] On the contrary, you received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus Himself.
[NASB] and that which was a [fn]trial to you in my [fn]bodily condition you did not despise or [fn]loathe, but you received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus Himself.
[NET] and though my physical condition put you to the test, you did not despise or reject me. Instead, you welcomed me as though I were an angel of God, as though I were Christ Jesus himself!
[RSV] and though my condition was a trial to you, you did not scorn or despise me, but received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus.
[YLT] and my trial that is in my flesh ye did not despise nor reject, but as a messenger of God ye did receive me -- as Christ Jesus;

Seriously, like I tried to tell you, the majority of translations do not say 'temptation'. Only 3 listed it as Paul's temptation.

 

[smaller]

Galatians 4:14
Paul's temptation:
[KJV] And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.
[DBY] and my temptation, which was in my flesh, ye did not slight nor reject with contempt; but ye received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus.
[WEB] And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.

Temptation to the Galatians:
[NLT] But even though my condition tempted you to reject me, you did not despise me or turn me away. No, you took me in and cared for me as though I were an angel from God or even Christ Jesus himself.
[ASV] and that which was a temptation to you in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but ye received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.
[HNV] That which was a temptation to you in my flesh, you didn't despise nor reject; but you received me as an angel of God, even as Messiah Yeshua.

A word other than temptation:
[NKJV] my trial which was in my flesh you did not despise or reject, but you received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.
[NIV] and even though my illness was a trial to you, you did not treat me with contempt or scorn. Instead, you welcomed me as if I were an angel of God, as if I were Christ Jesus himself.
[ESV] and though my condition was a trial to you, you did not scorn or despise me, but received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus.
[HCSB] You did not despise or reject me though my physical condition was a trial for you.[fn] On the contrary, you received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus Himself.
[NASB] and that which was a [fn]trial to you in my [fn]bodily condition you did not despise or [fn]loathe, but you received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus Himself.
[NET] and though my physical condition put you to the test, you did not despise or reject me. Instead, you welcomed me as though I were an angel of God, as though I were Christ Jesus himself!
[RSV] and though my condition was a trial to you, you did not scorn or despise me, but received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus.
[YLT] and my trial that is in my flesh ye did not despise nor reject, but as a messenger of God ye did receive me -- as Christ Jesus;

Seriously, like I tried to tell you, the majority of translations do not say 'temptation'. Only 3 listed it as Paul's temptation.

The original intent of citing 2 Cor. 12:7, showing a messenger of Satan in Paul's flesh, in conjunction with Gal. 4:13-14, was to show that "temptation" was also present in Paul's flesh, as Paul NOTES to be a fact in Gal. 4:13-14 AND also in Romans 7:7-13.

The "general" point being that Satan (and his messengers) were engaged with Paul's mind battles, Romans 7:23, Eph. 6:11-12. Paul also had, like everyone else other than God in Christ Himself, sin indwelling his flesh that Paul termed "NO MORE I" twice in Romans 7:17 & 20, and we also know that sin is of the devil, 1 John 3:8, and that the devil DOES sin "in people" via word theft, Mark 4:15 and a veritable host of other "actions" that are shown throughout the Bible, the N.T. in particular. The devil DOES interact with people in adverse ways, IN mind. This makes a theological requirement to account for TWO parties. The person and the resistance party, the devil and his messengers. This is HOW scriptures see us and everyone else. Mark 4:15, Acts 26:18, 2 Cor. 4:4 and Eph. 2:2 are all direct sights of MAN and TEMPTER. Two entirely different parties. A captIVE and a captOR.

When we are captured by Christ we are supposed to SEE the difference and no longer allow ourselves to be a PAWN of the CAPTOR of the flesh. But the 'actions' of that spirit do remain to contend with us, primarily in the form of TEMPTATIONS, internal. Against the LAW thoughts, as noted by Paul in Romans 7, which transpired IN Paul's own mind.

Most forms of theology tend to insulate and isolate these facts away from the believers, because the people making the commentary's on the subject matter don't understand the basic principles above. And I would count both Calvin and Arminius in that group.

But there is a much deeper issue here that I actually enjoy seeing play out in real time, and that is that everyone who REJECTS the above, personally, can not see the obvious, because they are factually being stolen from ala Mark 4:15. And I would count the translators who can't see "a messenger of Satan" in Paul's flesh, tempting him, as part of the blind, which results in BLINDED translations.

A similar form of translator blindness is encountered in translations that depict certain segments of 1 John as 'continuing' in sin when the HARD FACT is exactly NO ONE stops being a sinner to start with. Continuing is just a ridiculous notion on the surface. All are quite factual sinners because sin dwells in our flesh and evil is present with us all. No one avoids this state, continuing or not. It's just a HARD FACT.

I am quite content to see and observe that believers themselves do NOT care to hear that our own sin is just as 1 John 3:8 states, OF THE DEVIL. This fact will stick in the craw of every believer who HEARS it. And they will automatically RESIST the information.

Do you know WHY? It is because of "NO MORE I" which is a present day reality for all of us.

NO MORE I is programmed to RESIST The Word of God in Christ and the words of His Apostles.

 

[Anto9us]

Well, this thread has become about Paul's THORN IN THE FLESH, rather than the original OP -- which I never agreed with anyhow -- I think Arminianism is right and Calvinism is wrong...

I think SARX (the Koine Greek word for "flesh" in the thorn passage, does include 'more than the physical') and I posted all the Strong's definitions for it above.

I think there is a big difference between
THE DEVIL (diabolos)
and demons/devils, (daimononios, and other forms of daemon)

but I am having trouble communicating that

When Jesus asked rhetorically "How can Satan cast out Satan?"
I can see where it might lead to this 'blending' of lower-case 'devils' with THE DEVIL

As I see it, the majority of Christians -- now and throughout history -- believe and have believed in Free Will

whether they ever heard of "Arminianism" or not; I know I personally always believed in Free Will before I ever heard of Arminius or Arminianism

 

[Anto9us]

When I at one point downloaded Arminius' writings -- particularly the commentaries on Romans 7 and Romans 9 -- I realized -- yes, I not only believe in Free Will -- I am an Arminian by theology

But Arminianism as a theology is a REACTION to Calvinism -- it is actually a belief in Free Will EXPRESSED IN THE LANGUAGE OF CALVINISM -- and both Arminius and the Calvinists he later came to refute believed and promulgated many unbiblical "decrees" of God

I mean "decrees" that allegedly happened well before in time the decree "Let there be light" and all the other biblical 'let there be" stuff

Both Calvinism and Arminianism are full of all these mythical "decrees" and which one came first, so yeah, in that sense -- the OP is correct -- I see error in both Calvinism and Arminianism in its assumptions that God sat around by Himself before creation and "made out a list" of what He would decree first and then next, and was BOUND BY THE ORDER of these so-called decrees

 

[smaller]

Well, this thread has become about Paul's THORN IN THE FLESH, rather than the original OP -- which I never agreed with anyhow -- I think Arminianism is right and Calvinism is wrong...

I think SARX (the Koine Greek word for "flesh" in the thorn passage, does include 'more than the physical') and I posted all the Strong's definitions for it above.

I think there is a big difference between
THE DEVIL (diabolos)
and demons/devils, (daimononios, and other forms of daemon)

but I am having trouble communicating that

When Jesus asked rhetorically "How can Satan cast out Satan?"
I can see where it might lead to this 'blending' of lower-case 'devils' with THE DEVIL

As I see it, the majority of Christians -- now and throughout history -- believe and have believed in Free Will

whether they ever heard of "Arminianism" or not; I know I personally always believed in Free Will before I ever heard of Arminius or Arminianism

When people are programmed their entire lives that we have that supposed free will, what would we expect but to believe it? That doesn't mean it's true to the scriptures.

Scriptures present a BOUND, CAPTIVE and STOLEN FROM WILL.

Mark 4:15, Acts 26:18, Romans 7:7-13, Romans 7:17-21, Romans 7:23, Romans 11:8, Romans 11:32, 1 Cor. 15:42-46, 2 Cor. 4:4, Eph. 2:2, 1 John 1:8, 1 John 3:8 etc.

At least Calvin got that much correct.

 

[Anto9us]

The Calvinism/Arminianism conflict is in a very real sense a rehash of the ancient church's conflict of Free Will vs Determinism, where the key players were Augustine and Pelagius

Augustine's thought "won out" in many areas (Iike eschatology as his Amillenialism supplanted the original premillennial Chiliasm of the early church) -- however, Augustine did NOT 'win" with his double-predestination stuff, and the church took a mediating view of "Semi-Pelagianism"

Pelagius was too overboard on "works"
Augustine was too overboard on predestination, saying God determines from before people are created whether they are bound for hell or heaven, and there is nothing whatsoever that a human can do to affect it... therefore the term "double-predestination"

So, a thousand years after this Augustine vs Pelagius spittin'-match happened, with the church deciding they were "both wrong" in a sense

The Free Will vs Determinism conflict flares up again

Arminius was a Calvinist, tasked at one point to REFUTE -- on behalf of Calvinism -- the "free will" ideas of somebody the Calvinists wanted to silence

In studying things, Arminius "switched sides" -- found he could no longer accept the "you're damned from the get-go just because I'm God and I say so out of my own good pleasure" type of thinking

The Free Will vs Determinism conflict this time became surrounded by terms and POINTS and DECREES, and Arminius sought to address things IN THE LANGUAGE of Calvinism

You realize that totally outside of Christianity, there have always been purely philosophical debates on The Free Will vs Determinism issue, people who don't even believe in any God still deal with the philosophical issue

 

[Anto9us]

When people are programmed their entire lives that we have that supposed free will

lol

And I can say
you choose to believe that you have no free will OUT OF YOUR OWN FREE WILL
and you can say "I have been PROGRAMMED to believe that I have a Free Will"

and here we go all over again

secular philosophers can't agree on the issue
Modern debates of Calvinism vs Arminianism will not agree on the issue

I just again state that I feel the MAJORITY of Christians, now and in the past -- believe/believed in Free Will -- regardless of their knowledge of or ignorance of the thoughts of Jacob Arminius (and John Calvin, Pelagius and Augustine)

 

[Butch5]

Arminianism:
Free Will or Human Ability
Although human nature was seriously affected by the fall, man has not been left in a state of total spiritual helplessness. God graciously enables every sinner to repent and believe, but He does not interfere with man’s freedom. Each sinner possesses a free will, and his eternal destiny depends on how he uses it. Man’s freedom consists of his ability to choose good over evil in spiritual matters; his will is not enslaved to his sinful nature. The sinner has the power to either cooperate with God’s Spirit and be regenerated or resist God’s grace and perish. The lost sinner needs the Spirit’s assistance, but he does not have to be regenerated by the Spirit before he can believe, for faith is man’s act and precedes the new birth. Faith is the sinner’s gift to God; it is man’s contribution to salvation.

Calvinism:
Total Inability or Total Depravity
Because of the fall, man is unable of himself to savingly believe the gospel. The sinner is dead, blind, and deaf to the things of God; his heart is deceitful and desperately corrupt. His will is not free, it is in bondage to his evil nature, therefore, he will not — indeed he cannot — choose good over evil in the spiritual realm. Consequently, it takes much more than the Spirit’s assistance to bring a sinner to Christ — it takes regeneration by which the Spirit makes the sinner alive and gives him a new nature. Faith is not something man contributes to salvation but is itself a part of God’s gift of salvation— it is God’s gift to the sinner, not the sinner’s gift to God.



Arminianism:
Universal Redemption or General Atonement
Christ’s redeeming work made it possible for everyone to be saved but did not actually secure the salvation of anyone. Although Christ died for all men and for every man, only those who believe on Him are saved. His death enabled God to pardon sinners on the condition that they believe, but it did not actually put away anyone’s sins. Christ’s redemption becomes effective only if man chooses to accept it.

Calvinism:
Particular Redemption or Limited Atonement
Christ’s redeeming work was intended to save the elect only and actually secured salvation for them. His death was a substitutionary endurance of the penalty of sin in the place of certain specified sinners. In addition to putting away the sins of His people, Christ’s redemption secured everything necessary for their salvation, including faith which unites them to Him. The gift of faith is infallibly applied by the Spirit to all for whom Christ died, therefore guaranteeing their salvation



Arminianism:
The Holy Spirit Can Be Effectually Resisted
The Spirit calls inwardly all those who are called outwardly by the gospel invitation; He does all that He can to bring every sinner to salvation. But inasmuch as man is free, he can successfully resist the Spirit’s call. The Spirit cannot regenerate the sinner until he believes; faith (which is man’s contribution) precedes and makes possible the new birth. Thus, man’s free will limits the Spirit in the application of Christ’s saving work. The Holy Spirit can only draw to Christ those who allow Him to have His way with them. Until the sinner responds, the Spirit cannot give life. God’s grace, therefore, is not invincible; it can be, and often is, resisted and thwarted by man.

Calvinism:
The Efficacious Call of the Spirit or Irresistible Grace
In addition to the outward general call to salvation which is made to everyone who hears the gospel, the Holy Spirit extends to the elect a special inward call that inevitably brings them to salvation. The eternal call (which is made to all without distinction) can be, and often is, rejected; whereas the internal call (which is made only to the elect) cannot be rejected; it always results in conversion. By mean, of this special call the Spirit irresistibly draws sinners to Christ. He is not limited in His work of applying salvation by man’s will, nor is He dependent upon man’s cooperation for success. The Spirit graciously causes the elect sinner to cooperate, to believe, to repent, to come freely and willingly to Christ. God’, grace. therefore, is invincible; it never fails to result in the salvation of those to whom it is extended.



Arminianism:
Falling From Grace
Those who believe and are truly saved can lose their salvation by failing to keep up their faith. etc. All Arminian, have not been agreed on this point; some have held that believers are eternally secure in Christ — that once a sinner is regenerated. he can never be lost.

Calvinism:
Perseverance of the Saints
All who are chosen by God, redeemed by Christ, and given faith by the Spirit are eternally saved. They are kept in faith by the power of Almighty God and thus persevere to the end.



According to Arminianism
Salvation is accomplished through the combined efforts of God (who takes the initiative) and man (who must respond)—man’s response being the determining factor. God has provided salvation for everyone, but His provision becomes effective only for those who, of their own free will, “choose” to cooperate with Him and accept His offer of grace. At the crucial point, man’s will plays a decisive role; thus man, not God, determines who will be the recipients of the gift of salvation.

According to Calvinism
Salvation is accomplished by the almighty power of the Triune God. The Father chose a people, the Son died for them, the Holy Spirit makes Christ’s death effective by bringing the elect to faith and repentance, thereby causing them to willingly obey the gospel. The entire process (election, redemption, regeneration) is the work of God and is by grace alone. Thus God, not man, determines who will be the recipients of the gift of salvation.

I look forward to being educated on how both positions are wrong ...
... are they both wrong on every point?

One problem with both of them is that their focus is in the wrong place. Kind of like, they can't see the forest for the trees.

 

[Jim Parker]

Job was an upright man (Job 1:9-12) and Satan was sent to 'buffet' Job. What does that prove about salvation?

Absolutely nothing.
It wasn't about salvation.
It was about not putting God in a box.
It was about God using a righteous man to be an object lesson for everyone.
Stuff happens even when you don't deserve it (actually, quite often when you don't deserve it) and integrity is rewarded.

 

[Jim Parker]

So I BELIEVE in Calvinism and celebrate the diversity of all of God's children.

So how do you reconcile limited atonement and John's statement "My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world." (1Jo 2:1-2) and John the Baptist's statement,"Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! " ? (Jhn 1:29)

And then there's John's statement, "For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him." (Jhn 3:17) and "And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world."
(1Jo 4:14)

It doesn't seem like the beloved apostle John would be a fan of Calvin's notion of limited atonement.

iakov the fool

 

[atpollard]

So how do you reconcile limited atonement ...

Sorry, I have given up defending Calvinism for Lent, so any serious discussion will need to wait until after Easter.

Everyone who rejects UNIVERSALISM already believes that 'atonement' is limited in some manner, so this really becomes an issue of semantics:
Did Jesus pay for the sins of the saved and God punishes the unsaved for their sins?
or
Does God punish the same sin twice? (Jesus and the unsaved person)

More to the point, does our opinion matter?

 

[atpollard]

Jim Parker
Re: Calvinism and Atonement: (from the Heidelberg Catechism of 1563)

Q. Does God permit such disobedience and rebellion to go unpunished?
A. Certainly not. God is terribly angry with the sin we are born with as well as the sins we personally commit. As a just judge,
God will punish them both now and in eternity,1 having declared: “Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey
all the things written in the book of the law.”2

[1] Ex. 34:7; Ps. 5:4-6; Nah. 1:2; Rom. 1:18; Eph. 5:6; Heb. 9:27
[2] Gal. 3:10; Deut. 27:26

Q. But isn’t God also merciful?
A. God is certainly merciful,1 but also just.2 God’s justice demands that sin, committed against his supreme majesty, be punished with the supreme penalty— eternal punishment of body and soul.3

[1] Ex. 34:6-7; Ps. 103:8-9
[2] Ex. 34:7; Deut. 7:9-11; Ps. 5:4-6; Heb. 10:30-31
[3] Matt. 25:35-46

Q. Are all people then saved through Christ just as they were lost through Adam?
A. No. Only those are saved who through true faith are grafted into Christ and accept all his benefits.1

[1] Matt. 7:14; John 3:16, 18, 36; Rom. 11:16-21

This is what Calvinism teaches on the subject.