Calvinism vs Arminianism

[Drew]

Hello mondar:

I am still working on a rather detailed argument about John 6. I may post it in chunks but probably will not post anything until the whole thing is worked through.

Hello unred:

It seems like you take a different approach to John 6 than me, although I know we both do not think it teaches pre-destination of individuals, at least not generally. I admit that I have only skimmed your posts and hope to comment once I get the "overall" John 6 argument finished and posted.

 

[unred typo]

Drew,
I value your opinion and if we differ, it is generally on minor points. I know that your vision of God is similar to mine and if anything, you view him as an even kinder, gentler being than I do. Let me be persuaded to your view, rather than the Calvinist theology in which love and logic has a warped and sickened bent to evil. Or rather, let us both find the truth as it is or agree to disagree. I look forward to your presentation.
unred

 

[mondar]

Drew,
I was thinking about some of the things you have said concerning ability and responsibility. I think some of what you said is the natural way of looking at things. It does not seem reasonable that one would be given a responsibility that he does not have the ability to fulfull. However, this is where the issue of authority comes in. When exegesis demonstrates something different then reason, I am following my exegesis. Otherwise I would be picking and choosing what I believe on the basis of reason. Reason would be my ultimate authority.

So then, the question has been left unanswered from a Calvinistic perspective: On what basis does one have the responsibility to believe the gospel if the responsibility does not come from ability. I would suggest the responsibility comes from revelation. Again, I ask you to consider some of the exegetical features in Romans 1.

1:20 For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse:

I would ask you to consider why men are without excuse. Is it because all men have the ability to choose? Is it that all men have a revelation of God in nature? It is the 2nd of the two previous questions that has the correct answer. Do you see "responsibility" in the phrase "that they may be without excuse?" Why are men without excuse?

Gods general revelation is the foundation for individual responsibility. General revelation is one of the reasons men are without excuse. So then, I continue to contend that all men are responsible to receive the gospel, but men do not have the ability to respond without the ministry of God.

Sola fide,
Mondar

 

[mondar]

Do you have me on ignore, Mondar? That’s what AVBunyan and Solo used to do when they couldn’t answer my scriptural analysis.

Unred, when I saw you were totally blown away by either AVBunyan or Solo, I figured I will let them take care of light weights like you.

After answering this post, if I were to say that you are on ignore, would you believe me? :

Sola fide,
Mondar

 

[Drew]

Drew,
I was thinking about some of the things you have said concerning ability and responsibility. I think some of what you said is the natural way of looking at things. It does not seem reasonable that one would be given a responsibility that he does not have the ability to fulfull. However, this is where the issue of authority comes in. When exegesis demonstrates something different then reason, I am following my exegesis. Otherwise I would be picking and choosing what I believe on the basis of reason. Reason would be my ultimate authority.

Only had time to scan your post. I hope to respond in more detail later.

I still think that you are adopting a strategy that, when analysed, eats its own tail. In short, I submit that you are using the tools of "reason" in the act of exegesis (how else are you doing it?) but then turning on reason when reason argues strongly against the tenets of Calvinism. I know that what I am about to say goes against a Christian "mantra" but, reason has to be our ultimate authority in performing exegesis since, an analysis of what is going on shows that when we do exegesis, we necessarily "reason" about concepts, look for consistency, reject contradiction, etc.

Unless you are gifted with the clear voice of God in your head, you perform exegisis like the rest of us - by thinking and reasoning in the "garden variety" way. You analyse sentencese, words, and culture to infer meaning. But I still think that you want it both ways. You want to use such reasoning to demonstrate the truthfulness of Calvinism, but then to reject it when faced with some of the conceptual problems that arise, such as the problem of reconciling "responsibility" with "freedom".

To put things another way, I think that the following statement "eats its own tail":

But to place reason either to be equal, or superior to scripture is not sola scriptura.

I do not have the time to go into detail, but I suggest you are effectively drawing a non-existent distinction when you say this. I do understand, how it might be true on a superficial analysis - we can have statements like "That triangle over there has four sides" appear in the Scriptures. But I suggest that it can be shown that such statement contain precisely zero information. Such a sentence is "grammatically" legal statement but it means nothing.

In any event, I will respond to the John 6 issue, I just need time. Then, if you can find errors in it, please do so. It will probably be provided in the form of multiple posts.

 

[mondar]

Drew,
I was thinking about some of the things you have said concerning ability and responsibility. I think some of what you said is the natural way of looking at things. It does not seem reasonable that one would be given a responsibility that he does not have the ability to fulfull. However, this is where the issue of authority comes in. When exegesis demonstrates something different then reason, I am following my exegesis. Otherwise I would be picking and choosing what I believe on the basis of reason. Reason would be my ultimate authority.

Only had time to scan your post. I hope to respond in more detail later.

I still think that you are adopting a strategy that, when analysed, eats its own tail. In short, I submit that you are using the tools of "reason" in the act of exegesis (how else are you doing it?) but then turning on reason when reason argues strongly against the tenets of Calvinism. I know that what I am about to say goes against a Christian "mantra" but, reason has to be our ultimate authority in performing exegesis since, an analysis of what is going on shows that when we do exegesis, we necessarily "reason" about concepts, look for consistency, reject contradiction, etc.

Unless you are gifted with the clear voice of God in your head, you perform exegisis like the rest of us - by thinking and reasoning in the "garden variety" way. You analyse sentencese, words, and culture to infer meaning. But I still think that you want it both ways. You want to use such reasoning to demonstrate the truthfulness of Calvinism, but then to reject it when faced with some of the conceptual problems that arise, such as the problem of reconciling "responsibility" with "freedom".

To put things another way, I think that the following statement "eats its own tail":

But to place reason either to be equal, or superior to scripture is not sola scriptura.

I do not have the time to go into detail, but I suggest you are effectively drawing a non-existent distinction when you say this. I do understand, how it might be true on a superficial analysis - we can have statements like "That triangle over there has four sides" appear in the Scriptures. But I suggest that it can be shown that such statement contain precisely zero information. Such a sentence is "grammatically" legal statement but it means nothing.

In any event, I will respond to the John 6 issue, I just need time. Then, if you can find errors in it, please do so. It will probably be provided in the form of multiple posts.

I think our conversation on ability and responsibility is not going bear any more fruit. I can see the logic in saying they are not the same. However, I recognize that I arrived at this logical position because of exegesis. The main point is John 6:44 and the word "dunamia." Ability is only in the negative in that passage. I recognize the exception is that God draws some and this act of God generates ability.

On the other hand, if you worked where I work, you would see administrators that have lots of responsibility and no ability. Nevermind that point. It will just get me in trouble where I work. I think we should begin to focus on John 6:44. I await your comments on that passage.

 

[unred typo]

quote by Mondar:

Unred, when I saw you were totally blown away by either AVBunyan or Solo, I figured I will let them take care of light weights like you.

Sorry but they both have tucked tail and run. Or maybe I was not the one “blown away.†They now dominate a site where views such as mine are not allowed to expose their ostentatious fallacies. You would feel quite at home and safe from rebuke there. I think they share a common brain. Unfortunately, it is not the mind of Christ.

• Edit by staff - both comments are uncalled for... lets keep from posting personal attacks, especially when some parties are no longer here to defend themselves. WWJD

quote by Mondar:

After answering this post, if I were to say that you are on ignore, would you believe me?

I don’t know. I never believed them when they said it either, since it appeared the purpose of saying it was to afford them the advantage of only answering me when they had an aspiration of making themselves look better. Usually it worked more to my advantage since I had the luxury of not having my argument be refuted, not that they could. When you’re right about something, you don’t have to hide from the truth. :-D

 

[Vic C.]

Mondar... this is not just meant for you, but I think it not wise or proper for anyone to publicly announce someone is on their "ignore" list. Let them know privately. Thanks.

 

[mondar]

Vic, my apologies for the misunderstanding. It was a clumsy way of telling unred that he need not fear that he is on my ignore list. When unred said,

Do you have me on ignore, Mondar? That’s what AVBunyan and Solo used to do when they couldn’t answer my scriptural analysis.

I copied his post and replied.

Do you have me on ignore, Mondar? That’s what AVBunyan and Solo used to do when they couldn’t answer my scriptural analysis.

Unred, when I saw you were totally blown away by either AVBunyan or Solo, I figured I will let them take care of light weights like you.

After answering this post, if I were to say that you are on ignore, would you believe me? :

Sola fide,
Mondar

When I answered his post, I assumed that unred would observe that I had copied his post and replied to it. If he were on my ignore list, I would have been unable to copy his post. It was a weird way to tell him that he is indeed not on my ignore list. After copying his post so that he knew he is not on my ignore list, I rhetorically asked if he still thought he was on my ignore list. He obviously did not pick up on the humor, and I guess neither did you. I think it is a common mistake that I make to assume that people can hear the sarcasm in my typing and see the wry grin on my face. I apologize to you, unred, and all on the BB for this oversight.

Unred, let me state in plain language that you have not been, nor currently are on my ignore list. However, at this time my interest is in what Drew has to say. You are certainly welcome to babble on about whatever you wish. I have no desire to stop you in your endeavors.

 

[unred typo]

My apologies to the “absent parties.†I certainly can’t expect you to come back and defend yourselves. Please forgive what might appear to be an underhanded attempt to flush you out. :wink: (Just in case you’re lurking out there.)

quote by Mondar:
When I answered his post, I assumed that unred would observe that I had copied his post and replied to it. If he were on my ignore list, I would have been unable to copy his post. It was a weird way to tell him that he is indeed not on my ignore list. After copying his post so that he knew he is not on my ignore list, I rhetorically asked if he still thought he was on my ignore list. He obviously did not pick up on the humor, and I guess neither did you. I think it is a common mistake that I make to assume that people can hear the sarcasm in my typing and see the wry grin on my face. I apologize to you, unred, and all on the BB for this oversight.

Hei, no harm, no fowl. I did pick up on the humor of it. I realize now that you assume I’m the dumb cluck. I’m actually pretty quick to catch sarcasm and toss it back, which I did. It was really quite clever of you. And unexpected …but as long as I didn’t ruffle your feathers too badly, and you’re just so busy answering Drew, I won’t take it personal. :wink:

quote by Mondar:
Unred, let me state in plain language that you have not been, nor currently are on my ignore list. However, at this time my interest is in what Drew has to say. You are certainly welcome to babble on about whatever you wish. I have no desire to stop you in your endeavors.

Thank you, Mondar. That’s so decent of you. I love the word, Àœbabble.†Makes me think of a bubbling brook of living water.

 

[unred typo]

quote by Mondar:
I think our conversation on ability and responsibility is not going bear any more fruit. I can see the logic in saying they are not the same. However, I recognize that I arrived at this logical position because of exegesis. The main point is John 6:44 and the word "dunamia." Ability is only in the negative in that passage. I recognize the exception is that God draws some and this act of God generates ability.

Drew’s exegesis of this verse is just as valid as yours and fits more with the tenor of the rest of scripture. So does mine, whether you want to admit it or not.

quote by Mondar:
On the other hand, if you worked where I work, you would see administrators that have lots of responsibility and no ability. Nevermind that point. It will just get me in trouble where I work. I think we should begin to focus on John 6:44. I await your comments on that passage.

Again, you are using this analogy with the element of free choice built in to your example. It doesn’t show lack of culpability because the administrators willingly took the job they were not qualified for or their superiors are guilty of ineptitude because of their failure to evaluate their abilities when they hired them. In any case, I don’t think you would say they are guilty of incompetence worthy of punishment in eternal fires. At least you shouldn’t judge them so harshly. Judge not... WWJD :wink:

 

[mondar]

Drew,
Something else...
I have previously said that Calvinists believe that man has a choice. I also said that even though man chooses, God chooses first. We love him because he first loved us. While Calvinists affirm that man has choice, we do not agree that mans choice is free. This is not to be understood to mean that there are external constraints that shape the will of man so that he rebels. God does not direct a man to refuse to believe. Responsibility comes from the fact that man does indeed choose. Also, as Romans 1 suggests, mans responsibility comes from the fact that revelation in nature has come to all me. Man chooses sin and rebellion because man loves sin and rebellion. Non-Calvinism sees man as a little less sinful, and a little more of a blank slate. Non-Calvinism recognizes that man needs assistance with his redemption. Calvinism sees man as an evil creature, completely incapable of contributing to his own redemption in any way, and totally in need of redemption.

There is a deeper issue between Calvinism and non-Calvinism. An issue deeper then free will. The central issue is the nature of man as a rebel sinner. I think the key is the Calvinist teaching of "total depravity." Many non-Calvinist claim to believe in "total depravity." Yet, they turn right around and affirm doctrines that leave man not quite totally depraved.

It is very much as Romans 8:7-8 tell us that as unbelievers we are enemies of God. Notice in verse 8 how we cannot please God.
Rom 8:7 because the mind of the flesh is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be:
Rom 8:8 and they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

If unbelievers cannot please God, then how can they believe. Heb 11:6 tells us:
Heb 11:6 and without faith it is impossible to be well-pleasing unto him; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek after him.

If man cannot please God, and faith pleases God, where does this faith come from?

There is no man that seeks God.
Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, There is none that seeketh after God;

Why? We love our sin, and hate the creator. This happens until God changes something in the Christian. This change happens when the Father draws the unbeliever that by himself does not have the ability to come to Christ (John 6:44).

Man chooses freely within the bounds of his nature, and his nature is to be a rebel enemy of God.

 

[unred typo]

quote by Mondar on Fri Nov 02:
I have previously said that Calvinists believe that man has a choice. I also said that even though man chooses, God chooses first. We love him because he first loved us.

God so loved the world. Of course we know he loved us first. But he loves all of us, not a select few. He is not willing that any should perish but all come to repentance. You have to ignore and reinvent a lot of nice plain readable scriptures to extract your doctrines out of a few confusing passages. Why do you do that? You’re a Bible contortionist.

quote by Mondar:
While Calvinists affirm that man has choice, we do not agree that mans choice is free.

What kind of choice is a choice that is not free? How do you say these things without a smilie?

quote by Mondar:
This is not to be understood to mean that there are external constraints that shape the will of man so that he rebels. God does not direct a man to refuse to believe. Responsibility comes from the fact that man does indeed choose. Also, as Romans 1 suggests, mans responsibility comes from the fact that revelation in nature has come to all me. Man chooses sin and rebellion because man loves sin and rebellion.

Speak for yourself. I don’t choose sin and rebellion because I love sin and rebellion. I hate sin and rebellion. The Bible says a person sins when they are drawn away by their lusts.

quote by Mondar:
Non-Calvinism sees man as a little less sinful, and a little more of a blank slate. Non-Calvinism recognizes that man needs assistance with his redemption. Calvinism sees man as an evil creature, completely incapable of contributing to his own redemption in any way, and totally in need of redemption.

My own personal non-Calvinism recognizes that man cannot offer any sacrifice that will cover the sins he has committed or may commit in the future. Only the blood of Christ is sufficient to cover sin. God requires only that man repent of his sin and believe and follow in the way Jesus taught to inherit salvation unto life eternal. Normal non-Calvinists realize that this belief and confession and following Christ in no way can be construed as payment for sin and is not to be confused as indebting God to save us.

Calvinists believe that even if man lifts his little finger to do some work for God it would add to the payment made by Christ. Rubbish. Even if man gave his own body as a sacrifice for his sin, it wouldn’t be enough. His death may pay for a single sin, but what about the other sins he has committed? So non-Calvinists do not have to see man as an “evil creature†in order to understand he cannot save himself.

Most nominal, semi-Calvinists I know are non-evil folks who would love to be better people. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak, and their lazy shepherds keep telling them that it really doesn’t matter since God is going to save them as long as they truly believe he is going to save them. More rubbish. They will be saved by their works of following in what Jesus taught because that is what faith is and the Bible makes it clear we will be judged by our works, even you special Calvinist ones.

quote by Mondar:
There is a deeper issue between Calvinism and non-Calvinism. An issue deeper then free will. The central issue is the nature of man as a rebel sinner. I think the key is the Calvinist teaching of "total depravity." Many non-Calvinist claim to believe in "total depravity." Yet, they turn right around and affirm doctrines that leave man not quite totally depraved.

Some non-Calvinists realize that not all men are totally depraved, even if they are sinners in need of a savior.

quote by Mondar:
It is very much as Romans 8:7-8 tell us that as unbelievers we are enemies of God. Notice in verse 8 how we cannot please God.
Rom 8:7 because the mind of the flesh is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be:
Rom 8:8 and they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

Well, now we will see why that idea is messed up. You have taken the words, ‘mind of the flesh’ and ‘in the flesh’ and given them a Calvinist meaning not found in the text. When it says, mind of the flesh’ and ‘in the flesh’ it is referring to the self centered desires of the flesh and mind, and it is not the general expression for all mankind. What these verses say is that our bodies and fleshly minds are self-centered and we need to rise above this self-preservation mode and be like Christ and put to death the flesh.

The mind of the flesh is the physical brain that controls and regulates the fleshly human body that is only interested in the care and preservation of itself. It cannot be interested in love for God or God’s ways of sacrificial love for others, therefore it is enmity against God: “for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.†The human body is only concerned with eating when it is hungry, sleeping when it is tired, maintaining optimum body temperature, entertaining the mind and stroking the ego, and all things to make itself #1. That’s why they that are ‘in the flesh’ cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh if you are rejecting that reign of fleshly desires over your life.

quote by Mondar:
If unbelievers cannot please God, then how can they believe. Heb 11:6 tells us:
Heb 11:6 and without faith it is impossible to be well-pleasing unto him; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek after him.

Unbelievers can please God by taking thought about their creator, seeking God through the Bible and his creation, considering their sin and repenting. They please him by believing that he is, that means ‘that he exists’ and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. That means that he hasn’t told us to seek him in vain, but we will find him when we seek him with our whole heart. He will reward the ones who seek him with finding him. Most of the Bible exhorts unbelievers to believe and seek God. If a person CAN’T change, why tell them they CAN? Is God just lying to us? Is he pretending he loves all of us?

quote by Mondar:
If man cannot please God, and faith pleases God, where does this faith come from?

Faith comes by hearing the word of God. We have the word of God all around us and in us but we can turn a deaf ear. We must choose to listen. When we incline our hearts to him, we hear him. The word is near you, even in your heart as Deuteronomy 30:14 and Romans 10:8 tell us.

quote by Mondar:
There is no man that seeks God.
Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, There is none that seeketh after God;

Now you have taken a verse out of it’s context and given it a private interpretation. This shows a woeful lack of proper exegesis. As I have explained multiple times, as has Drew, and possibly others, this is Paul’s example of a time when both Jews and gentiles were apostate, and following evil and he is quoting about Old Testament times. There were unfortunately several times when all of Israel, the chosen people, were following the ways of the idolatrous nations around them and not their one true God. This verse is not saying that all people everywhere throughout history have been absolutely nothing but non-followers of God. We know that is not the case since many followers and seekers of God are listed in scripture. Try reading this chapter in context just once, would you?

quote by Mondar:
Why? We love our sin, and hate the creator. This happens until God changes something in the Christian. This change happens when the Father draws the unbeliever that by himself does not have the ability to come to Christ (John 6:44).

Again, I don’t think you can speak for all people throughout the world and throughout history. Calvinists may love their sin but most non-Calvinists I know of hate their sin and love their creator. I know you believe that total depravity is what the Bible teaches but you have ‘isogesised’ yourself into that corner. Jesus says, “Come unto me all you that labor and are heavy laden….†That would be you, me and everyone else who has ever been under the burden of sin. Jesus said if he were crucified, he would draw all men unto himself. It is his desire that all men everywhere come to a saving knowledge of the truth. If it were just a matter of zapping us all to believe, he would do it. It’s not.

quote by Mondar:
Man chooses freely within the bounds of his nature, and his nature is to be a rebel enemy of God.

The nature of our fleshly bodies is under the law of survival of the fittest, ‘me’ first, and ‘it’s all about me,’ but the Bible says we are free to repent and choose to follow Christ and put to death the desires of the flesh. I don’t know what bible you’re reading.

BTW, please don’t reply to this. It’s perfect just the way it is. :-D

 

[guibox]

My own personal non-Calvinism recognizes that man cannot offer any sacrifice that will cover the sins he has committed or may commit in the future. Only the blood of Christ is sufficient to cover sin. God requires only that man repent of his sin and believe and follow in the way Jesus taught to inherit salvation unto life eternal.

What you are saying, however, is that it is not the blood of Christ that gives us eternal life. You seem to make a difference from what Christ did to save us, and what we need to do to save us. Your problem is that you are making salvation a combination of Christ's work on our behalf, and the work we must do.

They will be saved by their works of following in what Jesus taught because that is what faith is and the Bible makes it clear we will be judged by our works, even you special Calvinist ones.

Make up your mind, unred. Either we are saved by grace through faith or by works. You seem to be taking the Catholic view of salvation rather than the typical Protestant view. Being judged by our works is not being saved by our works. Being saved doesn't give us a licence to sin, but neither do our works count for righteousness. If you are saying that obedience is what saves us, then come out and say it. However, when Paul says 'it is not of works lest any man should boast' means that even as a Christian, if my works count for my salvation, then I can indeed boast. If Christ's sacrifice wasn't enough, then salvation is not complete and I cannot be saved UNLESS I add my works to it. This is a contradiction to Ephesians 2:8-10.

Again, I'm seeing this interpretation from you: Christ's sacrifice was needed for salvation and this is not of man so we cannot boast. Without this sacrifice, man would have no HOPE of being saved. Once this occurs, however, to keep being saved, man must be good and obey."

This is salvation by faith and works. Not salvation by grace through faith alone as is believed by the Protestant church.

 

[unred typo]

quote by guibox:
unred typo wrote: My own personal non-Calvinism recognizes that man cannot offer any sacrifice that will cover the sins he has committed or may commit in the future. Only the blood of Christ is sufficient to cover sin. God requires only that man repent of his sin and believe and follow in the way Jesus taught to inherit salvation unto life eternal.


What you are saying, however, is that it is not the blood of Christ that gives us eternal life. You seem to make a difference from what Christ did to save us, and what we need to do to save us. Your problem is that you are making salvation a combination of Christ's work on our behalf, and the work we must do.

It’s not my problem. It’s what the Bible teaches. That makes it a problem for Calvinists and anyone who has taken any or all of their unbiblical doctrines as truth. I can clarify all of the verses that you can dig up that say ‘not of works’ and explain how they do not mean what Calvin taught, if you are willing to listen.

quote by guibox:
unred typo wrote: They will be saved by their works of following in what Jesus taught because that is what faith is and the Bible makes it clear we will be judged by our works, even you special Calvinist ones.


Make up your mind, unred. Either we are saved by grace through faith or by works. You seem to be taking the Catholic view of salvation rather than the typical Protestant view. Being judged by our works is not being saved by our works. Being saved doesn't give us a licence to sin, but neither do our works count for righteousness. If you are saying that obedience is what saves us, then come out and say it. However, when Paul says 'it is not of works lest any man should boast' means that even as a Christian, if my works count for my salvation, then I can indeed boast. If Christ's sacrifice wasn't enough, then salvation is not complete and I cannot be saved UNLESS I add my works to it. This is a contradiction to Ephesians 2:8-10.

It’s not either/or, guibox. I don’t care whose view it seems to be. It’s the biblical view that Jesus, Paul and the disciples taught. Our works DO count for righteousness. Ask righteous Abel, righteous Lot, righteous Abraham, righteous Noah, and the list goes on. Read Matthew 25:31-46. Notice what they are judged by:

Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we you an hungry, and fed you? or thirsty, and gave you drink?

Notice what the reward is:
Matthew 25:46
And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

quote by guibox:
If you are saying that obedience is what saves us, then come out and say it. However, when Paul says 'it is not of works lest any man should boast' means that even as a Christian, if my works count for my salvation, then I can indeed boast. If Christ's sacrifice wasn't enough, then salvation is not complete and I cannot be saved UNLESS I add my works to it. This is a contradiction to Ephesians 2:8-10.

I have come out and said it. No one seems to realize that it’s not a contradiction. You say, “if my works count for my salvation, then I can indeed boastâ€Â. No, you can’t. Are you crazy? You think that you can work for 100 years and do all kinds of good deeds, even giving your body to be burned, and it would be worth the glory and splendor of heaven or the reward of living for billions of years in paradise?

Do you think that ‘no boasting about your works’ is the same as ‘no working’? If you lived in church and spent 24 hours a day praising God, it would not be less than he deserved, and it would not be anything that he could not get from a pond full of frogs if he just spoke the word. What work can you do for God that he can’t get done himself? So you see, your works are NOT why God saves you. He saves you because he loves you and he wants something that you can give him, that he can’t ‘make’ happen… your free will obedience and genuine love.

quote by guibox:
Again, I'm seeing this interpretation from you: Christ's sacrifice was needed for salvation and this is not of man so we cannot boast. Without this sacrifice, man would have no HOPE of being saved. Once this occurs, however, to keep being saved, man must be good and obey."

This is salvation by faith and works. Not salvation by grace through faith alone as is believed by the Protestant church.

You were doing ok and then you said, “Once this occurs, however, to keep being saved, man must be good and obey." This HAS occurred. 2000+ years ago! Jesus paid for our sins. Now we are to repent of those sins, follow him and walk in the way he taught if we are going to be saved by that sacrifice.

You have this backwards: you say, “If Christ's sacrifice wasn't enough, then salvation is not complete and I cannot be saved UNLESS I add my works to it.†Actually Christ’s sacrifice was complete and sufficient for all the sins of all the world, but what is not enough is OUR works and OUR righteousness. We cannot be saved UNLESS Christ adds his sacrifice to our works. So I can say that we are not saved by our works, yet our works are what we will be judged by for our salvation.

We would not even have to be making these silly distinctions if it were not to combat the warped theology of John Calvin and other ‘reformed thinkers,’ who have spoiled whatever good was in the Protestant church through philosophy and vain deceit. There is no special elite group of pre-selected individuals chosen to be saved while the rest are left to be tortured forever in hell.

 

[mondar]

I nominate unred board english teacher.

Yeeeaaahhhhh, unred.

 

[unred typo]

Why, thanku, thanku vary much… if elected, I will not run… 8-)

 

[GraceBwithU]

Wow. It has been awhile since I have posted here. Things look different!

Lately on another website I have been constantly exposed to Calvinist arguments. I don't adhere to it but I can see the support for in the scriptures for it (John 6:37-40 for one example)

I would like to know how the Arminianist gets around the meaning of John 6 as well as the idea that man cannot seek out and choose God until he is made spiritually alive (regeneration). Obviously this would not mean everyone as then everyone would be saved.

Any ideas Arminianists?

Hi all,
I've been busy lately and haven't been here for a while so I'll start by commiting on the openning post.

I'm neither and Arminianist or a Calvinist. I believe the scriptures not some well thought out acronym. I think I read somewhere a while ago that the Arminianist have one of their own. :D

John chapter 6 is easy to understand if you just follow sound hermeneutics. In this case I'll just mention a few.

• Who is speaking?
  To whom is He speaking?
  What is the knowledge of those being spoken to?
  When is it being spoken?
  Where is it being spoken?

And so here are some things to think about first:

• Jesus has just appeared on the scene.
  He has chosen His disciples which are “special purpose electâ€Â. (were predestined for sure)
  He is teaching the gospel to people that have been taught Judaism all of their lives.
  The Holy Ghost has not yet arrived on the scene.
  No one can yet believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus because it hasn’t happened. It is still in the future. Even His disciples didn’t understand some of what He taught them until after His resurrection.
  Jesus does not have a lot of time, His ministry is short.
  When someone believes from here to His death they believe that God sent Him and that Jesus is telling them the gospel. They have no knowledge of what is to happen in the near future.

Jn 6:44
44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day

Jesus is speaking to people the Father is having to drag.

Jn 12:32
32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

Above you see the word draw being used in the only two places that is used in the N.T. KJV that refers to salvation. The second time it is used it is referring to after His resurrection and it refers to all men.

In John 17:1-23 Jesus uses the words given and gavest often. Here he is praying to the Father about the few that are left, ( mainly his disciples). They are the focus of the prayer. Them and what they were going to have to do after He was in heaven.

More later.

 

[guibox]

unred, I am not a Calvinist just in case you are wondering.

However, I still see a contradiction in your posts. You seem to claim that salvation is by faith and works in one breath, but then say that Christ did everything for our salvation already. Either we contribute to salvation by our works or Christ did it. You cannot have it both ways.

Works are fruits of the Spirit, acts done out of love that show where our faith lies and whether it is genuine. However, doing works doesn't make us saved..it SHOWS that we are saved.

I see you getting this confused, IMO. Such thinking as you are doing puts us on the same track as the Pharisees and the Catholic Church. Do these good works, works, works, rituals, sacrifices etc, etc..or the grace of God will no longer apply to you.

I see this as a false doctrine that puts man merely on a constant course of striving for unreached perfection to be good enough to save.

 

[Orion]

Here's my problem with Calvinism. Even though I REALLY DO want to be in God's family, I don't feel a drawing. If Calvinism is true, I may not be one of the elect of God, and no matter how hard I try, or no matter how much I want to be right in God's eyes, I'm just not one of the chosen few and I will be sent to hell because of that. How can a person come to God unless he/she is drawn BY God? . . . . . . . . . I don't feel God's call. . . . I know about it through what is written in the bible. But that's not enough, apparently. I may be in trouble. . . .IF Calvinism is true.