more indept study of Armenian and Calvinist

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, angels4u said:

You said:

"Well, angels I have a little different view though. And I really do not know if it has any bearing on this conversation."

please share~~

Salvation can come in different forms?

Is Jesus not the only way to heaven?

John warned about the coming wrath so that people could turn from their sin and accept Jesus so they would be free from Gods wrath which is to come, Jesus suffered for you and me and paid that high price.

You said:

Gentiles however needed the Gospel to be saved, because we had not been called yet to our inheritance.

Galatians 4:4-7But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!" 

I'm not really seeing where you believe is different?

What I am saying is,  salvation from God's coming wrath may not have been made available to some. As the prophecy says.

It is like when Moses took the people through the sea. He says "'see the salvation of the Lord". This did not concern eternal salvation.

So Israel still believing in their inheritance as promised in Abraham have faith, but just not according to knowledge. But only those in Christ escaped the wrath of God as foretold in the law.

The eternal inheritance is the Gospel in Christ. They have faith in the Shadow of these things having their eyes closed...............

So those Israelies that truly believe still believe their form of the Gospel. But it is weak? But faith none the less

So, I don't know if there can be a parallel there to eternal salvation when it comes to some of those passages?

[angels4u]

3 minutes ago, Joline said:

What I am saying is,  salvation from God's coming wrath may not have been made available to some. As the prophecy says.

It is like when Moses took the people through the sea. He says "'see the salvation of the Lord". This did not concern eternal salvation.

So Israel still believing in their inheritance as promised in Abraham have faith, but just not according to knowledge. But only those in Christ escaped the wrath of God as foretold in the law.

The eternal inheritance is the Gospel in Christ. They have faith in the Shadow of these things having their eyes closed...............

1

 

Salvation has come to all men but not all men understand and want to understand~~

 

 

[Guest]

Just now, angels4u said:

 

Salvation has come to all men but not all men understand and want to understand~~

 

 

So how do read the passages concerning Israel? I read it (perhaps wrongly) that if their eyes and ears had been opened they would have been healed?

As for needing Jesus for heaven Yes...Certainly. But that is concerning timing.

But how do you read that passage concerning their eyes and ears not being opened?

[Omegaman 3.0]

Sorry, but I have locked the thread, this is only temporary.

It started out really well, but as is typical with topics of a controversial nature,  it took a turn toward a series of posts that evolved into a minor squabble.

I have just locked the thread, to give me an opportunity, to clean it up a bit, before letting it resume to a edifying conversation.

If you are reading this, and were enjoying the thread or finding it helpful, don't worry, it will be active again in a short while.

Please thought, think about keeping on topic, and taking the high road in your replies. 

Thank you.

[Omegaman 3.0]

17 hours ago, St_Worm2 said:

Hey everyone, Angels4u started this thread as a "discussion" about what it means to be both a Calvinist and an Arminian. And up until the last little bit, that's exactly what it was, a discussion  

Perhaps we could stop the personal attacks, etc., and treat each other with kindness and respect once again .. and save the debate and attacks for a different thread than this one? I, for one at least, was really enjoying reading this thread (and I was looking forward to posting some additional questions and thoughts here as well ). 

I'm not a mod (of course), but I would love to have at least one Calvinism/Arminianism thread where everyone treats each other well (even when our POV's differ greatly) so we can all learn something, and especially when discussion rather than debate seems to be the intent of the opening post. I believe it will be a far better thread if we do so, and I also believe that we will have more people joining in  

Thanks!

--David  

David, I agree with you, and share you desire to have one, decent discussion thread on this topic without ugliness and petty brawlings, I am working to restore this thread, and will try to keep an eye out on it's going south again. For those who are tempted ti derail it or get personal, I plan an just deleting you posts, so I recommend that you do not waste your time or mine.
 

For those who want to be good citizens in this thread, feel free to use the "report post" button so someone can see it it is out of line and come and deal with it. By this is mean, if a person is making personal attacks, of taking the topic in some other direction, but don't report a post simply becauase you do not like it.

The topic is Armenianism and Calvinism. The post should be about one of both of those things, and Bible verse that support or contradict (at least seemingly) one of those positions. Commentary one why a verse is understood, one way or another, is of course fine.

[Omegaman 3.0]

On 5/21/2016 at 7:18 AM, angels4u said:

Do Calvinist believe God can revoke the Salvation and therefore they might live in fear?

Oh dear......  That's so wrong

In the Netherlands I have known may Calvinists as there are many and I always found them more or less legalistic , they went by so many rules, I remember so many things some of my friends were not allowed to do on Sunday, like swimming or buying french fries or something tons of stuff...

I remember when my parents were visiting my grandparents I was not allowed to bring my knitting, that was wrong to do that on the Sunday.

I even had an uncle who thought it wrong to drive on Sunday

No, Calvinists do not believe God revokes salvation. Of course, that does not mean that there are not those who call themselves Calvinists, who believe that salvation can be lost. However, that is not a teaching of Calvinism. However, there are some Calvinists (I would fall into this camp) who believe, that it is not always a good idea, to assume you are saved, don't get too cocky. Work out your salvation with fear and trembling! If a person claims to be a Christian, but lives a life that does not reflect those values, they have reason to question whether they have truly been saved or not.

Arminians, however, do not hold to the security of the believer, the perseverance of the saints, once saved always saved, or however you want to say that. So, to an Arminian, salvation can be lost. However, an Arminian would agree that a beleiver cannot be plucked out of God's hand, but, that a person, as an act of their own free will, can choose to walk away, return to sin and unbelief, and thereby forfeit salvation.

There was a famous theologian, I forget the details, but he was spotted in an elevator, by a person who recognized him, and posed this question:

Dr. So-and-so, regarding salvation, are you a Calvinist or an Arminian?

The doctor replied: Young man, I am a Calvinst . . . who sweats!

Regarding legalism. Legalism is not a matter of being a Calvinist or an Arminian, that is more about being a legalist. Legalists exist everywhere. Some people are true legalists. Those people beleive that your salvation, your status as a Christian, is determined by how you behave. They see your destiny being dependant on whether you measure up to some standard.

There are also, people like myself, who believe that if you are truly saved, if you have that saving faith that God has given you, if you have been regenerated (born again) then along with that, your life will reflect a growth in holiness (sanctification) that will show in your life. You won't be perfect, but your life will change, and habitual sin, will not be your situation, you will grow in your ability to resist temptation, and to please God, you will no longer be sin's slave.

Some people, who are around those who are growing in holiness, might observe the higher standards such people hopefully display. Sometimes those who are not doing so well, will call the other ones "legalists", when the true fact is, that they are just trying to pursue God's will in their lives.

[Omegaman 3.0]

Someone once said, in this thread actually (before I deleted it as part of a series of posts that had no place here:

"Truth is not determined by a majority vote.  Many other theologians did not agree with him and still don't. Calvin was not a trained theologian. He was a Lawyer. He wrote the Institutes while a lawyer.

If a man came to a church as a candidate for pastor and it was discovered that he had only been a Christian for three years do you think a church would accept him as a pastor?  None of them are theologians or ministers, either, but they have enough sense to know that this guy simply doesn't have the skill or maturity spiritually to be the pastor.

Calvin's credentials speak to both his skill and maturity, and both were lacking when he wrote the Institutes. The fact that one cannot find the 5 points of Calvinism, which is the heart of his theological system, anywhere in the Bible, is also telling. "

I thought that (in spite of the fact that I deleted it) there were good points there, worth considering, and deserving of an reply.

Truth is not determined by majority, absolutely true, but that does not mean that their cannot be wisdom in a multitude of counselors. Training? The Pharisees had lots of training, they were well studied. Training and study does not make one right either. Paul, received some of that bad training. When He wrote much of the New Testament, he was not a professional theologian, he was a tent make. If a tent maker can write good stuff, maybe a lawyer can also. Of course, Paul went off into Arabia and learned for three years, not being taught by men, some might consider that a lack of training also, lol.

"One cannot find the 5 points of Calvinism in the Bible!" Really? I did! that is why I changed my view to the 5 points! Maybe some people should look again freshly. 

If a church were to reject a person as pastor, because they had only been a Christian 3 years, then if the apostle Paul applied for the job, they would reject him also.

Now it is true, that Paul was chosen to be an Apostle, but others were chosen too, tax collectors, fishermen. What was Moses or Abraham? Does God raise people up because of their credentials? I don't think so. God raises up people in spite of their past, because of what He can do with them. It is not impossible, that Calvin was raised up, at the proper place and time, to assist in the reformation.

I do not think Calvin's writings are inspired, but I do not discount the possibility, that God can open people's eyes to truth, and they can write what they have come to see. That may not be inspiration like the scriptures are inspired, not trusted like the scriptures are to be trusted, but . . . 

They can contain truth that is every bit as true as the scriptures, we just need to measure such writings by the canon of scripture, and determine their value. In such cases, some will see it, others will will not, just like other truths.

Now, the thread has been cleansed of the bashing, can we leave the attacks on Calvin and Arminius and each other aside, and return to discussing doctrine and Bible? 

I hope so, and I thank you in advance, for your cooperation. The thread is unlocked, let the kindness begin!

[Ezra]

Every Christian must decide sooner or later whether either Calvinism or Arminianism is true or false, and that must be in the light Scripture interpreted correctly.  Calvinists call their beliefs "The Doctrines of Grace" but in fact they should be called "The Doctrines of Sovereignty", since the primary emphasis is the sovereignty of God. But the grace of God is succinctly expressed in John 3:16, which itself overturns TULIP:

For God so loved = the focus is the love, mercy, and grace of God, not the sovereignty of God.

The world = the world of humanity = every human being, not just the so-called elect. [DENIED BY TULIP]

That He gave = salvation if entirely from God, and of God, not of works or merit or anything manmade

His only begotten Son = salvation is the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, not sacraments or anything else

That whosoever = anyone and everyone without exception, not just the so-called elect [DENIED BY TULIP]

Believeth in Him = salvation is by grace through faith alone

Should not perish = none should go to Hell (the Lake of Fire)

But have everlasting life = eternal life is God's gift to the sinner who repents and believes, not just to the so-called elect.

[Omegaman 3.0]

47 minutes ago, Ezra said:

Every Christian must decide sooner or later whether either Calvinism or Arminianism is true or false, and that must be in the light Scripture interpreted correctly.  Calvinists call their beliefs "The Doctrines of Grace" but in fact they should be called "The Doctrines of Sovereignty", since the primary emphasis is the sovereignty of God.

You are correct Ezra, Calvinists do often refer to their belief system, and The Doctrines of Grace. I also agree, that Doctrines of Sovereignty, would be appropriate. It is nice to see, that even though you do not accept Calvinism, at least you have a decent grasp of what it entails. I have appreciated your posts in the thread.

Without being comfortable with God sovereignty, as expressed by Paul:

 10 And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; 11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, 12 it was said to her, “THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER.” 13 Just as it is written, “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.”

      14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! 15 For He says to Moses, “I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION.” 16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH.” 18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.

      19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” 20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? 21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? 22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.

I do not know why some do not see what I see there (or why for over 30 years, I could not see it), that Paul is making a very clear case that if God wants to select some for salvation, and others to destruction, then it is His divine prerogative to do so, and that we, the clay, are not in the position to question His decision.

Some people, cannot handle the idea that God is not merciful, all the time, to all people. They ignore His justice, they ignore his wrath and His vengeance. They have the idea, that because it is wrong for us to be vengeful, wrathful, lacking it mercy, that these standards need to be applied to God. I am sorry to break it to people, but God can squash people like  bugs, if He wants to, and not have to provide a reason for it to us, and be perfectly holy and righteous while doing so.

This is why Hell (or whatever you choose to call eternal torment in an afterlife) is real. However, reality is difficult for some among us, so we find ways to reinterpret scripture, to invent universal salvation, or annihilation instead of suffering. Fortunately, most Christians have come to grips with Hell. Some however, while they can fathom a God, who would send a person to Hell for eternity for a moment of sin, they cannot accept the idea that God would choose some people to avoid it, even though everyone deserves it. I do not get it, but this is a large part of the division on this issue. 

So yes, sovereignty is very important to Calvinism, it is one thing that helps us accept it. We (like Jesus) are willing to say, "Never the less God, your will, not ours, be done." If you cannot embrace a sovereign God, then you will also not embrace Calvinism.

All of that being said, I do not think the "Doctrines of Grace" is a misnomer. When Calvinists look through their Calvinistic lenses at Salvation, we see grace, we really see grace. Arminians tend to think things like: "God looked through time, and saw that I would accept his offer of Salvation, so He offered it to me, and I accepted it, and then He saved me." That means that I had a part in my salvation, because I chose to accept his offer.

The Calvinist, on the other hand, knows he has absolutely nothing to offer God, it is by God's grace alone, that we are saved. Not grace plus works. Yes, accepting Jesus is a work, if it is something that we do. It is not a work, it it is God in us, that does that.

The only thing that a person can contribute to his own salvation, is the sin that makes it necessary in the first place. That is why we call it "grace"!

[hmbld]

4 minutes ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

This is why Hell (or whatever you choose to call eternal torment in an afterlife) is real. However, reality is difficult for some among us, so we find ways to reinterpret scripture, to invent universal salvation, or annihilation instead of suffering. Fortunately, most Christians have come to grips with Hell. Some however, while they can fathom a God, who would send a person to Hell for eternity for a moment of sin, they cannot accept the idea that God would choose some people to avoid it, even though everyone deserves it. I do not get it, but this is a large part of the division on this issue. 

So yes, sovereignty is very important to Calvinism, it is one thing that helps us accept it. We (like Jesus) are willing to say, "Never the less God, your will, not ours, be done." If you cannot embrace a sovereign God, then you will also not embrace Calvinism.

All of that being said, I do not think the "Doctrines of Grace" is a misnomer. When Calvinists look through their Calvinistic lenses at Salvation, we see grace, we really see grace. Arminians tend to think things like: "God looked through time, and saw that I would accept his offer of Salvation, so He offered it to me, and I accepted it, and then He saved me." That means that I had a part in my salvation, because I chose to accept his offer.

 

Yes, we all deserve Hell, though I am having trouble accepting the idea that God chooses to send people to Hell.  My understanding is hell was created due to God's Holiness, sin must be dealt with.  Not choosing to send, as you say, but has to do with His very character.  

Why do you say some can't accept God's sovereignty if they believe He gives us a choice to choose?  

If no one can really choose, as that would mean we have a part in salvation(which is only a response, not a controlling factor), if we are truly picked and rejected by God, than why evangelize?  They are already chosen, no need?