Calvinism vs. Arminianism- Are we missing the boat?

[Buddy D. Mouse]

Rocket science.

 

[Buddy D. Mouse]

I am intrigued by the idea of a collaboration between Arms and Cals.

That indeed might involve brain surgery and rocket science.

 

 

[Buddy D. Mouse]

There was a Methodist/Catholic collaboration many moons ago on another board, ran for 7 or 8 pages of threads.  We decided to discuss the Gospel of Mark. Made it over halfway through, my computer crashed, the Catholic got real busy - but it was good stuff.

But a collaboration between Arminians and Calvinists - might be impossible - maybe not...

 

 

Edited August 6, 2020 by Buddy D. Mouse
Add

[Tristen]

6 hours ago, Josheb said:

Then that can and should be done without negative comments about Calvinism and Arminianism and their adherents.

NOTHING happens without motive. Luke 6:45. There's a reason these things happen; they are not benign. There's a reason believers take digs at others and it's not a good one. ...

I've read through the OP a few times now - and I sincerely don't see the intense insult "about Calvinism and Arminianism and their adherents" that you appear to see. So I'm struggling to understand why you had such a strong emotive reaction. To me, your response comes across as overly, unnecessarily aggressive - especially in light of 2 Timothy 2:24-26.

[Alive]

7 hours ago, Josheb said:

Do you know what the Bible calls those who unnecessarily and unjustly accuse and/or divide the body of Christ? 

Yes--this is particularly important to me. Here are a few verses.

Rom. 16:17   Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them.

1Cor. 1:10   Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

1Cor. 3:3 for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men?

1Cor. 11:18 For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it.

Jude 19 These are sensual persons, who cause divisions, not having the Spirit.

This stuff is vital! I have started a couple threads on Unity and Factions and such.

Its unfortunate, but it is this that we should all be watchful of in our own hearts. It is far too easy to, having some particular POV, doctrine or  belief in a calling by God (for the sake the brethren), to be seduced into thinking that we are somehow more special than our brothers and that when 'they' don't either see or do as we might suggest--that they are somehow deficient. I call it a spirit of 'speciality'. That 'I' am more special than others.

This can be and often is subtle. This is not to say that there are differences of POV and doctrine. That is inevitable. Take care of the other, because it cannot issue from the Spirit. I am sorry, to have injected this into the OP--but I think it may be profitable.

None of us have the 'authority' that the Apostles had when the Lord used them to build and to tear down. What we all do have in common--is a New Creation, the indwelling Lord and Spirit and the scriptural record. We all passed through the same Cross and we all have the same Shepherd of our souls.

When we finally stand before Him our commonality will be based on the Blood of Christ, Grace in which we stand and the reality that it was the Father that drew us and placed us 'into' Christ. When these things are solidly planted and freshened in our minds, then our POV and resulting 'lives' will reflect it.

[David1701]

On 8/1/2020 at 3:31 PM, Gideon said:

The whole topic of Calvinism vs. Armenianism is, I believe, ultimately a smokescreen from the enemy.

If you mean that the debate could be a distraction from our personal relationship with the Lord, then I agree (although it is by no means necessarily the case); however (in connection with the point immediately below), the Calvinism vs Arminianism debate is not about whether or not one is saved.

Quote

We are, by the authority of God's Word, to give all diligence to make our calling and election sure. We must beware grabbing hold of a doctrine to convince us of our salvation. Our assurance is meant to come from God Himself. Is that not wonderful? 

The assumption behind your "We must beware..." sentence, is that Cals. and/or Arms. grab hold of a doctrine to convince themselves of their salvation.  I have never come across Cals. or Arms. who do that.  Both groups believe that our assurance comes from God himself.

Quote

Our calling is not a call to get our doctrine right on who is saved and who is not. The point of this is ultimately a call to each individual believer to make sure THEY are saved, by God's hand unmistakenly  seen in their lives, as He assures us Himself that we are His sons or daughters.

The Cal. vs Arm. debate is not about who is saved and who is not.  It is about how the various elements of salvation work and fit together.

Quote

There is total security to the believer, but belief was never meant to be a one time thing. It was meant to be a living lifeline to God through our abiding in Jesus

Genuine faith in the Lord IS a living lifeline to God.  God gives a person the gift of faith and saves him through it.  The gifts and calling of God are irrevocable.  If you have been born again, then you will bear fruit and will not revert to a life of sin.

Phil. 1:29 (KJV) For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;

Rom. 11:29 (ESV) For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable

1 John 3:9 (ESV) No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God.

Edited August 6, 2020 by David1701

[Alive]

So here is the thing. Worthy is a kind of congregation--make no mistake about that. More complicated in makeup, but nevertheless it is brothers gathered together.

When one among us stands up and declares that he has a message from God for us, and such is the case with the OP. He has been very specific about that since coming to the congregation. Such a one must expect to be scrutinized and even challenged by the members. This is scripturally mandated.

There is a difference is discussing doctrine, end time stuff and delivering a message from God.

Keep this in mind, saints.

[Don19]

The issue is, I feel like this statement in 2 Peter is misinterpreted by both sides. Before Peter says anything of making our calling and election sure, he says:

2 Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,

3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:

4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

5 And beside this [...]
 

Peter links the promises we’ve been given with the all things that pertain to life and godliness, as well as to our escape from the corruption that is in the world through lust... as well as our participation in the divine nature. 

The kingdom of God is not in word (only) but in power. 1 Cor 4:20, 1 Thess 1:4-5. This has to do with the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives. 
 

Therefore, I don’t see Peter saying anything even coming close to working out an assurance by lifelong obedience. Let's face it: that's how some folks would use this passage. This sort of thing is common in Puritanism. 2 Cor 13:5 is likewise totally misused for this purpose (read this: https://www.wordofhisgrace.org/wp/2_corinthians_13_5-examine-ourselves-or-not-1/), which leads me to believe this is just one of those hard sayings God has placed in His word that, according to His own sovereign counsel and purposes, should lead to false doctrine. 
 

It is possible to "fall from grace" as it were and lose assurance, as the Galatians did, having nevertheless received the Spirit (Gal 3:2, 3:5, 3:14). That doesn’t mean loss of salvation, which is impossible to lose, but loss of correct doctrine and benefit of the knowledge of God in this life. 
 

And so this more limited application of Peter’s statement is what I favor. Indeed, Peter says, "But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins."

Hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. The point is to keep these things in remembrance (as he goes on to say), to keep in mind that you were purged from your old sins. Not to establish that you were, in fact, purged from your old sins. Because he says, "we have also a more sure word of prophecy" - more sure than what? More sure than a voice from heaven! We have it. The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy (see Rev 19:10). He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself (see 1 John 5:10). That is, the Spirit that bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God (see Rom 8:16).

[Alive]

4 hours ago, Josheb said:

And, dear brother, you are more special than others , just not more special than me .

Thank you for the chuckle, brother. Thank you.

:-)

[Alive]

15 minutes ago, Josheb said:

Perhaps but the op is not about either pov. The op is explicitly seeking to step outside the old, established dichotomy. Commendable. The discussion shouldn't, imo, seek to force the dichotomy back onto the conversation of diligence, our participation in the surety of our salvation, calling, election, etc. 

I completely agree with the op's comments about the sureness of our salvation, even though I suspect I come to the exact same conclusion by different means. My pears on the other end could say the exact same thing and right there in the large middle is our place of fellowship discussing this op's commentary thereof. I do have confidence in the surety of my calling and election and there is a certain reciprocity by which I am diligent because of the surety and my surety is sure because of my diligence. These are not mutually exclusive conditions and I would argue thinking otherwise is a false dichotomy. Fairly sure I can make that case with piles of scripture. 

This is one of the reasons I noted the verses quoted, cited, and/or otherwise alluded to in the op are mostly by the regenerate to the regenerate about the regenerate and have vastly different meaning or outcome in any attempt to apply them to non-believing unregenerates. In the vernacular of my end of things the distinction between conversion from death to life and what happens once brought to life is important and significant because we the redeemed regenerate believers in the resurrected Christ indwelt by the Separate Spirit are different. We're supposed to act that way and if God has anything to say about it (and of course he does have something to say about it) then we do and will act differently. That is what the calling and election entails. We can talk about matters of degrees but not an absence of because that would necessarily make God a fruitless Fruit-Bearer Whose payment proved worthless. 

So when someone comes around and suggests the boat is being missed I've got to ask, "What in the realm of the dead are you talking about without?" any intended euphemism. It does not matter from which end of the soteriological spectrum one comes because what we're talking about is post-conversion! We have life! The word means something and that meaning is not about biology. 

 

So, Don, if you're going to indict both Cals and Arms put on your seatbelt and don't complain when you get put on the defensive as piles of Cals and Arms come to bear down on your claim. I'd suggest you not hijack the op to make it about the veracity of Cals and Arms when Gideon has - despite the opening statement - so clearly tried to make diligence, surety, examination, etc. about something else or something more than the age old dichotomy. It's worth noting this op was not posted in the soteriology board. And let's face it, Gideon's modus operandi is often a subtle and veiled effort to impose and discuss eschatology, not soteriology. Few here are blind to that effect.

This is an excellent post, IMO. Very 'special'.

;-)