Calvinism vs. Arminianism- Are we missing the boat?

[Alive]

One Body--One Blood.

One Loaf and One Sacrifice

That made it so.

[Don19]

 

 

 

.

 

Edited August 6, 2020 by Don19
Error with submission

[Don19]

1 hour ago, Josheb said:

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. 

 

It's like asking which came first - the chicken or the egg. Well, we know the chicken was created by God, just as man was created by God. So is new life created by God.

The surety is a creation of God, which we need to bear any fruit at all, including diligence.

 

Quote

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.

Absolutely.

 

Quote

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. 

 

We can walk on water as long as we're looking to Christ, not self.

 

Quote

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. 

That life is hid with Christ in God. The Spirit is life because of righteousness.

Edited August 6, 2020 by Don19

[Gideon]

21 hours ago, Josheb said:

The problem is both Calvin AND Arminius taught the need for diligence to make our calling and election sure.

From Calvin's "Institutes...." 

"For, first of all, the pious mind does not devise for itself any kind of God, but looks alone to the one true God; nor does it feign for him any character it pleases, but is contented to have him in the character in which he manifests himself always guarding, with the utmost diligences against transgressing his will, and wandering, with daring presumptions from the right path. He by whom God is thus known perceiving how he governs all things, confides in him as his guardian and protector, and casts himself entirely upon his faithfulness,--perceiving him to be the source of every blessing, if he is in any strait or feels any want, he instantly recurs to his protection and trusts to his aid,--persuaded that he is good and merciful, he reclines upon him with sure confidence, and doubts not that, in the divine clemency, a remedy will be provided for his every time of need,--acknowledging him as his Father and his Lords he considers himself bound to have respect to his authority in all things, to reverence his majesty aim at the advancement of his glory, and obey his commands,--regarding him as a just judge, armed with severity to punish crimes, he keeps the Judgment-seat always in his view. Standing in awe of it, he curbs himself, and fears to provoke his anger. Nevertheless, he is not so terrified by an apprehension of Judgment as to wish he could withdraw himself, even if the means of escape lay before him; nay, he embraces him not less as the avenger of wickedness than as the rewarder of the righteous; because he perceives that it equally appertains to his glory to store up punishment for the one, and eternal life for the other. Besides, it is not the mere fear of punishment that restrains him from sin. Loving and revering God as his father, honouring and obeying him as his master, although there were no hell, he would revolt at the very idea of offending him."

That's like five pages into the first volume. Big Fail. Seriously: Calvin wrote a commentary on 2 Peter! and it would have taken you all of seventeen seconds to track it down and find out what he wrote about 2 Peter 1:10!

And Arminius has an article (XXXV) in which the header reads, "The whole of that in which we appear before God, justifies us. But we appear before God, not only by Faith, but also by Works. Therefore, we are justified before God, not only by Faith, but likewise by Works."

So, once again, Big Fail. 

You did not get the first sentence correct. You threw Calvin and Arminius and every Christian subscribing to their views under the proverbial bus. Now I've just shown you the evidence; I've just provided the proof of error. Will you now, in just the same manner in which the error occurs (public), repent and correct this op? Or will you make known to everyone you make wanton derogatory claims about others' views without evidence (baselessly!) and have so little integrity with truth that you will not repent? 

Because, Gid, this op really smells. You screwed up bad and if I have to I'll go through it line by line, affirming that which bears consistency with scripture, inquiring of you that which is either unclear or not adequately understood, and refuting that which clearly does not bear consistency with the whole of God's word, beginning with the fact you could have asserted your view of salvation with scapegoating the vast numbers of fellow believes you just claimed were following a "smokescreen"!  Why start an op on the believers' need to work out our salvation with blatant error (straw man) and implicit accusation? The op could have been written without any mention of either man or their respective soteriologies.

Really bad form. 

So are you gonna acknowledge the errors or not? You gonna acknowledge the error of misrepresenting Calvin and Arminius, or not? You gonna acknowledge the error of implicitly indicting millions of believers for following a "smokescreen," or not? 

 

 

.

It amazes me that you would try to make this post into an attack  on those who believe one side of the debate or another. That was not the point of the post, and I can assure you that was no slight meant in my words, no matter how you seem to try to drum up getting  offended from both sides of the argument. 

My point was that if one is abiding in the vine, which is what our God has called us to, we will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. That is God's promise to us. So, if one finds themselves yielding to those lusts, something is being missed. 

The Word tells us that if we walk correctly in Him, He will cause fruits to grow in us.... love, joy, peace, patience, kindness... etc. If we have walked with God for years, somerimes even decades, and thesecare noticeably absent, something in amiss. 

The test of whether or not our salvation is genuine is if we have palpable, manifested love for one another, , and are found loving God with ALL of our hearts. If these things are not seen in our lives, something is wrong. 

Why? His promises work. God has told us that real grace teaches us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts. For new converts, it is simply about forgiveness, but not so for those more seasoned saints who have walked in Him much longer. He promises to cause us.... do we read that? ...... CAUSE US.... to walk as obedient children. 

Obedience is demanded under the old covenant. It is promised in the new! Glory! 

So, dear brother, you can take offense feeling like I am somehow attacking you and all others here, trying it seems to whip up the masses, which I am not.  However, the  truth is, if most here are honest, these things listed above are not only uncommon in most Christians lives, they are actually  looked at as impossible. 

Do we think a man can walk in holiness and righteousness before Him all the days of our lives? Do we think it  our reasonable service to walk our our time here on earth as living sacrifices?  We are instructed to bring every thought into subjection to the obedience of Christ. Do we agree with Him here? 

You see, these promises are not  in most Christian's  discussions as to even being possible, let alone being assured. Yet God has indeed promised to be the potter, to cause us to will (want to) and to do (actually obey) of His good pleasure. Why will we not cry our for the faith to believe Him? 

What these promises assure us, dear brother, is real Christianity in its full glory. We know the God of forgiveness, but how few there are..... yet.... who know Him as the God who cleanses us of all unrighteousness? It has left us healed, but only slightly, and God's will is that He liberates us completely from the old us and the weakness and sin that comes with it. 

You want to engage me in a head knowledge battle. I choose not to. I am rather aiming for the hearts of readers, yours included, many of whom  are tired of felling condemned even though there is no more condemnation.

God tells us that we are no longer in the flesh, but in the Spirit, and owe the flesh NOTHING. That is the truth of the full extent of our salvation, but unbelief has blinded our eyes, and has done so pretty much ever since the grievous wolves entered the flock after the death of Paul. Praise God, that time is coming to a close and in a hurry.

Here is what He is even now opening our eyes to. 

He tells us if we resist the enemy with our shield of faith held high, satan WILL flee from us. 

He promises never to allow us to be tempted above our  ability to resist it, 

He tells us we have not only been forgiven, but delivered from the very power of darkness. 

This is a time when our hearts must outshout our heads. Do we want to truly walk in the glorious liberty of the children of God, or are we content to to walk in the status quo we have all grown up in? Will  we remain content with simply being forgiven, or do we long for a walk where we truly please Him with our obedience.... obedience He promises to bring about in our lives? 

Darkness is coming. Head knowledge will wilt in the heat of this coming battle. The power to overcome what satan will throw at us must emanate from Christ abiding in our hearts, hearts that are found crying out to God to do what He promises clearly to do for us.... set us free indeed. 

I am sorry if you feel like I am dodging your many challenges to debate. The truth however, is that it is you who are dodging the real point of my posts. I pray you see that.

blessings, 

Gideon

 

Edited August 6, 2020 by Gideon

[leah777]

Making sure scripture is correctly understood is not attacking. Making sure teaching is correct is not attacking.

Opposing incorrect interpretation and twisting is not attacking either.

So much harm is done by incorrect teaching.

Head knowledge is part of heart knowledge, and important. 

Cults use such arguments to succeed in their perversion of Truths.

[Gideon]

1 hour ago, Josheb said:

Then correct the opening statement. 

And don't make the conversation about me. 
Or you.
Because when incorrect statements about Calvinism and Arminianism aren't unnecessarily made there's a lot of good content in the op to discuss.

Since there's no need to make the conversation about Calvinism or Arminianism (notice the spelling) the solution is simple: delete or reword the opening sentence so as to remove the problem. Consider going beyond mere deletion and try posting something nice, affirming, and or edifying Cals and Arms instead. You do that, Gideon, and I'll follow suit and "nt" all my posts critiquing the op. That seem fair to you? One sentence from you; two whole  posts from me.

Yes, and when you, Gideon, trash others you are not abiding in the vine! That kind of abiding is demonstrating by not avoiding the error and self-correcting, making a faithful and visible effort to amend the situation. As I noted to another poster this op instantly became an object lesson where you get to actually prove what you've posted. 

 

Since there's no need to make the conversation about Calvinism or Arminianism (notice the spelling) the solution is simple: delete or reword the opening sentence so as to remove the problem. Consider going beyond mere deletion and try posting something nice, affirming, and or edifying Cals and Arms instead.  You do that, Gideon, and I'll follow suit and "nt" all my posts critiquing the op. That seem fair to you? One sentence from you; two whole  posts from me.

What correction is needed? There  you go again looking for an argument. I simply refuse to join your efforts to do so. There are bigger issues at atake. Correct me if  I am wrong, but love is not supposed to  be easily offended, is it? 

You have missed the entire point of the OP, blinded to things my post is actually about. Why not center on those things? As to abiding in the vine, the evidence is not fulfilling the lusts of the flesh. I stand by my assertion. Few, very few are yetcwalking there, based upon what God says. 

blessings, 

Gids

[Gideon]

2 hours ago, Josheb said:

Then correct the opening statement. 

And don't make the conversation about me. 
Or you.
Because when incorrect statements about Calvinism and Arminianism aren't unnecessarily made there's a lot of good content in the op to discuss.

Since there's no need to make the conversation about Calvinism or Arminianism (notice the spelling) the solution is simple: delete or reword the opening sentence so as to remove the problem. Consider going beyond mere deletion and try posting something nice, affirming, and or edifying Cals and Arms instead. You do that, Gideon, and I'll follow suit and "nt" all my posts critiquing the op. That seem fair to you? One sentence from you; two whole  posts from me.

Yes, and when you, Gideon, trash others you are not abiding in the vine! That kind of abiding is demonstrating by not avoiding the error and self-correcting, making a faithful and visible effort to amend the situation. As I noted to another poster this op instantly became an object lesson where you get to actually prove what you've posted. 

 

Since there's no need to make the conversation about Calvinism or Arminianism (notice the spelling) the solution is simple: delete or reword the opening sentence so as to remove the problem. Consider going beyond mere deletion and try posting something nice, affirming, and or edifying Cals and Arms instead.  You do that, Gideon, and I'll follow suit and "nt" all my posts critiquing the op. That seem fair to you? One sentence from you; two whole  posts from me.

Your vision is skewed, dear brother. You declare me to be trashing other brothers about not abiding in tbe vine. Is what I stated scriptural or not? Does God indeed promise that if we abide in the vine, we will not fulfill the lustsof the flesh? Yes or no?

If He does, then what have I to apologize for?  I want all of Christ's children to walk in the fullness of their salvation, but there are many who would rather take offense at the slightest hint of a part of God's truth not being walked in, and throw their entire attempts at discrediting me, rather than falling on their face before God, crying out as Paul did for our faithful  God to deliver them from themselves and their weakness and defeat. 

If your goal is simply to discredit me, Save yourself the trouble, lol. I am nothing... less than nothing without walking in the new nature He abundantly supplies. Why do you rail against what I share with such vehemence? Do you not want to see your brothers and sisters  walk in real victory? I do, and that is the sole purpose of my posts. 

The fly in the ointment for accepting what I share though, is that in order to cry out for victory, real overcoming of satan's many arrows, one must admit they need such a walk, that their current place may afford them salvation, but does not arm them enough to resist satan steadfast in the faith and send him running. Hunger for deliverance and for walking pleasing to God in true obedience is not optional. 

Real manifested overcoming, as well as true bearing of fruits pf the Spirit.... these are our birthrights, dear Josh, nothing less. May all who hunger and thirst for abiding in the vine where they do not fulfill the lusts of the flesh call out to Him, believing that holy walks are exactly what He longs to give us.if we will but ask.  

blessings to you,

Gids

[Tristen]

11 hours ago, Josheb said:

So it's the same sort of thing that is happening now: I'm not having "a strong emotional reaction." This is a calm, deliberate confrontation of something just as subtle happening in the op: the misrepresenting of others, and in this case it appears to occur for the sake of self-promotion. The op states, "whole topic of Calvinism vs. Armenianism is, I believe, ultimately a smokescreen." ...

I think you are reading things into the OP that the author didn't intent. You are reading into the OP an attack against those involved in the “Cal v Arm” discussion. Honestly, I don't see that when I read it. I read in the OP concern that many of those involved in the “Cal v Arm” discussion may be allowing themselves to get so caught up in the issue, that they become distracted from some of the more fundamental aspects of Christian faith. Since I don't see the insult you see in the OP, what you call being “blunt” or “assertive” or “open and direct” comes across to me as you being triggered.

 

You said, “The implication is those who participate in discussing Cal v Arm are participating in a smokescreen. Why would otherwise intelligent, educated, mature, practiced Christians working from the Spirit of God within them participate in a "smokescreen"?”

Again, I don't see any suggestion in the OP that Christians are intentionally involved in any deception. I think you are reading too much into the word “smokescreen”. A “smokescreen” just means something is being hidden by something else (i.e. the metaphorical smoke). It is certainly possible for even the sincerest Christian to become distracted.

 

“So the implications of what's being implied are even worse when considered on a personal level - whether I am personally offended or not”

I don't think that what you think is being implied, is actually being implied.

 

“Your post is representative of a lot that happens in Worthy: emotional filtering. I cannot count the number of times someone has blatantly assigned to me personally an emotional attribute (anger, aggression, meanness, etc.) It doesn't seem to occur to them my post is prompted by reason, not emotion”

I can't speak for the rest of “Worthy”. All I'm saying is that I, myself, don't see the deep insult in the OP that you apparently see. And therefore your reaction to the OP comes across, to me, as unnecessarily aggressive.

 

[Gideon]

1 hour ago, Josheb said:

I've already addressed the opening line. Here we find a curious statement implying "grabbing hold of a doctrine" isn't a good thing, or that doctrines are "used to convince us of our salvation." I'll bet everyone here is convinced of their salvation because they've come face-to-face with both God and their own sinfulness in one way or another and they did so before they knew much if any doctrine. 

So, once again, everybody gets thrown under the buss with an un-evidenced claim. 

So let's see what scripture says about "doctrine," okay?

Matthew 15:1-9 ESV
"Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said,  “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.”  He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?  For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’  But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,”  he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God.  You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:  “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me;  in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’”

So we see Jesus implying doctrines are good but men may teach their own commands as doctrines. I'm sure you've all read that passage abused by others to say "doctrines of men," and not commands of men taught as doctrine. 

Ephesians 4:11-16
"And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers,  for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ;  until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.  As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming;  but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ,  from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love."

So here, again, we find it isn't doctrine in an of itself that is bad, but the trickery of men. Does "beware grabbing hold of doctrine to convince ourselves of our salvation" sound like trickery? I'll leave that to the reader to decide. 

Paul wrote to Timothy late in Paul's ministry about those who strange or deceitful doctrines and he specified the kinds of doctrines of which he was referring. He concluded his comments with this: 

1 Timothy 4:6
"In pointing out these things to the brethren, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, constantly nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound doctrine which you have been following." 

Titus 2:1-15
"But as for you, speak the things which are fitting for sound doctrine.  Older men are to be temperate, dignified, sensible, sound in faith, in love, in perseverance.  Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good,  so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children,  to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored.  Likewise urge the young men to be sensible;  in all things show yourself to be an example of good deeds, with purity in doctrine, dignified,  sound in speech which is beyond reproach, so that the opponent will be put to shame, having nothing bad to say about us.  Urge bondslaves to be subject to their own masters in everything, to be well-pleasing, not argumentative,  not pilfering, but showing all good faith so that they will adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in every respect.  For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men,  instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age,  looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,  who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.  These things speak and exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you."

And the simple fact of scripture is, as another poster well noted, there is only one body of many parts. Some here have an affinity for doctrine. Other's not so much. The ear cannot say of the foot "I have no need of you," and in the absence of any evidence to support the comment to say somegrab at doctrine to convince themselves of their salvation is another piece of evidence indicating it is the accuser's heart that needs examination, and not those who debate unresolved doctrine -especially when both sides of that debate completely agree on the need for diligence and examination!

 

 

.

Correct doctrine brings forth the promises of God revealed in our  lives. As I  have stated previously, if it is not, are we not to examine ourselves and our understanding of the truth to find out what is missing and causing us to live lives less than what Christ has promised us?

If in our resisting temptation, we never see satan fleeing, when God said he would, should that not give us pause? 

If we lack the fruits Christ promises to abundantly grow in our lives, and we are not new converts but  those who have followed the truth for years, do we just keep on as we have been, or is it time we  fall on our knees and seek the face of our Master as to why we are not being sanctified wholly, body, soul and spirit? 

To get upset when someone brings this to our attention is not solving anything, but is simply a distraction from the enemy as to what needs to happen. God promises to deliver us and to cause us to walk as overcomers, victorious over the world, the flesh and the devil. Do we want that, no matter the cost to us personally?  

I believe there is a small but growing group of believers tired of making excuses for their continued captivity to sin and self. They long to be holy, and are not satisfied with "positional holiness". They want the manifested character of the Son to be inprinted on their hearts, affecting how they interact with the world. I am simply one of those people. 

I have stated it before but it bares repeating. Some will soon awake to the how of holiness. Others will follow later. Some will never awaken to God's high  calling nor experience His hand working all those things in us as the master potter. 

I do not know who fits in each group. I accuse no one. Therefore, I will continue to simply share what God asked me to share and let the Spirit do what the Spirit does..... set men free who are willing to lose their lives to find His in them. 

be blessed dear brother, 

Gideon

Edited August 7, 2020 by Gideon

[Buddy D. Mouse]

I am glad Arminianism got spelled correctly in the thread's title.