Calvin vs. Arminius

[SoliDeoGloria4708]

Thanks st.worm,

I think that the belief in free will is wrapped up in egotism. That we are somehow more than we are - creations of God. I probably think that Adam had a free will but one of ignorance. And you are right, after the fall, man is enslaved to sin - how could it be otherwise. If man still had a free will he could fulfill the law and save himself. If one says, "there is the issue of being born a sinner." I would say, "Precisely the point." After salvation, well, we talked about that for at least 50 pages.

Mark

I think that that's a real good point. As a reformed baptist I have talked to several friends about free will and election. It seems to me that allot of the time, the only thing that is keeping them from at least doing some studying is that they just simply don't like the idea of not being in control. I suppose that is unfortuanly natural . As self-centered, sinful, humans it is hard to get your head around the idea that you are not in control.

[SoliDeoGloria4708]

Sorry horizon, but not a single verse of Scripture teaches that men have free will in the sense that you seem to think. Throughout the course of this thread your "arguments" have taken it on the chin time and time again. You are like the children of Israel in the gospel accounts who scoff at Jesus. After all they are from Abraham and Moses and have no need of our Lord. They too were claiming to have free will just like you, denying the power of sin in their life and being. Free will teaching is not from the Bible but from such heretics as Pelagius. In other words, free will teaching is truly "man made doctrine". Free will teaching is ultimately salvation by good works. If you are smart or religious enough, then you make the right decision. If not you are lost. God has nothing to do with it according to you. It does not answer the question about salvation for infants or those incapable of making that right decision nor does it address the issue of the many millions who never got to make a choice, who were never confronted with the gospel. You, Pelagius, Arminius, Finney and Erasmus continue to make the same error by denying sin. You are not in good company. On the other hand, the Apostle Paul, Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, and others understood there is no free will in man.

St. Worm

As a calvinist, I defiantly stand with you on doctrine. However, it appears that you might be trying to pull a straw man argument. Thats not very good. Also, we need to realize that we will defiantly disagree sometimes, but we need to with love and kindness. Just be more gentle with your language.

[SoliDeoGloria4708]

I have also discussed Calvinism with those of the Baptist tradition who go out of their way to emphasize they are not Calvinists and they will get downright offended if your refer to them as such. They even go the extra step of changing Calvinistic terminology, i.e. they talk about "Doctrines of Grace" as a metaphor for Calvinism. But the truth of the matter is whether you are Baptist, Lutheran, Presbyterian or Reformed if you adhere to the doctrines of 5-Point Calvinism you are a Calvinist.

I understand what your talking about. I usually try to refrain from using the label "calvinist" so that I do not appear accountable to John Calvin (I personally prefer reformed baptist). However, the term (calvinist) is practially essential now when I expound on my faith. So, to all who oppose the name, yet support the ideas, let us just call calvinsts calvinists. At least in a discusion such as this one.

"I feel no accountability to John Calvin. I feel an indebtedness to him, but I'm not accountable to him nor would I wish to wear his name, nor, I believe, would he wish anyone to wear his name. Calvinism is a categorization which I don't deny if you're talking about a strain of theology. But I am accountable to the Word of God and the Gospel of Christ." Albert Mohler

Edited July 31, 2006 by SoliDeoGloria4708

[Guest stegokitty]

I hate Rap "music".

I cannot "decide" to like Rap. It is part of my psyche. It's part of my very core make-up that's repulsed by something so unmusical, so egotistic, shallow, carnal, and stupid. I do not accept Snoop Dog as my personal beatbox.

The only way for me to like Rap would be that something in my core was changed by an outside source. I could not change it myself, because I do not WANT it to change. I don't want to like Rap music. So I could not initiate something so repulsive. Someone would have to get into my genetic code and mess around with it in a very specialized way to change my hatred into love for wickety-wickety whack.

Man is born into this world a sinner, an enemy of God and of the cross of Christ, opposed to holiness, spiritually dead, unable to submit to the Law of God, etc. It is in his core to be that way, it is his nature. He cannot believe because he doesn't want to believe, and he cannot want to believe because he doesn't want to WANT to believe. He's too busy loving his sin and the sins of others. The gospel is foolishness to him.

One day a man, and his sinful twin brother, just for kicks, go into a church. They both hear the Gospel preached. One brother leaves the church thinking "That was some majorly boring stuff. I guess it's nice for people who need that sort of thing". The other brother is cut to the quick. He sees his sin, and hates it, he wants to be rid of it, for he feels the presence of the Holy God, and knows that he is undone. He hears the promise's of the Gospel and believes them. He turns from his sin unto God in repentance and faith in Christ, resolving henceforth to live for Him.

Why? Why not both men? Was one smarter? Dumber?

How did a man who hated anything to do with holiness and Jesus and church, etc., suddenly "change his mind"? He couldn't simply choose to do such a thing. He couldn't because he wouldn't. You cannot love what you do not love. But he was changed ... from an outside Source. But this internal change by an external Source had to occur FIRST, in order that, the heart of stone be made of flesh, which now pumps spiritual life into the corpse. The spiritual mind is then enlivened and causes the ears to now hear and understand spiritual things; causes the spiritual eyes to be opened to see sin, and the utter sinfulness of sin; causes the will to respond to the Gospel in the affirmative, and to embrace Jesus Christ, as he is offered in the Gospel.

Jesus said "No one can [possesses the ability] to come to me unless it is given to him by the Father".

There is so much more that you need to hear, but this is as far as I can go today.

The Lord bless you and keep you; the Lord lift his countenance upon you, and give you peace; the Lord make his face to shine upon you, and be gracious unto you.

Stego

Edited July 31, 2006 by stegokitty

[SoliDeoGloria4708]

I hate Rap "music".

I cannot "decide" to like Rap. It is part of my psyche. It's part of my very core make-up that's repulsed by something so unmusical, so egotistic, shallow, carnal, and stupid. I do not accept Snoop Dog as my personal beatbox.

The only way for me to like Rap would be that something in my core was changed by an outside source. I could not change it myself, because I do not WANT it to change. I don't want to like Rap music. So I could not initiate something so repulsive. Someone would have to get into my genetic code and mess around with it in a very specialized way to change my hatred into love for wickety-wickety whack.

Man is born into this world a sinner, an enemy of God and of the cross of Christ, opposed to holiness, spiritually dead, unable to submit to the Law of God, etc. It is in his core to be that way, it is his nature. He cannot believe because he doesn't want to believe, and he cannot want to believe because he doesn't want to WANT to believe. He's too busy loving his sin and the sins of others. The gospel is foolishness to him.

One day a man, and his sinful twin brother, just for kicks, go into a church. They both hear the Gospel preached. One brother leaves the church thinking "That was some majorly boring stuff. I guess it's nice for people who need that sort of thing". The other brother is cut to the quick. He sees his sin, and hates it, he wants to be rid of it, for he feels the presence of the Holy God, and knows that he is undone. He hears the promise's of the Gospel and believes them. He turns from his sin unto God in repentance and faith in Christ, resolving henceforth to live for Him.

Why? Why not both men? Was one smarter? Dumber?

How did a man who hated anything to do with holiness and Jesus and church, etc., suddenly "change his mind"? He couldn't simply choose to do such a thing. He couldn't because he wouldn't. You cannot love what you do not love. But he was changed ... from an outside Source. But this internal change by an external Source had to occur FIRST, in order that, the heart of stone be made of flesh, which now pumps spiritual life into the corpse. The spiritual mind is then enlivened and causes the ears to now hear and understand spiritual things; causes the spiritual eyes to be opened to see sin, and the utter sinfulness of sin; causes the will to respond to the Gospel in the affirmative, and to embrace Jesus Christ, as he is offered in the Gospel.

Jesus said "No one can [possesses the ability] to come to me unless it is given to him by the Father".

There is so much more that you need to hear, but this is as far as I can go today.

The Lord bless you and keep you; the Lord lift his countenance upon you, and give you peace; the Lord make his face to shine upon you, and be gracious unto you.

Stego

well said

[botticelli]

ima 5 point calvinist go tulip

[billie]

Um, what are the points?

[botticelli]

tulip

total depravity

unconditional election

limited attonment

irretible grace

preservation of the saints

[botticelli]

armeniesm (or however you spell it) = God chooses ALL men, and allows them the free will to accept Him.

calvanism = God chooses only the ones He wants, not only denying them the freedom to accept or deny, but unlovingly rejects all others, thereby ALSO denying them free will.

not very loving.

pending further study of romans 9, i would say this passage pertains to jacob and esau, and whom would be chosen to inherit his father's blessing and fulfill God's plan.

perhaps you could explain from a calvanistic point of view why John 3:16-17 says

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condem the world, but to save the world through him.

and does NOT say

For God so loved part of the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever God selected to believe in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to save everyone, but to save only those He decided in advance to love.

i know this is a bit late

i look at it like this

Man is dead and god offers him the chance to be resurrected so he ask the dead man "do you accept jesus as your savior"

the dead man can choose to be reserected. so god revives him and the man chooses jesus and is saved.

now about john 3:16

its like this ( at least how i see it)

anyone can get saved if they ask but the spiritual dead man cant choose to accept god since he has a sinful will

so god resurrects the elect and they get saved. if a spiritual dead man came forth and said i want to be saved god would let him get saved. but they wont their dead

and you left out the might in john 3:16 no offense

Jhn 3:17 - For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

they might be saved if they come forth

but god knows it wont happen its impossible but i think that verse says god leaves that option open to the dead man.

( please correct me my fellow calvinist if im wrong)

Edited August 29, 2006 by botticelli

[Guest stegokitty]

armeniesm (or however you spell it) = God chooses ALL men, and allows them the free will to accept Him.

calvanism = God chooses only the ones He wants, not only denying them the freedom to accept or deny, but unlovingly rejects all others, thereby ALSO denying them free will.

not very loving.

pending further study of romans 9, i would say this passage pertains to jacob and esau, and whom would be chosen to inherit his father's blessing and fulfill God's plan.

perhaps you could explain from a calvanistic point of view why John 3:16-17 says

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condem the world, but to save the world through him.

and does NOT say

For God so loved part of the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever God selected to believe in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to save everyone, but to save only those He decided in advance to love.

i know this is a bit late

i look at it like this

Man is dead and god offers him the chance to be resurrected so he ask the dead man "do you accept jesus as your savior"

the dead man can choose to be reserected. so god revives him and the man chooses jesus and is saved.

now about john 3:16

its like this ( at least how i see it)

anyone can get saved if they ask but the spiritual dead man cant choose to accept god since he has a sinful will

so god resurrects the elect and they get saved. if a spiritual dead man came forth and said i want to be saved god would let him get saved. but they wont their dead

and you left out the might in john 3:16 no offense

Jhn 3:17 - For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

they might be saved if they come forth

but god knows it wont happen its impossible but i think that verse says god leaves that option open to the dead man.

( please correct me my fellow calvinist if im wrong)

Lady C, and everyone who is in this forum who is offended at what is commonly called "Calvinism", I offer you an opportunity to take a very quick, but effective peek into what Calvinism actually is, instead of over and over again, saying what you THINK Calvinism is, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Please oh please, please, please read at least some of the articles which I am going to paste links to below. Read them slowly, carefully, prayerfully, thoughtfully. After reading them, THINK about what you've read. Yes, indeed read them in the sense that if indeed they are wrong, then those terrible doctrines need to be stopped and crushed by the truth. Read them also with the knowledge that, by golly, there is a distinct possiblity (however remote) that what you believe is wrong, or partially wrong, and what Calvinists believe is right, or partially right (though we would argue that Calvinism cannot be partly right). Do you have enough confidence in the Spirit of God, that if you should pray to him to enlighten your mind, so that you can at least understand where your opponent is actually coming from, before pouncing all over him/her, accusing him/her of believing things that are so foreign to Calvinism that they might as well be the beliefs of another religion altogether -- are you confident enough that you can actually know these things and still retain your faith? This isn't a joke, this is a real challenge. The above assessment of Arminianism is completely wrong. The above assessment of Calvinism is completely wrong. The notion that God is wrong to choose one guilty sinner for salvation, while passing over another guilty sinner, and delivering justice to him for his sins, is of the flesh, and precisely what Paul is preaching against in the ninght chapter of Romans.

I pray that my request is not in vain. I know it wasn't for me, as I used to be of the Arminian persuation not more than about 8 years ago. I know that the Lord gives grace to the humble but resists the proud. Read the articles linked below, then come back and post your comments whether pro or con in respect to Calvinism or Arminianism.

For those of you who are up to a bigger challenge, read "The Bondage of the Will" by Martin Luther (in book form or try the link below), also read "The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination" by Loraine Boettner. For a concise, and very easy to read lesson on the topic of Predestination and Election, read "Chosen By God" by RC Sproul. Or if you're brave enough, write me, and I'll see if I can't burn a copy of the lessons to CD for you, and you can listen to them in your car or wherever.

Please please please. I beg that you read either these books or these articles at least, because it's impossible to actually carry on a comversation with someone who constantly misunderstands and misinterprets everything you say. God's blessing upon all who take up this challenge:

Short Reading:

http://www.modernreformation.org/mh92whosaves.htm (Who saves who? by Michael Horton)

http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/ref...k/chforwhom.htm (For Whom Did Christ Die? by Charles Hodge)

Longer Reading:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/luther/bondage.html (The Bondage of the Will by Martin Luther)

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/boettner/predest.html (The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination by Loraine Boettner)

You may listen to the White Horse Inn broadcast which currently happens to be on the freedom or bondage of the will:

http://www.whitehorseinn.org/

I'll be ready to converse with any and all who actually read up and who know what they're talking about. I simply can't bear to "argue" with another person when they don't even know what they're talking about. It's pointless, it's fruitless, it doesn't glorify Christ. I'm not asking you to agree with me (though I wish you would) I'm asking you (whomever you are) to know your opponent. I'm asking you to be able to make an intelligent argument. I'm asking you to use your mind. You've got one, and it's a good one. Make it hurt. You'll be glad you did!