Calvin vs. Arminius

[EricH]

Another good book is God's Greater Glory by Dr. Bruce Ware

[Guest stegokitty]

Another good book is God's Greater Glory by Dr. Bruce Ware

I've not read that one ... yet.

This site is full of absolutely wonderful articles on the Christian Faith. No filler, no sensationalism, no junkfood - just good eatin'! http://www.apuritansmind.com/MainPage.htm

So many books, so little time!

[Guest stegokitty]

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)

I thought I'd touch on some of the things my fellow Calvinist Botticelli said in support of his statements and in the hope of correcting some of them...

Bot sez: 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.

Stego sez: Man is indeed dead spiritually. He is born that way and will happily remain that way unless God raises his dead spirit to live, removes his heart of stone and replaces it with a heart of flesh, unplugs his ears, heals his blind eyes, and renews his will. In short, unless God causes this man to be born again, he will NEVER see his sin, NEVER hate it, NEVER repent of it, NEVER embrace Jesus Christ as he is offered in the Gospel! If left to himself, no matter how many times the Gospel is preached to him, no matter how many times you sing "Just As I Am With One Plea" to him, no matter how many times his life hits rock bottom, not matter how many bad things happen to him, no matter how nice you and I act towards him, no matter how much he attends church, he will NEVER desire or understand or desire to understand the things of the True and Living God. The Cross of Christ is an offense to him, it is foolishness, and a stumbling block. ONLY if God changes him will he call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved. So in short, God doesn't "offer a chance" to be resurrected to anyone. God either MERCIFULLY raises a sinner from the dead, or he JUSTLY leaves him in his estate of sin and death. The second part is true though, the dead man, after being raised from the dead then "chooses" Jesus and is saved. His faith is counted as righteousness. But even that faith, as we've already seen, is the working of the Holy Spirit, and is a gift from God. God saves sinners. God doesn't help sinners to save themselves.

Bot sez: 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

Stego sez: This is true in a sense. The Gospel is freely offered to "whosoever will". IF indeed a dead God-hating sinner will turn from his wickedness, and receive Christ Jesus as he is, and for whom he is (God in the flesh) then he will be saved. This in fact happens every day. It's a MIRACLE! However, it doesn't happen with a mere "assistance" from the Holy Spirit, as the Arminian would say. That would nullify so many things in the death of Christ I've not enough time and space to even begin to get into it! Suffice it to say that only those whom God has elected (chosen from the foundation of the world) to save will be saved. He seeks them, and saves them. He raises them from the dead and does everything necessary to bring about his will in them. God is NEVER (as the Arminian thinks) sitting on the sideline hoping against hope that the sinner will be smart enough to figure it out on his own, or with a little "assistance". Pure twaddle! God is not passive in salvation!

And exactly right again, Boticelli, IF indeed a spiritually dead man came forth and said "I want to be saved" to God, God would indeed give him salvation. But he won't. It is impossible for an enemy of God to love God .... UNLESS God changes the heart of that person. And if God changes the heart of that person he WILL ALWAYS come to Christ in faith and be saved. God said "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will harden whomever I will harden". These are strong words. They are words concerning the salvation and reprobation of sinners. They are not easy words to swallow, but they are the revealed character of God, may his name be blessed forever.

My main objection was with Botticelli's misprepresentation of the word "might" in John 3:16. The word might has to do with "ability" and "power". Christ came into the world to give the power and ability to his people (the true Israel, God's elect from every tribe, tongue and nation) to be saved. He came to guarantee that salvation to God's elect.

The word "world" which is the one that Arminians love to harp on does not mean everybody. Scripture and experience both teach us clearly that not all will be saved. God's election of the nation of Israel in the OT proves that God not only can but does choose some people and rejects others. Everyone outside the camp of Israel was under God's wrath and curse. God destroyed men, women and children by the hands of the Israelites. He didn't give them a "chance". But other times, he saved entire cities and kingdoms such as Ninevah. Jonah KNEW God was going to save Ninevah, and because of Noah's hatred fo the Ninevites, he didn't want to preach the Gospel to them! But I digress ...

Jesus of Nazareth, as a man, was a Jew. He was talking to a Jew, Nicodemus, about what technically, on the surface at least, was Jewish things. He drops the bomb on Nicodemus and says that God is not only going to save Jews, but people from all over the world, from every tribe, tongue, and nation. He tells Nico that his Jewish birth could not save him, that he had to be born from above, born again IN ORDER TO see and enter the Kingdom of God. But what does the Arminian have? He has people who are NOT born again, seeing and entering the Kingdom via some sort of whipped up "faith". The Arminian has to deny that the Word of God is SPIRITUALLY DISCERNED, because he has the spiritually dead seeing the truth and beauty of Christ, seeing his own sinfullness, etc, which are gifts of the SPIRIT!

May God have mercy on us for believing such rubbish!

Here's yet another great article for folks to read:

http://www.modernreformation.org/rc01pelagian.htm

Botticelli, for the most part you have it right in your head, it just didn't come out exactly right on "paper", but you said some very true things. God bless you!

I'm outta here for now!

Edited August 31, 2006 by stegokitty

[mrs]

excellent explanation,stegokitty.

[Guest Jude 1:3]

50% Calvinist 50% Arminian - Both positions have merit.

However, I'm not blind to the fact that a greater percentage of Calvinists are Bible-Believers.

The liberal all-love gospel (no repentance / no judgement) is rooted in Arminianism.

[Guest stegokitty]

50% Calvinist 50% Arminian - Both positions have merit.

However, I'm not blind to the fact that a greater percentage of Calvinists are Bible-Believers.

The liberal all-love gospel (no repentance / no judgement) is rooted in Arminianism.

It's true that the liberal "gospel" comes from Arminianism.

Most people of the Arminian persuation are technically combinations of both, which is what you described, which in reality, is an impossibility. Calvinism only is consistent, and Biblical. It is the Theology of the Bible and of the Spirit, whereas Arminianism/SemiPelagianism is the theology of the flesh. The only "fairly consistent" Arminians are the "you can lose your salvation" types.

I'd love for you to discover that there's really no such thing as a 50% Calvinist or 50% Arminian. I submit to you that Arminianism, Biblically speaking, has no merit whatsoever.

I can suggest some books for you to read, but specifically, because it is so well done, I suggest Loraine Boettner's "The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination". For a quicker read, try RC Sproul's "Chosen By God". But the Boettner book is by far a more comprehensive read. My small argument above, in all of it's inadequacies, renders Arminianism legless.

Notice that not a single proponent of that camp has offered anything else to say. Their mouths are silenced -- and with good reason. The only way that they could say anything valid, would be to ignore what I've said, and try to come at the argument from another angle.

I'll leave it at that. But do, do youself a favour (and me as well for that matter) and read the aforementioned book, and then get back to me with your thoughts. I'd also be happy to read along with you, so to speak, where we could discuss it, chapter by chapter.

Stego

[Guest Jude 1:3]

stegokitty,

I was once a flaming Calvinist.

I no longer consider the issue a matter of importance. It is more important to preach the Gospel.

[Guest stegokitty]

stegokitty,

I was once a flaming Calvinist.

I no longer consider the issue a matter of importance. It is more important to preach the Gospel.

Please explain to me what YOU mean by being "50% / 50%" on this issue. Please tell me in what manner. Which of the 5 points of Arminius do you claim, and which of the 5 points of Calvin do you claim? Perhaps also an explanation of what you think the Gospel is would help as well.

Thanks,

Stego

Edited October 21, 2006 by stegokitty

[Guest Jude 1:3]

Actually, in recent weeks, I've come to re-accept Amyraldianism. I believe it is most consistent with the Bible. Particular Application is more Biblical than Particular Redemption.

But to answer your question anyway: when I said 50/50, it means I don't consider it as important as preaching the Gospel. We could sit around and debate it in circles, but that would be neglecting the Great Commission.

[Guest stegokitty]

Actually, in recent weeks, I've come to re-accept Amyraldianism. I believe it is most consistent with the Bible. Particular Application is more Biblical than Particular Redemption.

But to answer your question anyway: when I said 50/50, it means I don't consider it as important as preaching the Gospel. We could sit around and debate it in circles, but that would be neglecting the Great Commission.

Particular Redemption does not conflict with Particular Application, so long as it's applied to the elect. However, from what I can recall, Amyraldianism is an inconsistent form of the Doctrines of Grace (probably more based on emotion than on the Bible). It really makes no sense for Christ's atonement to be for everyone when, from all eternity God only forordained that the elect should be saved, and therefore that the atonement be applied to them.

However, there is nothing in the full-fledged Doctrines of Grace (aka Calvinism) that would inhibit evangelism (The Great Commission). You know this and I know this. Evangelism Explosion is just one of many Calvinistic Evangelical missions through the centuries.

I'm not sure how it is that you come to the conclusion that debating the true nature of God, Man, sin and salvation is the neglecting of the Great Commission. Paul certainly thought it important enough to mention it in his letters -- Christ thought it important enough to mention in his talks and sermons with the Disciples. It is an important Doctrine. In fact, it is the heart of the Gospel! Otherwise men have an elevated view of man and his ability, and believe that God saves them because of their works (whether large or small). ALL Christians who do not believe in the Refomred Doctrine of Predestination believe (to some degree) in works salvation. They live in an inconsistency - both affirming and denying salvation by works. Certainly this doesn't nullify their position in Christ, but it does create innumerable problems within the church.

It is admittedly really disturbing to "hear" someone who understands (at least what you claim to understand) the Doctrines of Grace (even in an inconsistent manner) dismiss the usefulness of understanding that which is clearly taught in the Word of God.

And if you're really concerned with debate as being debillitating to the GC, then why respond to anything on these boards? It would ALL fit into that category. Call me crazy but I don't feel that talking about anything in the word is a waste of time.

Stego