Calvin vs. Arminius

[tammy826]

I guess i see the merits of both points of view but ultimately I just go by what the Bible says & consider my relationship with God vey personal & not based on what either MAN ( Calvin or Arminius) has to say.

[Mudcat]

I couldn't vote....

there was no choice for Molinist

Don't get this to this top of the board if I get into this debate I a might get banned nope won't do it

I could start a new thread in the CI forum, what say you Zeke?

[BurnForChrist]

I couldn't vote....

there was no choice for Molinist

Technically you could. Molinists are more in line with the Arminian view. Molinism teaches God chooses who will be saved because He knows who would choose Him. To put it accurately, Molinists are philosophically sophisticated Arminians.

[Botz]

Ahh the joy of child-like faith!

[traveller]

Ahh the joy of child-like faith!

No kiddin

[godrulz]

I have not read the thread, but Open Theism is a more biblical, coherent free will theism. Deterministic Calvinism is off track. Arminianism is closer, but wrong about exhaustive definite foreknowledge and 'eternal now'.

[Teach]

Well, I think you know where I stand. Anything that declares that God is not 100% Sovereign and can fail at His plan is offensive and heresy in my book. I realize that others feel differently.

I really think that most people start from a wrong perspective. So many people think that human beings "deserve" something, or that they should get a "fair" deal. Once one realizes that all anyone deserves is hell, then the loving Almighty and the grace of His plan are revealed. Awesome!

My son has a girl that likes him and takes him to her youth group every week. (They are 13). Today, he made the comment to me that the family was very nice, "even if the mom is wrong about Bible things". I asked him what he meant and he said "Well, she says that all children/babies automatically go to Heaven because they know no sin". I said - "Did you say anything?" He said - "No, I wanted to tell her she should read her Bible and get the truth about it, but I didn't want to be rude". LOL! It warms my heart to know he is paying attention. (and wouldn't be rude too, lol)

This was an excellent overview of the differing points, GMan. Thanks.

I've just begun to read this and I must say your post is quite disconcerting.

I find it hard to believe that some people actually think that A Good God would bring an infant into this world, giving it the breath of life, knowing it in the womb, and then because of a still birth or early SIDS, will send that child into eternal damnation.

Isn't sin transgression of the Law? 1Jo. (3:4) Isn't the power of sin in the Law? 1Cor. (15:56)

What purpose was there in creating that child and then sending it to the fires of Hell?

How do you think God would explain that righteousness judgment on that child?

I don't know, all I can say is WOW!

[Ovedya]

Teach.

By what Biblical evidence do you suppose that God "creates" children in the womb? Also, I'm curious about your usage of David's Psalm in the application of all unborn children. Why do you suppose based upon, "you knew me in my mother's womb" that God knows all children in their mother's wombs?

[Teach]

Teach.

By what Biblical evidence do you suppose that God "creates" children in the womb? Also, I'm curious about your usage of David's Psalm in the application of all unborn children. Why do you suppose based upon, "you knew me in my mother's womb" that God knows all children in their mother's wombs?

I do not know what you're driving at.

When is the time that God creates a human being? Do I know for sure? Probably not.

Is it a the time of the Zygote or the first breath or anywhere in between or maybe when we come into His mind, which some would say, we were always on His mind? Which is absolute bunk.

The fact remains that if God decided to create some to Glory and some to Hell makes Him cruel and stupid at the same time. And I'm not afraid to use those terms because God knows very well my reverence for Him and that I do not believe in that drivel.

Cruel because He creates some for the sake of damnation, no will involved.

Stupid because He could have avoided the whole Calvary thing by just creating beings (Automatons) for Glory.

Anyway, I put in my vote in and like

I have not read the thread, but Open Theism is a more biblical, coherent free will theism. Deterministic Calvinism is off track. Arminianism is closer, but wrong about exhaustive definite foreknowledge and 'eternal now'.

I agree totally.

Ciao 4 now!

[Teach]

I have not read the thread, but Open Theism is a more biblical, coherent free will theism. Deterministic Calvinism is off track. Arminianism is closer, but wrong about exhaustive definite foreknowledge and 'eternal now'.

Right on Brother

Isn't it good to know that your relationship with Him is TRULY sincere and not contrived?