Calvin vs. Arminius

[EricH]

I'm asking Is the love God has for us (as tulip would characterize it) in any way similar to the love we are supposed to have for each other? If so, how?

How would you characterize the Love TULIP says God has for us?

I don't know. That's what I'm asking you, as someone who supports tulip. I don't recognize the love in tulip. I presume you would say that God loves us. According to tulip, what is God's love and is it in any way like the love we are supposed to have for one another? If so, how?

I have no issues with TULIP as it relates to God's love. So I guess I would want to know where you see the contradiction, because I don't

[Copper Scroll]

I'm asking Is the love God has for us (as tulip would characterize it) in any way similar to the love we are supposed to have for each other? If so, how?

How would you characterize the Love TULIP says God has for us?

I don't know. That's what I'm asking you, as someone who supports tulip. I don't recognize the love in tulip. I presume you would say that God loves us. According to tulip, what is God's love and is it in any way like the love we are supposed to have for one another? If so, how?

I have no issues with TULIP as it relates to God's love. So I guess I would want to know where you see the contradiction, because I don't

Now this is really silly. I never said there was a contradiction. Check back at all of my posts on this thread and you will see that I keep asking different versions of essentially the same question--one you are apparently incapable of answering. If you don't know the answer say I don't know and accept the consequences of not understanding your own beliefs.

[EricH]

I'm asking Is the love God has for us (as tulip would characterize it) in any way similar to the love we are supposed to have for each other? If so, how?

How would you characterize the Love TULIP says God has for us?

I don't know. That's what I'm asking you, as someone who supports tulip. I don't recognize the love in tulip. I presume you would say that God loves us. According to tulip, what is God's love and is it in any way like the love we are supposed to have for one another? If so, how?

I have no issues with TULIP as it relates to God's love. So I guess I would want to know where you see the contradiction, because I don't

Now this is really silly. I never said there was a contradiction. Check back at all of my posts on this thread and you will see that I keep asking different versions of essentially the same question--one you are apparently incapable of answering. If you don't know the answer say I don't know and accept the consequences of not understanding your own beliefs.

Ah, so you don't think there is a contradiction either then?

[Copper Scroll]

I don't recognize the love in tulip. I presume you would say that God loves us. According to tulip, what is God's love and is it in any way like the love we are supposed to have for one another? If so, how?

I have no issues with TULIP as it relates to God's love. So I guess I would want to know where you see the contradiction, because I don't

Now this is really silly. I never said there was a contradiction. Check back at all of my posts on this thread and you will see that I keep asking different versions of essentially the same question--one you are apparently incapable of answering. If you don't know the answer say I don't know and accept the consequences of not understanding your own beliefs.

Ah, so you don't think there is a contradiction either then?

I'll take this as an "I don't know." Hopefully one member of the majority on this forum who supports tulip rationally will come along and answer the original question.

Edited February 8, 2006 by Copper Scroll

[EricH]

Not at all, I am interested in your perspective on the issue. If you believe that there are contradictions, I would like to understand what those are so I can speak directly to those issues. TULIP is a large concept. I would rather not spend a ton of time speaking to the whole thing. I would rather speak directly to any issues you have (if any)

[Copper Scroll]

Not at all, I am interested in your perspective on the issue. If you believe that there are contradictions, I would like to understand what those are so I can speak directly to those issues. TULIP is a large concept. I would rather not spend a ton of time speaking to the whole thing. I would rather speak directly to any issues you have (if any)

I'm assuming tulip has integrity, but don't understand how God's love fits into it. Therefore I don't know if there's a contradiction or not. You don't have to explain the whole tulip concept. I'm asking simply for you (as a tulip-er) to explain what God's love is?

[dovesandserpents]

This discussion has inspired me to join this board.

I am pretty much in agreement with Calvin, Calvinism is a bit severer than the man himself.

I note that the original post is not a fair representation of Calvinism versus Arminianism. If Calvinism is allowed to speak for itself Arminianism should be allowed to speak for itself. Not represented by a Calvinist negative interpretation of Arminianism.

On a specific point. Limited atonement. Calvin himself believed in Unlimited atonement at the cross, thus agreeing with John 3:16. He believed their was a difference between the potential unlimited atonement won by Jesus at the cross and the actual effected atonement. He believed that this comes to us as a result of the risen and ascended Jesus praying for the redemption of specific individual sinners before the Father in heaven. Calvin, in his own words, believed the 'Jesus died for all, but does not pray for all'

On the other hand the Arminian must answer this. Even at the cross there is an element of limited atonement?

Why? We all, Calvinist or Arminian believe that God the Father willed the death of Jesus knowing what effect it would have. Right. At the moment Jesus died God the Father knew, whether by absolute election (Calvinist) or foreknowledge (Arminian) that Jesus' death would effect salvation, not for everyone, but only for a limited number of people. Therefore God the Father willed a Limited Atonement to happen.

On another point, many Arminians are actually on similar territory to Calvinists on the isssues of calling, regeneration and faith as they hold to a much stronger, more sovereign view of calling to the one described here. Traditional weslyian doctorine would be in this area.

A third point. There are two very different types of Calvinism.

Supralapsianism believes that before all time God put human beings into either a redeemed or damned category. He then willed that sinfulness, the Fall and subsequent damnation should occur so that his decree of damnation would happen. Even to many Calvinists this appears to make God look rather like the Devil, willing the populating of hell.

Infralapsianism sees God's Election of the redeemed as happening after the Fall as God's rescue plan to save with certainty people from the Fall and it's effects. I am clearly of this position. The gap between Supralapsianism and Infrapsianism is arguably greater than that between Calvinism and Arminianism.

[Ovedya]

I note that the original post is not a fair representation of Calvinism versus Arminianism.

[dovesandserpents]

hi Ovedya

I'll do the work for you

Here are the original % Points of the Arminians. Its called the Remonstrance, and it was produced in 1610. The 5 points of TULIP are based on the Canons of Dort, produced in 1611 in answer to it.

Article I - That God, by an eternal, unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ, his Son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ's sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his Son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John iii. 36: "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him," and according to other passages of Scripture also.

Article II - That, agreeably thereto, Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption, and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins, except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel of John iii. 16: "God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life"; and in the First Epistle of John ii. 2: "And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only. but also for the sins of the whole world."

Article III

[Ovedya]

hi Ovedya

I'll do the work for you

Here are the original % Points of the Arminians. Its called the Remonstrance, and it was produced in 1610. The 5 points of TULIP are based on the Canons of Dort, produced in 1611 in answer to it.

Article I - That God, by an eternal, unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ, his Son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ's sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his Son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John iii. 36: "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him," and according to other passages of Scripture also.

Article II - That, agreeably thereto, Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption, and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins, except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel of John iii. 16: "God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life"; and in the First Epistle of John ii. 2: "And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only. but also for the sins of the whole world."

Article III