Calvin vs. Arminius

[Rick-Parker]

How is this "history lesson" on topic? This thread is about whether you hold to Calvin's or Arminius' theories. Please start a new thread if you want to "teach" religious history. Thanks.

[Miss Elly]

Is there a "Neither" choice?

I agree with you. All I know is that I am a christian and refuse to be into a "category" for someone like these two "sides" to argue over. How like children arguing it seems, reminds me of christians in the new testament arguing over who baptized them as if it made as difference!

[kuhugaboots]

Calvinism = God Chooses Man

Armenianism = Man Chooses God

I say YES!

both and neither and or, who cares ?

some have to be called and some have to find their own way through the darkness to him and others are given!

I think Samson is a good example of all of them! because who called who with him?

He was given to god as a child first by his parents .

So then God set the boundries for Samson life and in that act alone he calls samson maybe?.... God was hoping Samson just might avoid what was coming. but samson wasn't ever calling on god!! .....

Samson kept releasing death into his own life .. and God tried but God couldn't stop Samson death . so who called on whom?

Samson broke all boundries and all the barriers one at a time.. and still somehow fulfilled his purposes and is listed with the "great men of faith"!! OF Faith!!!! Samson????... which is kind of a joke when you really think about it. someones pet might have been more faithful than Samson was 99.9 % of his life ! he was just every kind of wrong... there was nothing about his life that was faithful!!!!

.. except that one last act. OH BUT WHAT A LAST ACT IT WAS Israel had peace for like 50 years after samson was faithful for one tiny moment in time.. just one tiny moment! so He overcame? well it looks like he over came once! and wasn't a coward when the rubber met the road. because he called on God just once !!!!!! it is probably a very good thing it was Samson's last act!! but he died "faithful"! I think that is the important point!

it is not how you start, but how you finish that is important!

so let Calvin and Arminius argue on..

[EricH]

Calvinism = God Chooses Man

Armenianism = Man Chooses God

I say YES!

both and neither and or, who cares ?

some have to be called and some have to find their own way through the darkness to him and others are given!

I think Samson is a good example of all of them! because who called who with him?

He was given to god as a child first by his parents .

So then God set the boundries for Samson life and in that act alone he calls samson maybe?.... God was hoping Samson just might avoid what was coming. but samson wasn't ever calling on god!! .....

Samson kept releasing death into his own life .. and God tried but God couldn't stop Samson death . so who called on whom?

Samson broke all boundries and all the barriers one at a time.. and still somehow fulfilled his purposes and is listed with the "great men of faith"!! OF Faith!!!! Samson????... which is kind of a joke when you really think about it. someones pet might have been more faithful than Samson was 99.9 % of his life ! he was just every kind of wrong... there was nothing about his life that was faithful!!!!

.. except that one last act. OH BUT WHAT A LAST ACT IT WAS Israel had peace for like 50 years after samson was faithful for one tiny moment in time.. just one tiny moment! so He overcame? well it looks like he over came once! and wasn't a coward when the rubber met the road. because he called on God just once !!!!!! it is probably a very good thing it was Samson's last act!! but he died "faithful"! I think that is the important point!

it is not how you start, but how you finish that is important!

so let Calvin and Arminius argue on..

We can't embrace a contradiction and say both are true. If we say God chooses man, we cannot them say man chooses God in the same time, sense or relationship.

[Rhonda Lou]

We can't embrace a contradiction and say both are true. If we say God chooses man, we cannot them say man chooses God in the same time, sense or relationship.

In a sense, we can. The Bible says: "But as many as RECEIVED HIM [/b](human responsibility), to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who BELIEVE in His Name [/b](again, human responsibility): who were born, not of blood, nor of the WILL OF THE FLESH, nor of the WILL OF MAN, but of GOD" (God's choosing) (John 1:12-13)

"And as many as had been APPOINTED tp eternal life [/b](God choosing) believed" (human responsibility) (Acts 13:48b)

All of the verses in the Bible which state that God chooses (predestination) are all inspired by God and in the Bible. All of the verses in the Bible which say that man must choose (free will, which I call human responsibility) are all inspired and are in the Bible. Therefore, all verses in BOTH camps are the inspired word of God. They are not to be pitted against each other -- they are to be believed as the inspired word of God. I agree that there are no contradictions in the Bible. Therefore, how are they to be understood? The Bible itself does not say, it just says that they are to be believed. To get my own mind around it (until I get to heaven to ask God), I see them as two perspectives: God's view of things, and man's view of things. God chooses, yet we believe. People say that if this is the case, then the choice is not really a choice. I disagree. I make the choice the same as I make any other choice: with the facts at hand, by testing the Bible and seeing that it is true, and by forming my own beliefs. The thing is that God's view is different than my view, and in His view, i have already been chosen and the Holy Spirit is working in the background to make it a certainty. I'll never know which turns in the road, so to speak, He kept me from, and which people He put or didn't put into my life to accomplish His will. All I know is that with the facts I have, and by testing the Bible and seeing that it is true, and by forming my own beliefs, and coming to the end of myself, I believed. Then, as I studied the Bible more, I saw that He chose me before the foundation of the earth. I'm glad He did so -- I'm so rebellious and independent that I'm glad He took matters into his own hands behind the scenes to make sure I chose Him. But looking at it as though it is from God's perspective, and from my own perspective is just my way of seeing things. The Bible does not say why God's will and human responsibility both exist -- it just says that they do.

I guess it is the same as God fighting our battles for us, yet asking us to fight with all our might. It is why we are not saved by good works, nor can good works keep us saved -- it is all by faith, and any Calvinist will not denounce the importance of faith -- yet at the same time, if there is no "good work" fruit born in our lives, we were never truly saved. God provides a balance in every aspect of doctrine in the Bible. So, if the "perspective" thing does not strike a chord, maybe "balance" is better -- but NOT "contradiction" and NOT "one or the other". The Bible clearly teaches both, as by now on this thread, the "Calvinists" and the "Armenians" have both pointed out their favorite Scriptures either way.

[EricH]

We can't embrace a contradiction and say both are true. If we say God chooses man, we cannot them say man chooses God in the same time, sense or relationship.

In a sense, we can. The Bible says: "But as many as RECEIVED HIM [/b](human responsibility), to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who BELIEVE in His Name [/b](again, human responsibility): who were born, not of blood, nor of the WILL OF THE FLESH, nor of the WILL OF MAN, but of GOD" (God's choosing) (John 1:12-13)

"And as many as had been APPOINTED tp eternal life [/b](God choosing) believed" (human responsibility) (Acts 13:48b)

All of the verses in the Bible which state that God chooses (predestination) are all inspired by God and in the Bible. All of the verses in the Bible which say that man must choose (free will, which I call human responsibility) are all inspired and are in the Bible. Therefore, all verses in BOTH camps are the inspired word of God. They are not to be pitted against each other -- they are to be believed as the inspired word of God. I agree that there are no contradictions in the Bible. Therefore, how are they to be understood? The Bible itself does not say, it just says that they are to be believed. To get my own mind around it (until I get to heaven to ask God), I see them as two perspectives: God's view of things, and man's view of things. God chooses, yet we believe. People say that if this is the case, then the choice is not really a choice. I disagree. I make the choice the same as I make any other choice: with the facts at hand, by testing the Bible and seeing that it is true, and by forming my own beliefs. The thing is that God's view is different than my view, and in His view, i have already been chosen and the Holy Spirit is working in the background to make it a certainty. I'll never know which turns in the road, so to speak, He kept me from, and which people He put or didn't put into my life to accomplish His will. All I know is that with the facts I have, and by testing the Bible and seeing that it is true, and by forming my own beliefs, and coming to the end of myself, I believed. Then, as I studied the Bible more, I saw that He chose me before the foundation of the earth. I'm glad He did so -- I'm so rebellious and independent that I'm glad He took matters into his own hands behind the scenes to make sure I chose Him. But looking at it as though it is from God's perspective, and from my own perspective is just my way of seeing things. The Bible does not say why God's will and human responsibility both exist -- it just says that they do.

I guess it is the same as God fighting our battles for us, yet asking us to fight with all our might. It is why we are not saved by good works, nor can good works keep us saved -- it is all by faith, and any Calvinist will not denounce the importance of faith -- yet at the same time, if there is no "good work" fruit born in our lives, we were never truly saved. God provides a balance in every aspect of doctrine in the Bible. So, if the "perspective" thing does not strike a chord, maybe "balance" is better -- but NOT "contradiction" and NOT "one or the other". The Bible clearly teaches both, as by now on this thread, the "Calvinists" and the "Armenians" have both pointed out their favorite Scriptures either way.

I agree that contradictions cannot exist in reality. So we should proably not call them contradictions. The law of non-contradiction says that truth A cannot be A and not A at the same time, in the same sense and in the same relationship. So we cannot say that God is completely soveriegn and not sovereign or that humanity has free choice but limited choice. We cannot define human freedom in a way that contradicts divine soveriegnty and vice verse.

Sciripture states 2 things clearly:

1. That God is completely sovereign over all things including the process and extent of salvation

2. That human beings make real choices for which God holds them accountab le and that have real consequences.

The scriptures never explicitly explain how these truths intersect (although scripture hints at it). So, we must be careful in how we state these truths and how we attempt to resolve them.

The classic example is in Acts:

Men of Israel, listen to these words: This Jesus the Nazarene was a man pointed out to you by God with miracles, wonders, and signs that God did among you through Him, just as you yourselves know.Though He was delivered up according to God's determined plan and foreknowledge, you used lawless people to nail Him to a cross and kill Him.]

Acts

[Rhonda Lou]

We can't embrace a contradiction and say both are true. If we say God chooses man, we cannot them say man chooses God in the same time, sense or relationship.

In a sense, we can. The Bible says: "But as many as RECEIVED HIM [/b](human responsibility), to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who BELIEVE in His Name [/b](again, human responsibility): who were born, not of blood, nor of the WILL OF THE FLESH, nor of the WILL OF MAN, but of GOD" (God's choosing) (John 1:12-13)

"And as many as had been APPOINTED tp eternal life [/b](God choosing) believed" (human responsibility) (Acts 13:48b)

All of the verses in the Bible which state that God chooses (predestination) are all inspired by God and in the Bible. All of the verses in the Bible which say that man must choose (free will, which I call human responsibility) are all inspired and are in the Bible. Therefore, all verses in BOTH camps are the inspired word of God. They are not to be pitted against each other -- they are to be believed as the inspired word of God. I agree that there are no contradictions in the Bible. Therefore, how are they to be understood? The Bible itself does not say, it just says that they are to be believed. To get my own mind around it (until I get to heaven to ask God), I see them as two perspectives: God's view of things, and man's view of things. God chooses, yet we believe. People say that if this is the case, then the choice is not really a choice. I disagree. I make the choice the same as I make any other choice: with the facts at hand, by testing the Bible and seeing that it is true, and by forming my own beliefs. The thing is that God's view is different than my view, and in His view, i have already been chosen and the Holy Spirit is working in the background to make it a certainty. I'll never know which turns in the road, so to speak, He kept me from, and which people He put or didn't put into my life to accomplish His will. All I know is that with the facts I have, and by testing the Bible and seeing that it is true, and by forming my own beliefs, and coming to the end of myself, I believed. Then, as I studied the Bible more, I saw that He chose me before the foundation of the earth. I'm glad He did so -- I'm so rebellious and independent that I'm glad He took matters into his own hands behind the scenes to make sure I chose Him. But looking at it as though it is from God's perspective, and from my own perspective is just my way of seeing things. The Bible does not say why God's will and human responsibility both exist -- it just says that they do.

I guess it is the same as God fighting our battles for us, yet asking us to fight with all our might. It is why we are not saved by good works, nor can good works keep us saved -- it is all by faith, and any Calvinist will not denounce the importance of faith -- yet at the same time, if there is no "good work" fruit born in our lives, we were never truly saved. God provides a balance in every aspect of doctrine in the Bible. So, if the "perspective" thing does not strike a chord, maybe "balance" is better -- but NOT "contradiction" and NOT "one or the other". The Bible clearly teaches both, as by now on this thread, the "Calvinists" and the "Armenians" have both pointed out their favorite Scriptures either way.

I agree that contradictions cannot exist in reality. So we should proably not call them contradictions. The law of non-contradiction says that truth A cannot be A and not A at the same time, in the same sense and in the same relationship. So we cannot say that God is completely soveriegn and not sovereign or that humanity has free choice but limited choice. We cannot define human freedom in a way that contradicts divine soveriegnty and vice verse.

Sciripture states 2 things clearly:

1. That God is completely sovereign over all things including the process and extent of salvation

2. That human beings make real choices for which God holds them accountab le and that have real consequences.

The scriptures never explicitly explain how these truths intersect (although scripture hints at it). So, we must be careful in how we state these truths and how we attempt to resolve them.

The classic example is in Acts:

Men of Israel, listen to these words: This Jesus the Nazarene was a man pointed out to you by God with miracles, wonders, and signs that God did among you through Him, just as you yourselves know.Though He was delivered up according to God's determined plan and foreknowledge, you used lawless people to nail Him to a cross and kill Him.]

Acts

[Guest]

Here's One Young Brother That Asserts The (For Me) Heart Of The Matter

In applying man's logos (man's reason)

[rca]

We can't embrace a contradiction and say both are true. If we say God chooses man, we cannot them say man chooses God in the same time, sense or relationship.

In a sense, we can. The Bible says: "But as many as RECEIVED HIM [/b](human responsibility), to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who BELIEVE in His Name [/b](again, human responsibility): who were born, not of blood, nor of the WILL OF THE FLESH, nor of the WILL OF MAN, but of GOD" (God's choosing) (John 1:12-13)

"And as many as had been APPOINTED tp eternal life [/b](God choosing) believed" (human responsibility) (Acts 13:48b)

All of the verses in the Bible which state that God chooses (predestination) are all inspired by God and in the Bible. All of the verses in the Bible which say that man must choose (free will, which I call human responsibility) are all inspired and are in the Bible. Therefore, all verses in BOTH camps are the inspired word of God. They are not to be pitted against each other -- they are to be believed as the inspired word of God. I agree that there are no contradictions in the Bible. Therefore, how are they to be understood? The Bible itself does not say, it just says that they are to be believed. To get my own mind around it (until I get to heaven to ask God), I see them as two perspectives: God's view of things, and man's view of things. God chooses, yet we believe. People say that if this is the case, then the choice is not really a choice. I disagree. I make the choice the same as I make any other choice: with the facts at hand, by testing the Bible and seeing that it is true, and by forming my own beliefs. The thing is that God's view is different than my view, and in His view, i have already been chosen and the Holy Spirit is working in the background to make it a certainty. I'll never know which turns in the road, so to speak, He kept me from, and which people He put or didn't put into my life to accomplish His will. All I know is that with the facts I have, and by testing the Bible and seeing that it is true, and by forming my own beliefs, and coming to the end of myself, I believed. Then, as I studied the Bible more, I saw that He chose me before the foundation of the earth. I'm glad He did so -- I'm so rebellious and independent that I'm glad He took matters into his own hands behind the scenes to make sure I chose Him. But looking at it as though it is from God's perspective, and from my own perspective is just my way of seeing things. The Bible does not say why God's will and human responsibility both exist -- it just says that they do.

I guess it is the same as God fighting our battles for us, yet asking us to fight with all our might. It is why we are not saved by good works, nor can good works keep us saved -- it is all by faith, and any Calvinist will not denounce the importance of faith -- yet at the same time, if there is no "good work" fruit born in our lives, we were never truly saved. God provides a balance in every aspect of doctrine in the Bible. So, if the "perspective" thing does not strike a chord, maybe "balance" is better -- but NOT "contradiction" and NOT "one or the other". The Bible clearly teaches both, as by now on this thread, the "Calvinists" and the "Armenians" have both pointed out their favorite Scriptures either way.

I agree that contradictions cannot exist in reality. So we should proably not call them contradictions. The law of non-contradiction says that truth A cannot be A and not A at the same time, in the same sense and in the same relationship. So we cannot say that God is completely soveriegn and not sovereign or that humanity has free choice but limited choice. We cannot define human freedom in a way that contradicts divine soveriegnty and vice verse.

Sciripture states 2 things clearly:

1. That God is completely sovereign over all things including the process and extent of salvation

2. That human beings make real choices for which God holds them accountab le and that have real consequences.

The scriptures never explicitly explain how these truths intersect (although scripture hints at it). So, we must be careful in how we state these truths and how we attempt to resolve them.

The classic example is in Acts:

Men of Israel, listen to these words: This Jesus the Nazarene was a man pointed out to you by God with miracles, wonders, and signs that God did among you through Him, just as you yourselves know.Though He was delivered up according to God's determined plan and foreknowledge, you used lawless people to nail Him to a cross and kill Him.]

Acts

[rca]

Don't know if this has been said already..

But there are christians who are neither calvinist nor armenian

Why?

Not calvinist, because they do believe in having to call out for salvation from Jesus.. there is an initial call in response to the Holy Spirit's drawing. This is a once off call.. that gives salvation permanently forever.. just as long as it is genuine.

Romans chapter 10, John 3:16, John 5:24 are just a few bits that support this.

Now.. not arminian.. because there is absolutely no way.. once salvation is given that it can be undone. No by the person saved.. nor Jesus.

Again the above verses support this.. plus many many more.

When you want to know sound salvation teaching.. you don't go for men's teachings.. unless you know for sure they line up with scripture in context solidly.

Calvinism.. takes 'he who endures to the end will be saved' out of context. This verse.. and others like it are all about being delivered from troubles and trials.. not eternal salvation.

Hebrews 6 gets taken out of context by Armenian doctrine.. mistakenly assuming 'fall away' means loss of salvation. Also.. 'blasphemy of the Holy Spirit' .. getting taken to be addressed at christians.. when Jesus was talking to unsaved pharisees and scribes when He talked about it. Not to mention a whole raft of other verses regarding salvation.

The key thing is.. there is a big difference between saving faith.. the once off act.. and daily service 'the faith'.. they are not dependent on eachother.

You don't HAVE to do good works after salvation... Jesus wants us to so we can be in close intimacy with Him.. rather than a distant relationship.. not because He'll send us to hell if we don't.

Take off the glasses that say there is only Armenianism and Calvinism when it comes to salvation doctrine.. take off the glasses that say there is Catholicism and all churches coming out of the Reformation.. that are all there is as far as christian churches go!

There were.. and always have been christians who believed just the bible.. and not in Calvin or Armenius. There were and always will be churches that have no Catholic roots.. and also no Reformation roots.. because there were independent christian churches coming right from the NT churches to today. Who were and are they? Independent baptists are the modern equivalent of these kind of churches that relied solely on the bible and nothing else .. since Jesus' day.

They weren't always called baptists.. they had there own names.. in fact I think alot had no name but were given nicknames. But they all believed the same teachings in general.. based entirely on scripture and not men's teaching.

Your beliefs are inconsistent. If you believe that nobody can choose God on their own and it is God that gives you faith (Calvinism) then if it is God that gives you the faith then surely God would not take it away either.

If you believe that you come to faith by choice (Arminian) then choice could just as easy leading to throwing away your faith by choice.

Calvinism believes faith comes from God as a gift and does not get taken back by God.

Arminianism believes faith comes by free choice and free choice could just as easy depart from faith.

Either faith comes by God or you choose faith. I see no middle ground. You have simply interpreted clear Arninian doctrine (Like Hebrews 6, 10) to come to your supposed middle ground. In effect you are saying man chooses faith. Once he has faith then God makes it (overides his further choices) so that he cannot give up the faith.

And as far as that goes the 5th article of the Remonstrance did not completely deny perseverance of the saints; Arminius, himself, said that "I never taught that a true believer can