Calvin vs. Arminius

[His_disciple3]

For those who are not familiar with the debate or the acronyms, here is a brief summation of both.

Jacobus Arminius was a Professor of Divinity at Leyden University in Holland at the turn of the seventeenth century. He was the protege of Theodore Beza, who was John Calvin's successor. Arminius was a strict Calvinist early on, but later he developed a set of doctrines that were divergient from the widely accepted doctrines of Calvinism. Arminius's teachings concerning sin, selection, predestination, and eternal security attracted a following. Some time after his death in 1609 some of his followers consolidated his teachings into 5 concise points (Later identified by the acronym DAISY) and presented them in a formal letter of Remonstrance (or objection) to the Reformed Church of Holland in 1618. The Church conducted a formal inquiry into the claims of the Arminians, and thus, the Synod of Dort was formed. In 1619 the Arminians got their answers in the form of an article known as The Canons of the Synod of Dort. The synod answered each of the five points presented by the Arminians with five contrary points that we now call "The Five Points of Calvinism," otherwise known by the acronym TULIP. Thus, the Synod of Dort absolutely rejected Arminianism as heretical, and confirmed Calvinism as the true doctrine of Christ's church.

However, far from being dispelled, the controversy between these two doctrines exists in the church today. Although both Arminius' and Calvin's doctrines go much further and much deeper than the "boiled down" points outlined by the acronyms, they do suffice to provide the basics of what each theolgical position entails. The acronyms are provided below:

Calvinism

T = Total depravity/ Total inability. Because of the fall, man is unable of himself to savingly believe the gospel. The sinner is dead, blind, and deaf to the things of God; his heart is deceitful and desperately corrupt. His will is not free, it is in in bondage to his evil nature, therefore, he will not -- indeed he cannot -- choose good over evil in the spiritual realm. Consequently, it takes much more than the Spirit's assistance to bring a sinner to Christ -- it takes regeneration by which the Spirit makes the sinner alive and gives him a new nature. Faith is not something man contributes to salvation but is itself a part of God's gift of salvation -- it is God's gift to the sinner, not the sinner's gift to God.

U = Unconditional Election. God's choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world rested solely in His own sovereign will. His choice of particular sinners was not based on any foreseen response or obedience on their part, such as faith, repentance, etc. On the contrary, God gives faith and repentance to each individual whom He selected. These acts are the result, not the cause of God's choice. Election therefore was not determined by or conditioned upon any virtuous quality or act foreseen in man. Those whom God sovereignly elected He brings through the power of the Spirit to a willing acceptance of Christ. Thus God's choice of the sinner, not the sinner's choice of Christ, is the ultimate cause of salvation.

L = Limited Atonement. Christ's redeeming work was intended to save the elect only and actually secured salvation for them. His death was a substitutionary endurance of the penalty of sin in the place of certain specified sinners. In addition to putting away the sins of His people, Christ's redemption secured everything necessary for their salvation, including faith which unites them to Him. The gift of faith is infallibly applied by the Spirit to all for whom Christ died, thereby guaranteeing their salvation.

I = Irresistable Grace. In addition to the outward general call to salvation which is made to everyone who hears the gospel, the Holy Spirit extends to the elect a special inward call that inevitably brings them to salvation. The external call (which is made to all without distinction) can be and often is, rejected; whereas the internal call (which is made only to the elect) cannot be rejected; it always results in conversion. By means of this special call the Spirit irresistibly draws sinners to Christ. He is not limited in His work of applying salvation by man's will, nor is He dependent upon man's cooperation for success. The Spirit graciously causes the elect sinner to cooperate, to believe, to repent, to come freely and willingly to Christ. God's grace, therefore, is invincible; it never fails to result in the salvation of those to whom it is extended.

P = Perseverance of the Saints. All who were chosen by God, redeemed by Christ, and given faith by the Spirit are eternally saved. They are kept in faith by the power of Almighty God and thus persevere to the end. According to Calvinism: Salvation is accomplished by the almighty power of the Triune God. The Father chose a people, the Son died for them, the Holy Spirit makes Christ's death effective by bringing the elect to faith and repentance, thereby causing them to willingly obey the gospel. The entire process (election, redemption, regeneration) is the work of God and is by grace alone. Thus God, not man, determines who will be the recipients of the gift of salvation.

Arminianism

D = Depravity (Partial depravity or Dead, but somehow alive). Although human nature was seriously affected by the fall, man has not been left in a state of total spiritual helplessness. God graciously enables every sinner to repent and believe, but He does so in such a manner as not to interfere with man's freedom. Each sinner possesses a free will, and his eternal destiny depends on how he uses it. Man's freedom consists of his ability to choose good over evil in spiritual matters; his will is not enslaved to his sinful nature. The sinner has the power to either cooperate with God's Spirit and be regenerated or resist God's grace and perish. The lost sinner needs the Spirit's assistance, but he does not have to be regenerated by the Spirit before he can believe, for faith is man's act and precedes the new birth. Faith is the sinner's gift to God; It is man's contribution to salvation.

A = Arbitrary Selection (Abolition of True Grace). God's choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world was based upon His foreseeing that they would respond to His call. He selected only those whom He knew would of themselves freely believe the gospel. Election therefore was termined by or conditioned upon what man would do. The faith which God foresaw and upon which He based His choice was not given to the sinner by God (it was not created by the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit) but resulted solely from man's will. It was left entirely up to man as to who would believe and therefore as to who would be elected unto salvation. God chose those whom He knew would, of their own free will, choose Christ. Thus the sinner's choice of Christ, not God's choice of the sinner, is the ultimate cause of salvation.

I = Inequitable Limitation (of Christ's selection). Christ's redeeming work made it possible for everyone to be saved but did not actually secure the salvation of anyone. Although Christ died for all men and for every man, only those who believe in Him are saved. His death enabled God to pardon sinners on the condtition that they believe, but it did not actually put away anyone's sins. Christ's redemption becomes effective only if man chooses to accept it.

S = Sovereignty (of the sinner). The Spirit calls inwardly all those who are called outwardly by the gospel invitation; He does all that He can to bring every sinner to salvation. But inasmuch as man is free, he can successfully resist the Spirit's call. The Spirit cannot regenerate the sinner until he believes; faith (which is man's contribution) precedes and makes possible the new birth. Thus, man's free will limits the Spirit in the application of Christ's saving work. The Holy Spirit can only draw to Christ those who allow Him to have His way with them. Until the sinner responds, the Spirit cannot give life. God's grace, therefore, is not invincible; it can be, and often is, resisted and thwarted by man.

Y = Yielding Eternal Uncertainty. Those who believe and are truly saved can lose their salvation by failing to keep up their faith, etc. All Arminians have not been agreed on this point; some have held that believers are eternally secure in Christ -- that once a sinner is regenerated, he can never be lost. According to Arminianism: Salvation is accomplished through the combined efforts of God (who takes the initiative) and man (who must respond) -- man's response being the determining factor. God has provided salvation for everyone, but His provision becomes effective only for those who, of their own free will, choose to cooperate with Him and accept His offer of grace. At the crucial point, man's will plays a decisive role; thus man, not God, determines who will be the recipients of the gift of salvation.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Although we can debate the points here, the goal is just to see where you stand theologically. I personally am more Calvinist than I am Arminian. Some Christians have found a balance between both views, and so are more like 50/50.

So, if we are to debate these points, let's keep it healthy - especially when we get to the matter of eternal security. None of this, "Well you're going to hell if you fool yourself into believing..." Let us all remember that our salvation has been afforded by Christ, and our basis either way is in His blood.

So......where do you stand?

Endnote: The texts of TULIP and DAISY were cut-and-pasted from http://www.lifegoeso...th/calvarmn.htm Credit where credit is due.

I want to begin by thanking Ovedya for reiterating the TULIP and DAISY ideological outlines. It's simply put and very welcome.

The sniping began almost immediately after the initial post as it has done for hundreds and hundreds of years.

Do you know that a lot of the philosophical background for both ideologies rests in classical paganism, not the Bible. If you read the philosophers and theologians of the early Christian and pre-Christian era you'll see the parallels quite clearly. One of the reasons there is so much disagreement about this range of opinion is that the entire discussion is based on an incompatible mixture of pagan culture and Biblical revelation.

Did you ever wonder why God added this stuff to the Bible in the first place? Jesus spent a lot of time correcting false impressions and bad teaching. Could it be that both doctrinal flowers are in fact little more than silk imitations of the real thing - false representations of a truth that has always been right there in front of our faces?

When folk are discussing floral arrangements of tulips and daises in the Kingdom of God, they somehow forget to include the brambles, thistles, thorns and cactus that grow in the garden as well as their interaction with one another and the acts of the gardener. Does someone have a detailed dogma about them too? Jesus did and the gospels record a couple versions of it. His agricultural allusions always seem to illustrate a natural flow and purpose to things whereas the doctrines of man seem to always be more mechanical, with subsequent occasional breakdowns in logic.

Truly truly, something else is going on.

but that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...

sorry dude, But what does the synod of dort. prove, that a group of calvinist can get together and disagree with someone who disagreed with them, the choir loft is a place to sing not holler. also with your example of a agricultural allusions always seem to illustrate a natural flow, you must have never been in agricultural and seen the nature flow of things produce hailballs the size of golf balls and totally destory your crop

I would welcome the opportunity to exchange views with you - if I could figure out what you're saying. Try using smaller words and shorter sentences next time.

If you want to discuss natural disasters, try this one on for size; how about the prayer of a man I know that averted an accident that would have killed two dozen men? By the grace of God they escaped with minor difficulties. How about the kindness of God that stopped a hurricane dead in its tracks. Ever been through one of those babies? Makes your hail stones look like a child's ice cream cone, makes your crop devastation look like a kid's yard work done wrong. Imagine an F5 tornado TWO TO THREE HUNDRED miles across and you begin to get the idea of what I'm talking about. Now imagine the God of Hosts redirecting TWO of them at the same time to avoid the loss of life. I've been there and I've seen it. Hurricanes man, not a tiny little hail storm that ruined a crop. I'm talking about Biblical devastation, man. I've been there and I've seen it, so don't presume to lecture me about your tiny trauma in the barn yard, you'll get no sympathy from me.

I've seen shipwrecks at sea avoided by divine mercy. I've seen car wrecks that could have killed and did not because God decided ahead of time to turn the situation around. I've seen plane accidents avoided because of miracles sent from heaven and I've seen God heal limbs that were born wrong and I've heard Him speak in the thunder of the clouds.

*** Edited *** I'll holler and I'll scream of the glory and mercy of God if I want to. Close your eyes and ears if you don't like it. There are millions of people and millions upon millions of angels who holler and cry and scream from choir lofts from city streets and from the holy halls of heaven itself. PRAISE GOD.

Holy Holy Holy Worthy is He who sits upon the throne to receive glory and honor and praise. I praise and honor the Lord of Hosts because I know Him who has given Himself for me and who has spared me and given me life. He deserves the praises of men and angels because he's earned it.

but that's just me HOLLERING from the choir loft...

wow you have to be the greatest person i have ever spoke with, I would Bow to you, but God said not to bow to any other but Him , so hope you understand me not bowing to you, as far as your hollering it says to make a joyful noise not just a noise.( LOL) All them angels that you spoke of, did any of them ever warn you of pride, it ain't about you or me dude, it is about Jesus The truth, the way and the Life, and His gospel which says that all that will come to Him. NOT, all that are forced to come to him, shall be saved.

Edited July 16, 2012 by OneLight

[larryt]

Revelation 22:16-17

16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

KJV

it says "let him take of the Water of Life freely, not force him to! was Jesus lying in John 6? no , is there a contradiction between John 6 and john 17 No way! only the way people try and make scriptures fit their doctrine, instead of making their doctrine fit scriptures.

Free-willers throw this passage all the time but do not take the time to really look at what the verses say.

First we are told that the Spirit and the Bride say come. The Spirit is the Holy Spirit calling out through the bride, the church as those that go forth to the harvest saying: Come.

Then comes the requirement that nobody mentions. First is that you need to hear. If you do not hear or are deaf Spiritually you won't be able to say come also. There are many that have never heard the good news and perrished. Many people down through history never had the gospel preached to them and without the gospel no one is saved.

The next thing that we are told is that IF you are THIRSTY come to the water of life and drink freely. If you are not thirsty you won't come. Only those that recognize thier thirst will come. This verse never implies that all are thirsty. Jesus told the pharisees that because they did not recognize their blindness their sin remained.

Then the BIGGY passage alway thrown out of context to justify free will is "And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." This implies that whosoever WON'T is also valid and are not allowed to take the water of life freely. Only those who WILL may take the water. Those that won't may not take it. This also shows that God does not force anyone to take the water. It is free to whosoever HEARS, IS THIRSTY, and WILLS. If you do not hear, thirst and will to take the water, you are not allowed to.

My next question is: How does any son of Adam who is blind, deaf and spiritually dead, see, hear, and rise up from the grave to be able to take the water?

Tell me did Lazarrus decide he wanted to come out of the grave when Jesus went to raise the dead man? No, Jesus decided as God to raise him up and Lazarrus obeyed. He had no part in the descision to be raised.

Tell me did you have any say in being born into this world? Wasn't it the descision of your parents?

[His_disciple3]

Revelation 22:16-17

16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

KJV

it says "let him take of the Water of Life freely, not force him to! was Jesus lying in John 6? no , is there a contradiction between John 6 and john 17 No way! only the way people try and make scriptures fit their doctrine, instead of making their doctrine fit scriptures.

Free-willers throw this passage all the time but do not take the time to really look at what the verses say.

First we are told that the Spirit and the Bride say come. The Spirit is the Holy Spirit calling out through the bride, the church as those that go forth to the harvest saying: Come.

Then comes the requirement that nobody mentions. First is that you need to hear. If you do not hear or are deaf Spiritually you won't be able to say come also. There are many that have never heard the good news and perrished. Many people down through history never had the gospel preached to them and without the gospel no one is saved.

The next thing that we are told is that IF you are THIRSTY come to the water of life and drink freely. If you are not thirsty you won't come. Only those that recognize thier thirst will come. This verse never implies that all are thirsty. Jesus told the pharisees that because they did not recognize their blindness their sin remained.

Then the BIGGY passage alway thrown out of context to justify free will is "And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." This implies that whosoever WON'T is also valid and are not allowed to take the water of life freely. Only those who WILL may take the water. Those that won't may not take it. This also shows that God does not force anyone to take the water. It is free to whosoever HEARS, IS THIRSTY, and WILLS. If you do not hear, thirst and will to take the water, you are not allowed to.

My next question is: How does any son of Adam who is blind, deaf and spiritually dead, see, hear, and rise up from the grave to be able to take the water?

Tell me did Lazarrus decide he wanted to come out of the grave when Jesus went to raise the dead man? No, Jesus decided as God to raise him up and Lazarrus obeyed. He had no part in the descision to be raised.

Tell me did you have any say in being born into this world? Wasn't it the descision of your parents?

Sir, did anyone have choice to be born into this world, we must rightly divide the Word of Truth, truth is doctrine of grace pertains to salvation, please don't try and sidetrack or confuse the debate with the fleshly birth, and I couldn't disagree with you more than no it wasn't my parents but rather My God that made the decision, that I would be borned. It is the Same God that made the decision that His Son would be borned and that His Son would die the death that He did That I MIGHT have Life, and if you are correct that would be that I would have life there would be no MAY OR MIGHT to it. it would be that I would or would not have life. Is there any hint of a verse that says If I choose God then I might be borned into this world or if I choose not God then i might not be borned into this world, if not then to say the least your question is without value.

maybe you have come into the discussion a little late I preach that election is scriptures as well as man's God given ablity to choose God, to choose life over death, to choose good over evil. I preach that if any deny either election or free-will(choice) then that is just denying scriptures, now in our infinite mind can we know the thoughts of God except He reveal those thoughts through scriptures, or share them through revelation. Putting to the two(election and Choice) together, is a middle ground that apparently not many are willing to do or can do. But Isaiah 14:1 helped me more than any verse I have found, so far. Isaiah 13 talks about the last days, and 14 covers judgement, so verse 14:1 right in between the last days and Judgement, the verse says that God has yet to choose Israel, and I preach that one word we hardly ever hear from the calvinist camp is "FOREKNOWLEDGE" so if after Isaiah was borned God has yet to choose Israel even as the last days are passing, that Isaiah porphecized, God has yet to choose Israel then how can scriptuires say that He predestined before time begin? By His foreknowledge of His judgement, Not that he elected then judged by that election, but rather He judged and by His foreknowledge of the judgement He elected. Paul said that all he went through, that he went through so that the elect. might obtain salvation. if paul did not say that he went through it that the elect would obtain salvation, so if the elect might obtain salvation, that also means that they might not obtain salvation.

every word Of God, must we live by, if your interpretation of Salvation or how we obtain salvation is correct then how did the three that were biden, refuse, and if three can refuse what stops others from being able to refuse. For the three, they heard the invitiation, for they responded with A No we can not come. one said because he had just bought some land the other he had just bought some oxen, and the other He had just got married, what ever the reason there was three biden and threee refused and because of these men's negative response to the calling of God into the kingdom, they were left out and others brought in, this alone tells me that salvation, the doctrine of grace can not be as calvinist see it.

[larryt]

Sir, did anyone have choice to be born into this world, we must rightly divide the Word of Truth, truth is doctrine of grace pertains to salvation, please don't try and sidetrack or confuse the debate with the fleshly birth, and I couldn't disagree with you more than no it wasn't my parents but rather My God that made the decision, that I would be borned.

And you sir have avoided the question again. The use of the fleshly birth is an illustration. In the same way that men are born by the decision of their parents the born again person is born by the decision of the the Father.

It is the Same God that made the decision that His Son would be borned and that His Son would die the death that He did That I MIGHT have Life, and if you are correct that would be that I would have life there would be no MAY OR MIGHT to it. it would be that I would or would not have life. Is there any hint of a verse that says If I choose God then I might be borned into this world or if I choose not God then i might not be borned into this world, if not then to say the least your question is without value.

We choose God because He FIRST chose us. We love God because He FIRST chose us. We have faith because it is the gift of God without which we would not believe.

maybe you have come into the discussion a little late

What do you mean late???? You joined WB in June of this year. I have been here since 2004.

I preach that election is scriptures as well as man's God given ablity to choose God, to choose life over death, to choose good over evil. I preach that if any deny either election or free-will(choice) then that is just denying scriptures,

I do not agree that man's will is FREE. It is in bondage to his fallen nature. Man can choose but he cannot choose God unless God does a work in the heart of man to make him able to even respond. A dead man cannot rise from the grave by himself. A blind man cannot see unless his sight is restored. Man cannot even see the Kingdom of Heaven unless he is born again/from above first.

now in our infinite mind can we know the thoughts of God except He reveal those thoughts through scriptures, or share them through revelation. Putting to the two(election and Choice) together, is a middle ground that apparently not many are willing to do or can do.

I don't know about you but the only Infinite mind is the mind of God.

But Isaiah 14:1 helped me more than any verse I have found, so far. Isaiah 13 talks about the last days, and 14 covers judgement, so verse 14:1 right in between the last days and Judgement, the verse says that God has yet to choose Israel, and I preach that one word we hardly ever hear from the calvinist camp is "FOREKNOWLEDGE" so if after Isaiah was borned God has yet to choose Israel even as the last days are passing, that Isaiah porphecized, God has yet to choose Israel then how can scriptuires say that He predestined before time begin? By His foreknowledge of His judgement, Not that he elected then judged by that election, but rather He judged and by His foreknowledge of the judgement He elected. Paul said that all he went through, that he went through so that the elect. might obtain salvation. if paul did not say that he went through it that the elect would obtain salvation, so if the elect might obtain salvation, that also means that they might not obtain salvation.

This passage has nothing to do with the doctrine of election. God will yet choose Israel as in God will still choose Israel. And Foreknowledge is not about knowing before hand. Foreknowledge is about relationship. Jesus never knew the religious hypocrites. God knows everything and everybody, but He only has a relationship with His sheep, His people, whom He seeks out and saves.

Ge 4:1 ¶ And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

Adam had an intimate relationship with his wife.

every word Of God, must we live by, if your interpretation of Salvation or how we obtain salvation is correct then how did the three that were biden, refuse, and if three can refuse what stops others from being able to refuse. For the three, they heard the invitiation, for they responded with A No we can not come. one said because he had just bought some land the other he had just bought some oxen, and the other He had just got married, what ever the reason there was three biden and threee refused and because of these men's negative response to the calling of God into the kingdom, they were left out and others brought in, this alone tells me that salvation, the doctrine of grace can not be as calvinist see it.

I do not derive doctrine from parables. I use parables to understand doctrine. If you cannot understand the parable of the sowers then you will not understand this parable. Those that refuse are the same as those that are associated with the stony ground or thorny ground. Only the ground that is prepared will bring forth a harvest.

Maybe you would like to go back to before you joined and read some of my posts and find out where I am coming from.

[His_disciple3]

Sir, did anyone have choice to be born into this world, we must rightly divide the Word of Truth, truth is doctrine of grace pertains to salvation, please don't try and sidetrack or confuse the debate with the fleshly birth, and I couldn't disagree with you more than no it wasn't my parents but rather My God that made the decision, that I would be borned.

And you sir have avoided the question again. The use of the fleshly birth is an illustration. In the same way that men are born by the decision of their parents the born again person is born by the decision of the the Father.

It is the Same God that made the decision that His Son would be borned and that His Son would die the death that He did That I MIGHT have Life, and if you are correct that would be that I would have life there would be no MAY OR MIGHT to it. it would be that I would or would not have life. Is there any hint of a verse that says If I choose God then I might be borned into this world or if I choose not God then i might not be borned into this world, if not then to say the least your question is without value.

We choose God because He FIRST chose us. We love God because He FIRST chose us. We have faith because it is the gift of God without which we would not believe.

maybe you have come into the discussion a little late

What do you mean late???? You joined WB in June of this year. I have been here since 2004.

I preach that election is scriptures as well as man's God given ablity to choose God, to choose life over death, to choose good over evil. I preach that if any deny either election or free-will(choice) then that is just denying scriptures,

I do not agree that man's will is FREE. It is in bondage to his fallen nature. Man can choose but he cannot choose God unless God does a work in the heart of man to make him able to even respond. A dead man cannot rise from the grave by himself. A blind man cannot see unless his sight is restored. Man cannot even see the Kingdom of Heaven unless he is born again/from above first.

now in our infinite mind can we know the thoughts of God except He reveal those thoughts through scriptures, or share them through revelation. Putting to the two(election and Choice) together, is a middle ground that apparently not many are willing to do or can do.

I don't know about you but the only Infinite mind is the mind of God.

But Isaiah 14:1 helped me more than any verse I have found, so far. Isaiah 13 talks about the last days, and 14 covers judgement, so verse 14:1 right in between the last days and Judgement, the verse says that God has yet to choose Israel, and I preach that one word we hardly ever hear from the calvinist camp is "FOREKNOWLEDGE" so if after Isaiah was borned God has yet to choose Israel even as the last days are passing, that Isaiah porphecized, God has yet to choose Israel then how can scriptuires say that He predestined before time begin? By His foreknowledge of His judgement, Not that he elected then judged by that election, but rather He judged and by His foreknowledge of the judgement He elected. Paul said that all he went through, that he went through so that the elect. might obtain salvation. if paul did not say that he went through it that the elect would obtain salvation, so if the elect might obtain salvation, that also means that they might not obtain salvation.

This passage has nothing to do with the doctrine of election. God will yet choose Israel as in God will still choose Israel. And Foreknowledge is not about knowing before hand. Foreknowledge is about relationship. Jesus never knew the religious hypocrites. God knows everything and everybody, but He only has a relationship with His sheep, His people, whom He seeks out and saves.

Ge 4:1 ¶ And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

Adam had an intimate relationship with his wife.

every word Of God, must we live by, if your interpretation of Salvation or how we obtain salvation is correct then how did the three that were biden, refuse, and if three can refuse what stops others from being able to refuse. For the three, they heard the invitiation, for they responded with A No we can not come. one said because he had just bought some land the other he had just bought some oxen, and the other He had just got married, what ever the reason there was three biden and threee refused and because of these men's negative response to the calling of God into the kingdom, they were left out and others brought in, this alone tells me that salvation, the doctrine of grace can not be as calvinist see it.

I do not derive doctrine from parables. I use parables to understand doctrine. If you cannot understand the parable of the sowers then you will not understand this parable. Those that refuse are the same as those that are associated with the stony ground or thorny ground. Only the ground that is prepared will bring forth a harvest.

Maybe you would like to go back to before you joined and read some of my posts and find out where I am coming from.

no we can from here Let's understand the parable of the seed, seeing that you believe you must understand it before we can understand the parable of the great supper, there was some seed sown on stoney ground and it did no good, if God is the sower, why would a all knowing sovereign God Throw seed out where it wouldn't do no good. remember you said it was important understand this parable, the seed was the Word, the word was God and that Word we beheld His Glory as the begotten, The Word was put forth on all soil, even knowing that some soil would not accept it, would no ever be any good for the soil of the seed (Word)even as the Gospel, it wasn't just given to those that would benefit from it but was thrown out on "ALL" soils, as all People, as every man has a measured portion of faith, and soils were given the seed. thanks for pointing out the parable of the seed, But wouldn't you as a calvinist have to say that only the good soil would be given the Seed?

[Stan53]

I really didn't think the choices were good one but I voted 100% Arminian even though I'm NOT really. All I know is that I don't subscribe to ANYTHING with Calvin flavour.

[larryt]

no we can from here Let's understand the parable of the seed, seeing that you believe you must understand it before we can understand the parable of the great supper,

It is not I that says that you need to understand it so that you can understand the other parables, it was the Lord who said it.

Mr 4:13 And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables?

there was some seed sown on stoney ground and it did no good, if God is the sower, why would a all knowing sovereign God Throw seed out where it wouldn't do no good. remember you said it was important understand this parable, the seed was the Word, the word was God and that Word we beheld His Glory as the begotten, The Word was put forth on all soil, even knowing that some soil would not accept it, would no ever be any good for the soil of the seed (Word)even as the Gospel, it wasn't just given to those that would benefit from it but was thrown out on "ALL" soils, as all People, as every man has a measured portion of faith, and soils were given the seed. thanks for pointing out the parable of the seed, But wouldn't you as a calvinist have to say that only the good soil would be given the Seed?

The gospel is to be proclaimed to all the world. It is not my job to determine who is to hear and who is not to hear. That is for God to decide. I can be confident that all the sheep wherever they are will hear and respond.

Ac 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

[Stan53]

Sir, did anyone have choice to be born into this world, we must rightly divide the Word of Truth, truth is doctrine of grace pertains to salvation, please don't try and sidetrack or confuse the debate with the fleshly birth, and I couldn't disagree with you more than no it wasn't my parents but rather My God that made the decision, that I would be borned.

And you sir have avoided the question again. The use of the fleshly birth is an illustration. In the same way that men are born by the decision of their parents the born again person is born by the decision of the the Father.

It is the Same God that made the decision that His Son would be borned and that His Son would die the death that He did That I MIGHT have Life, and if you are correct that would be that I would have life there would be no MAY OR MIGHT to it. it would be that I would or would not have life. Is there any hint of a verse that says If I choose God then I might be borned into this world or if I choose not God then i might not be borned into this world, if not then to say the least your question is without value.

We choose God because He FIRST chose us. We love God because He FIRST chose us. We have faith because it is the gift of God without which we would not believe.

maybe you have come into the discussion a little late

What do you mean late???? You joined WB in June of this year. I have been here since 2004.

I preach that election is scriptures as well as man's God given ablity to choose God, to choose life over death, to choose good over evil. I preach that if any deny either election or free-will(choice) then that is just denying scriptures,

I do not agree that man's will is FREE. It is in bondage to his fallen nature. Man can choose but he cannot choose God unless God does a work in the heart of man to make him able to even respond. A dead man cannot rise from the grave by himself. A blind man cannot see unless his sight is restored. Man cannot even see the Kingdom of Heaven unless he is born again/from above first.

now in our infinite mind can we know the thoughts of God except He reveal those thoughts through scriptures, or share them through revelation. Putting to the two(election and Choice) together, is a middle ground that apparently not many are willing to do or can do.

I don't know about you but the only Infinite mind is the mind of God.

But Isaiah 14:1 helped me more than any verse I have found, so far. Isaiah 13 talks about the last days, and 14 covers judgement, so verse 14:1 right in between the last days and Judgement, the verse says that God has yet to choose Israel, and I preach that one word we hardly ever hear from the calvinist camp is "FOREKNOWLEDGE" so if after Isaiah was borned God has yet to choose Israel even as the last days are passing, that Isaiah porphecized, God has yet to choose Israel then how can scriptuires say that He predestined before time begin? By His foreknowledge of His judgement, Not that he elected then judged by that election, but rather He judged and by His foreknowledge of the judgement He elected. Paul said that all he went through, that he went through so that the elect. might obtain salvation. if paul did not say that he went through it that the elect would obtain salvation, so if the elect might obtain salvation, that also means that they might not obtain salvation.

This passage has nothing to do with the doctrine of election. God will yet choose Israel as in God will still choose Israel. And Foreknowledge is not about knowing before hand. Foreknowledge is about relationship. Jesus never knew the religious hypocrites. God knows everything and everybody, but He only has a relationship with His sheep, His people, whom He seeks out and saves.

Ge 4:1 ¶ And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

Adam had an intimate relationship with his wife.

every word Of God, must we live by, if your interpretation of Salvation or how we obtain salvation is correct then how did the three that were biden, refuse, and if three can refuse what stops others from being able to refuse. For the three, they heard the invitiation, for they responded with A No we can not come. one said because he had just bought some land the other he had just bought some oxen, and the other He had just got married, what ever the reason there was three biden and threee refused and because of these men's negative response to the calling of God into the kingdom, they were left out and others brought in, this alone tells me that salvation, the doctrine of grace can not be as calvinist see it.

I do not derive doctrine from parables. I use parables to understand doctrine. If you cannot understand the parable of the sowers then you will not understand this parable. Those that refuse are the same as those that are associated with the stony ground or thorny ground. Only the ground that is prepared will bring forth a harvest.

Maybe you would like to go back to before you joined and read some of my posts and find out where I am coming from.

no we can from here Let's understand the parable of the seed, seeing that you believe you must understand it before we can understand the parable of the great supper, there was some seed sown on stoney ground and it did no good, if God is the sower, why would a all knowing sovereign God Throw seed out where it wouldn't do no good. remember you said it was important understand this parable, the seed was the Word, the word was God and that Word we beheld His Glory as the begotten, The Word was put forth on all soil, even knowing that some soil would not accept it, would no ever be any good for the soil of the seed (Word)even as the Gospel, it wasn't just given to those that would benefit from it but was thrown out on "ALL" soils, as all People, as every man has a measured portion of faith, and soils were given the seed. thanks for pointing out the parable of the seed, But wouldn't you as a calvinist have to say that only the good soil would be given the Seed?

Just as a point of reference, please remember that this is one parable that Jesus actually explained to His disciples and it is recorded as such.

We really have no need to explain this, since Jesus did. I am assured in Christ that His explanations are perfect.

[rjp34652]

If you want to discuss natural disasters, try this one on for size; how about the prayer of a man I know that averted an accident that would have killed two dozen men? By the grace of God they escaped with minor difficulties. How about the kindness of God that stopped a hurricane dead in its tracks. Ever been through one of those babies? Makes your hail stones look like a child's ice cream cone, makes your crop devastation look like a kid's yard work done wrong. Imagine an F5 tornado TWO TO THREE HUNDRED miles across and you begin to get the idea of what I'm talking about. Now imagine the God of Hosts redirecting TWO of them at the same time to avoid the loss of life. I've been there and I've seen it. Hurricanes man, not a tiny little hail storm that ruined a crop. I'm talking about Biblical devastation, man. I've been there and I've seen it, so don't presume to lecture me about your tiny trauma in the barn yard, you'll get no sympathy from me.

I've seen shipwrecks at sea avoided by divine mercy. I've seen car wrecks that could have killed and did not because God decided ahead of time to turn the situation around. I've seen plane accidents avoided because of miracles sent from heaven and I've seen God heal limbs that were born wrong and I've heard Him speak in the thunder of the clouds.

*** Edited *** I'll holler and I'll scream of the glory and mercy of God if I want to. Close your eyes and ears if you don't like it. There are millions of people and millions upon millions of angels who holler and cry and scream from choir lofts from city streets and from the holy halls of heaven itself. PRAISE GOD.

Holy Holy Holy Worthy is He who sits upon the throne to receive glory and honor and praise. I praise and honor the Lord of Hosts because I know Him who has given Himself for me and who has spared me and given me life. He deserves the praises of men and angels because he's earned it.

but that's just me HOLLERING from the choir loft...

wow you have to be the greatest person i have ever spoke with, I would Bow to you, but God said not to bow to any other but Him , so hope you understand me not bowing to you, as far as your hollering it says to make a joyful noise not just a noise.( LOL) All them angels that you spoke of, did any of them ever warn you of pride, it ain't about you or me dude, it is about Jesus The truth, the way and the Life, and His gospel which says that all that will come to Him. NOT, all that are forced to come to him, shall be saved.

Pride? yes indeed. I am proud that I was privileged to witness God's merciful hand in action to protect and deliver His children in the midst of storm and disaster. I am proud of my kind and generous God who chose to save men who otherwise might have died a gruesome death. yea Lord

Pride? That I was present when God stopped and diverted three hurricanes that I mentioned? Yes. They weren't the last, either.

Come sit with me when one blows through some time and I'll show you what grace God has.

Pride? YES I am proud of my God. I'm sorry you aren't proud of yours. hmmm?

And as far as what I do or don't do in the choir loft, I stand in the midst of the storm confident in the grace of my God who delivers me always. Who delivers me from things much greater than the scorn of those who have not seen such power. Have you ever stood in the eye of a hurricane and wondered at His mercy, knowing that all around you is death and destruction? Maybe you've only seen photographs and heard rumors.

I've been there for real - praise God. My God is able AND HAS DONE well in delivering me and those with me from such things. All the fury of an angry planet is NOTHING......nothing I say.....against the gentle grace of the Lord Jesus.

Am I proud of my God? YOU BETCHA BABY.

I'm sorry you are not. I'll pray for you. Maybe the Lord will bounce you off the top of a great hill some time, to remind you that He is there for you too. You need a good shot of goosebumps to wake you up....

When the storm clears and perceived safety returns there is only one thing that remains to be said. Thank you Lord - that was a Great Ride!

and that's me, hollering from the choir loft...

Edited July 17, 2012 by rjp34652

[rjp34652]

I want to begin by thanking Ovedya for reiterating the TULIP and DAISY ideological outlines. It's simply put and very welcome.

The sniping began almost immediately after the initial post as it has done for hundreds and hundreds of years.

Do you know that a lot of the philosophical background for both ideologies rests in classical paganism, not the Bible. If you read the philosophers and theologians of the early Christian and pre-Christian era you'll see the parallels quite clearly. One of the reasons there is so much disagreement about this range of opinion is that the entire discussion is based on an incompatible mixture of pagan culture and Biblical revelation.

Did you ever wonder why God added this stuff to the Bible in the first place? Jesus spent a lot of time correcting false impressions and bad teaching. Could it be that both doctrinal flowers are in fact little more than silk imitations of the real thing - false representations of a truth that has always been right there in front of our faces?

When folk are discussing floral arrangements of tulips and daises in the Kingdom of God, they somehow forget to include the brambles, thistles, thorns and cactus that grow in the garden as well as their interaction with one another and the acts of the gardener. Does someone have a detailed dogma about them too? Jesus did and the gospels record a couple versions of it. His agricultural allusions always seem to illustrate a natural flow and purpose to things whereas the doctrines of man seem to always be more mechanical, with subsequent occasional breakdowns in logic.

Truly truly, something else is going on.

but that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...

HI rjp,

The discussion of these doctrines are essentially a dicussion of the nature of man and the nature of God. Is man really dead or is he just wounded? Is God sovereign, omnipotent, onniscient, ..... or is God unable to do all that He set out to do from the foundation of the world?

You mention that there is a mixture of pagan philosophy mixed in. Calvin never taught TULIP. The idea of TULIP came about as an answer to what was viewed as heresy with the idea that this would clarify the true doctrine as apposed to the heresies that were creeping in.

What do you find objectionable or incorrect in the ideas put forth in the council of Dort? And as I have mentioned before I do not believe that we can know Christ through understanding doctrine. We come to know doctrine by knowing Christ.

Synod or council of Dort notwithstanding, the purpose of most of man's councils committees encyclicals fatwas etc....including discussion on this thread... is to put God in a box. On Easter morning Jesus proved how foolish and pointless that exercise really is......yet folk tend to forget that wonderful event as they try feverishly to push Him back in again.

Doctrinal discussions NEVER seek to resolve an issue. They don't even seek to obtain a consensus of opinion. They only defend a position, like children playing a game of capture the flag. That's why discussions spin in circles so much. Even if the flag is captured, no one will admit the game is over. What's really going on here?

Clearly there is no effort at all to arrive at any mutual understanding be it theological, historical, poetic or otherwise. The argument is really a matter of maintaining one's doctrinal position.....one's logical equation....one's preconceptions...despite the evidence of history and observed current fact.

I submit that the issue, based firmly in ancient history, has been distorted by two things; pagan mythology that was insinuated into Christian ideology and the misunderstanding that God has to behave a certain way.

Here we paint a dotted line down the middle of the road. Some insist that the fates move us on one side whether we wish it or no. Others seem to say that they have voluntarily accepted the rules of the road and have graciously agreed to move on the other side...paying tolls every week or so for the privilege of movement there. Both parties are struggling very hard to stay on their side of the road while screaming at the boys on the other side to move over.

But every once in a while they catch a glimpse of some guy driving an RV completely off the road. Some recognize Him as the same Guy Who once walked out to a boat in the middle of a lake. You can't do that you know. Apparently He didn't know that He couldn't do it or maybe He just didn't care that some folks thought He shouldn't. He just did it. Some men know their limits. He knows He hasn't any.

The observers can't believe their eyes because they know that no one can drive anywhere except in their lane on the road. So they refuse the evidence of their own observations. A few people, very very few, ride with He who drives the RV. They're having the time of their life. These are they who aren't arguing and screaming at anyone. If they raise their voice at all its in thanksgiving and praise of He who can drive anywhere and bring all who ride with Him home safely.

Dort or no Dort. I'm saying something else is going on here.

but that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...

Edited July 17, 2012 by rjp34652