Calvin vs. Arminius

[larryt]

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?

I never said I was trying to resolve an issue or obtain a consensus of opinion. I believe there are certain things essential to the preaching of the Gospel and without those thing they are another gospel which is not the gospel at all.

2Co 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or [if] ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with [him].

Ga 1:6 ¶ I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

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.

Again I am not looking to come to some sort of compromise or mutual understanding. And I am supposed to maintain sound doctrine as I am to earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints.

2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

Tit 1:9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

Tit 2:1 ¶ But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:

Jude 1:3 ¶ Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort [you] that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

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.

You have said this twice now and you have not said anything of substance yet. I am asking you to give us an example how paganism has perverted the gospel.

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...

You little anecdote is cute but I am really not interested in anecdotes. I really only want to know what the scripture says.

And if you insist on hollering try hollering something of interest. And by the way you don't have a corner on experiencing the awesomeness of the Lord God Almighty. This section is for Doctrinal Questions.

[rjp34652]

For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or [if] ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with [him].

Interesting quote. In what point have I sinned or spoken a different gospel than that which was delivered in scripture? Please illuminate me.

Quite the contrary, those words which are most sincerely defended here NEVER appeared in the text of that which was delivered to man by Our Lord.

The law of Moses was corrupted and perverted to support the religious community of Jesus' day. No Christian today will take a stand against that fact (most of them, anyway). Human nature being what it is, in the years since the last writing was committed to the cannon of scripture there have been numerous committees, synods, congresses and dictatorial encyclicals which have issued forth from the hand of man which pretend to speak with the authority of the Almighty. Sometimes they do. Mostly they don't. Mostly they foster contention, confusion and even war.

Do you not know that Christ Jesus died for us? His blood was shed for us. I've said that before. Where is your memory of that? Do you not know that He played fast and loose with the invented laws of man? Which part of this is a false gospel? Tell me please if you can. There is a perversion here, sir but I submit that it isn't mine.

Since the days of the first church history has been witness to numerous attempts to nail down things that man has no authority to touch. From Nicea to Dort to Niagara the chains of false doctrine have been forged to restrain the minds of the devout into tiny boxes. Jesus was able to escape such a box, but those who wish to imprison others deny it. If liberty is a false gospel, then I am for it. But I think I am not wrong here.

Tit 1:9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

Tit 2:1 ¶ But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:

You quote scripture liberally, but you don't understand their meaning or your use of them. Instead of seeking the truth in the words, you use them as bullets to strike down the enemies of YOUR gospel, to defend YOUR position and to maintain YOUR correctness. Hold fast the words first delivered? Quite right, but the words you are defending are not the words first delivered. The words you REALLY defend are those of Dort or anti-Dort. You seek scripture which will support your position and only that.

Truth, sir is not that which was delivered to you but to all. Don't believe me? Then please explain the contention between the two positions Animism vs. Calvinism. Nothing of the argument has been settled despite long years of debate.

Have I proposed an alternate position anywhere? Quote that if you can. What I am suggesting is that if either of the two positions were truth, then the matter would be settled. As Jesus spoke so we all agree. Yet there is no agreement on either of these points BECAUSE JESUS DIDN'T SPEAK TO THEM. Neither did any of the father you so vehemently use in your defense. The argument was decided by a committee.

Until you understand that, you will be completely unable to embrace the truth whether it be ultimately proved to be one side of the argument, the other side of the argument, or an entirely different argument.

If there is error or animosity here, it isn't mine. I have no HOME BASE to defend. Have I not made that clear over and over again? Somebody isn't keeping up with the conversation I think.

I am merely suggesting that all the rhetoric here clearly excludes the possibility that there is another truth with regard to the choices and actions of God and man or perhaps a combination of both truths. Either way, when men take up arms to defend a position that is already debatable with regard to its veracity, their motives and their rightness ought to be brought into question. No one seems to be capable of doing that. Shouldn't that raise a flag of caution somewhere?

In either case, there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. A man is called to follow Jesus in the things he does, not the things he can't do anything about.

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

[larryt]

For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or [if] ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with [him].

Interesting quote. In what point have I sinned or spoken a different gospel than that which was delivered in scripture? Please illuminate me.

Never did say you sinned or spoken a different gospel. You have not even stated a position yourself. You have come here saying that we are wrong and not told us where you think we have erred. I have asked twice now that you be more specific and back up your position with scripture and you still speak in generalities. You are the one who has made the accusations of being in error without specifying the point of error.

Truth, sir is not that which was delivered to you but to all. Don't believe me? Then please explain the contention between the two positions Animism vs. Calvinism. Nothing of the argument has been settled despite long years of debate.

And nothing will get settled until the Lord returns. Until then I will earnestly contend for the faith.

Have I proposed an alternate position anywhere? Quote that if you can. What I am suggesting is that if either of the two positions were truth, then the matter would be settled. As Jesus spoke so we all agree. The argument was decided by a committee.

This is just the point, you have NOT PROPOSED AN ALTERNATIVE. All you have said is there is something wrong but never pointed out specifically what is wrong in your opinion.

Yet there is no agreement on either of these points BECAUSE JESUS DIDN'T SPEAK TO THEM. Neither did any of the father you so vehemently use in your defense.

You have got to be kidding. Jesus did not address the depravity of man, the sovereignty of God, the invincibility of grace, the perseverance of the saints!!!!????? Paul did not address these issues????? And you accuse me of not understanding scripture.

If there is error or animosity here, it isn't mine. I have no HOME BASE to defend. Have I not made that clear over and over again? Somebody isn't keeping up with the conversation I think.

I agree you are floating around in la la land. If you do not know what the faith is you will not defend it.

I am merely suggesting that all the rhetoric here clearly excludes the possibility that there is another truth with regard to the choices and actions of God and man or perhaps a combination of both truths. Either way, when men take up arms to defend a position that is already debatable with regard to its veracity, their motives and their rightness ought to be brought into question. No one seems to be capable of doing that. Shouldn't that raise a flag of caution somewhere?

So put forth your ideas or are you just spouting off at the mouth. It is not obviously clear to me.

[His_disciple3]

And nothing will get settled until the Lord returns. Until then I will earnestly contend for the faith.

.

What faith? God gave you the faith and according to you, God forced you to use that faith. that ain't faith.

look John 3:16 says that God so loved the world. now calvinist has to limit the world. to this only means the world of the elect. but let's rightly divide this. by reckoning on the contents, we will need a few more verses : so let's study upon this thought. I am not here to prove you wrong and please keep in mind that I say both sides are scriptural but neither can be rightly divided if we push one side as right and the other as false, also keep in Mind that I believe all scripture pertaining to the ELECT is speaking of the Israelites, the Jewish nation, His chosen people. But look at these verses with me:

John 3:17-18

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

KJV

so let's go with calvinism for our first thought, If the World In 16 means the world of the Elect, so God didn't send His Son to condemn the elect, (Ok so far) , but through HIM the ELECT MIGHT be saved. whoa, now we have a problem, if God ain't going to condemn the World( the ELECT) then we have to change this to But through Him the ELECT Will be saved, see John is still on the same thought process so the World in 16 is the same world in 17, so calvinism makes no sense lined up with Who Jesus came for. lined up with these scriptures Calvinism is not scriptural, No No No, If God sent Jesus only for the World of the ELECT. then we have two worlds one of the ELECT and ONE of the NON ELECT and Jesus was only sent into one World. the Thought that God sent His son into the World, so did Jesus only appear in the world of the ELECT or Didn't He talk with or was in the world of some that didn't believe? So God sent His son into the WORLD that the ELECT OR WORLD OF THE ELECT Might Be saved.(again this is according to calvinist doctrine) No calvinism is not scriptural with these scriptures but rather very contradictive. we don't have two worlds the wheat and the tares are in the same world. and Jesus came that the World might be saved. now your question is can a tare become a wheat? good question, but if a tare can't become wheat then we have to cut out the verse" with God ALL things are possible

I will let you chew on this before we go any further.

Edited July 18, 2012 by His_disciple3

[rjp34652]

Never did say you sinned or spoken a different gospel. You have not even stated a position yourself. You have come here saying that we are wrong and not told us where you think we have erred. I have asked twice now that you be more specific and back up your position with scripture and you still speak in generalities. You are the one who has made the accusations of being in error without specifying the point of error.

Didn't accuse of a different gospel? What were those pointed scripture references you made? Were they the quote of the day or something? They were used as direct accusations and you don't even have the courtesy or the honesty to admit it.

Yes, you have indeed asked twice to be specific. Indeed before you asked I made a statement in the form of the anecdote you loathed so much. After that I made more direct references. I composed my post that way so as to not unsettle anyone too greatly and to see if anyone would respond with honest inquiry. Obviously there were none. No surprises on my part, really. There is no such thing as rational consideration apparently. Yours was the only reply and a harsh one at that. Despite your venom I'll grant that you pay attention; biased, but attention. I'll conclude my rebuttals by inviting you to review carefully my previous posts and to attempt an understanding of what I was trying to say. I honestly don't care if you do or not. I've submitted these thoughts to be shared. Instead I've encountered the kind of opinionated bias and abuse that is usually reserved for atheists rebuttals to Christian assertions. Increasingly I grow disappointed with the lack of Christian charity. The legendary love that the Bible talks about is as illusory as the ancient hanging gardens of Babylon. Unfortunately I doubt you'll make so much as an ounce of effort to reread or consider.

Your preconceptions won't allow it and THAT is my last hint.

You also wrote, "You have got to be kidding. Jesus did not address the depravity of man, the sovereignty of God, the invincibility of grace, the perseverance of the saints!!!!?????"

Chapter and verse, please. Be specific. No indirect references or non-specific parallels.

You also wrote, and I highlight your lack of kindness and gentle attitude here, "...you are floating around in la la land. If you do not know what the faith is you will not defend it."

"Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions."

- Romans 14:1

"Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and stand he will, for the Lord is able to make him stand."

- Romans 14:4

"To give truth to him who does not love the truth is to only give more reasons for interpretation."

- George Macdonald

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

Edited July 18, 2012 by rjp34652

[larryt]

Never did say you sinned or spoken a different gospel. You have not even stated a position yourself. You have come here saying that we are wrong and not told us where you think we have erred. I have asked twice now that you be more specific and back up your position with scripture and you still speak in generalities. You are the one who has made the accusations of being in error without specifying the point of error.

Didn't accuse of a different gospel? What were those pointed scripture references you made? Were they the quote of the day or something? They were used as direct accusations and you don't even have the courtesy or the honesty to admit it.

I never said I was trying to resolve an issue or obtain a consensus of opinion. I believe there are certain things essential to the preaching of the Gospel and without those thing they are another gospel which is not the gospel at all.

2Co 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or [if] ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with [him].

Ga 1:6 ¶ I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

I did quote the scripture in response to and in support of my position of contending for the faith.

Jesus said: Lu 8:18 Take heed therefore how ye hear: for whosoever hath, to him shall be given; and whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he seemeth to have.

I appears to me that you came to that conclusion all by yourself.

Your preconceptions won't allow it and THAT is my last hint.

You still have not even mentioned scripture.

You also wrote, "You have got to be kidding. Jesus did not address the depravity of man, the sovereignty of God, the invincibility of grace, the perseverance of the saints!!!!?????"

Chapter and verse, please. Be specific. No indirect references or non-specific parallels.

You sir have made a total of 50 posts here on WB. I have made more than that in this thread alone. Maybe if you had read ANY of the posts you might find out a little of what I believe. And don't take my statements out of context. The statement I made was:

You have got to be kidding. Jesus did not address the depravity of man, the sovereignty of God, the invincibility of grace, the perseverance of the saints!!!!????? Paul did not address these issues????? And you accuse me of not understanding scripture.

Apparently you do not want to deal with Paul. But just to mention a few.

Mr 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God.

Ro 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

Ro 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

Ro 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Ro 8:7 Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Joh 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand.

You also wrote, and I highlight your lack of kindness and gentle attitude here, "...you are floating around in la la land. If you do not know what the faith is you will not defend it."

Again if you take it out of context you can make it say anything you like. I was just agreeing with your statement.

If there is error or animosity here, it isn't mine. I have no HOME BASE to defend. Have I not made that clear over and over again? Somebody isn't keeping up with the conversation I think.

I agree you are floating around in la la land. If you do not know what the faith is you will not defend it.

Somebody isn't keeping up with the conversation I think.

Mt 12:34 .....for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

Ro 14:1 ¶ Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, [but] not to doubtful disputations.

2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.

3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

Since this thread deals with the Calvinistic Gospel vs the Arminian Gospel and you say there is a third the burden is on you to present your evidence with scripture. My position is clear in my previous posts. Your position has not even been stated and until you do you are the one that must prove something.

Ga 1:6 ¶ I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Chapter and verse please. And when you quote someone as least have the decency to quote the context.

[larryt]

And nothing will get settled until the Lord returns. Until then I will earnestly contend for the faith.

.

What faith? God gave you the faith and according to you, God forced you to use that faith. that ain't faith.

Jude 1:3 ¶ Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort [you] that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

I cannot keep replying to your misconceptions about what I believe. You assume from you wrong understanding that it is according to me. that God forces me to use the faith. This could not be further from the truth. You keep arguing against straw men of your own making. It is easy to knock down these ridiculous assumptions.

And you have no answer to post 1203????

[His_disciple3]

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.

I love the way man made doctrines are made up by taking one verse here and there and taken that one verse of of contents

in the jewish temple there were assigned areas the high priest had their the regular priests had their assignned area, the jewish men had assigned area, the Jewish women had their assign area. then past all those was the Gentile area, assign/ordained area, this ordain has nothing to do with election or predestination. they were in their ordained assigned area.

also you take one verse that may help your cause, but fail to post the one that may hurt your cause!

Acts 13:46

46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.

KJV

the jews put salvation off and judged themselves unworthy of everlasting, God didn't cast them out. the word, the gospel was presented to them first, but they rejected it. THEY had a chance but refused THEY!!! THEY judged themselves not God. wow I just love revelation from scriptures, certainly sounds like these men had a say, just as the three that refused to attend the great supper!

[larryt]

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.

this ordain has nothing to do with election or predestination. they were in their ordained assigned area.

That is a real stretch. Simple grammar says your exegesis is flawed. The object of the verb ordain is eternal life in the qualifying phrase. As many as were supposed to be saved, as many as were chosen before the foundation of the world, believed.

also you take one verse that may help your cause, but fail to post the one that may hurt your cause!

Acts 13:46

46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.

KJV

the jews put salvation off and judged themselves unworthy of everlasting, God didn't cast them out. the word, the gospel was presented to them first, but they rejected it. THEY had a chance but refused THEY!!! THEY judged themselves not God. wow I just love revelation from scriptures, certainly sounds like these men had a say, just as the three that refused to attend the great supper!

They did not believe because they were not His sheep. But you are right, they did choose. Their eyes were not opened, they could not see.

Joh 10:26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.

The effect is that the pharisees did not believe BECAUSE they were not His sheep.

Will Jesus loose any of His sheep????? I think not. He will find every single one and not loose any.

[His_disciple3]

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.

this ordain has nothing to do with election or predestination. they were in their ordained assigned area.

That is a real stretch. Simple grammar says your exegesis is flawed. The object of the verb ordain is eternal life in the qualifying phrase. As many as were supposed to be saved, as many as were chosen before the foundation of the world, believed.

also you take one verse that may help your cause, but fail to post the one that may hurt your cause!

Acts 13:46

46 Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.

KJV

the jews put salvation off and judged themselves unworthy of everlasting, God didn't cast them out. the word, the gospel was presented to them first, but they rejected it. THEY had a chance but refused THEY!!! THEY judged themselves not God. wow I just love revelation from scriptures, certainly sounds like these men had a say, just as the three that refused to attend the great supper!

They did not believe because they were not His sheep. But you are right, they did choose. Their eyes were not opened, they could not see.

Joh 10:26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.

The effect is that the pharisees did not believe BECAUSE they were not His sheep.

Will Jesus loose any of His sheep????? I think not. He will find every single one and not loose any.