Calvin vs. Arminius

[His_disciple3]

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.

My position has been stated. It hasn't been accepted. Not my problem.

point #1

If there is no free will, then there can be no such thing as sin.

point #2

The fact that there are fools in the world is proof that man has free will.

point #3

God's will shall be accomplished, fools notwithstanding.

There are two types of folks who are saved.

Most people fall into the first group who are the called, who have responded by personal decision.

A few are chosen leaders who are selected, groomed and used of God for His purposes.

(Matt 22:14)

We see both in fact, in history and in scripture.

I submit that the answer is not

Calvin vs. Arminius

-but-

Calvin + Arminius

Men have drawn a line with their ideologies and with their scripture quotations for hundreds of years and they are no closer to resolving the situation today than they were in the beginning of the debate. Our Lord has been very revealing with the things He has shown us about the Kingdom of God. Why do you suppose He stopped short and did not draw a line of distinction? Did He do it just to create divisions among us, to create arguments and distortions of the truth or did He do it because THERE IS NO LINE?

I suggest that there is a third option, which is outside the box and beyond the lines drawn by man. I suggest that God is firmly and eminently capable of operating in BOTH capacities. Some He chooses. These cannot resist. Most He calls, invites, requests and asks. This is the mystery revealed in Matt 22:14. The answer is that there is no line. God is not in a box and He can operate as He pleases; calling some and choosing others.

My purpose is not to bring God down to the level of man. To say that the Almighty MUST behave according to the understanding of man.

My purpose is to attempt to bring man up to the level of God or at the very least to acknowledge that God's ways are not the ways of man.

Men always stumble when they attempt to create a formula to contain God. It never works.

When men bow to the grace and glory and limitless hand of God, we win.

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

good post but again get out of the choir, and step behind the Pulpit to do your hollering , LOL

[larryt]

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.

My position has been stated. It hasn't been accepted. Not my problem.

This is the first time you have actually stated a position directly.

point #1

If there is no free will, then there can be no such thing as sin.

Please define free will. Examples of how you understand "free will" would be helpful in giving you an answer. Most who use this term never took the time to fully understand what it is saying.

1. The will is free from.......

2. The will is free to........

I contend that man's will is not free, it is in bondage and subject to his carnal mind that is enmity against God.

point #2

The fact that there are fools in the world is proof that man has free will.

It only proves that man has a will.

point #3

God's will shall be accomplished, fools notwithstanding.

no problem with this.

There are two types of folks who are saved.

Most people fall into the first group who are the called, who have responded by personal decision.

A few are chosen leaders who are selected, groomed and used of God for His purposes.

(Matt 22:14)

Everyone that have the Gospel preached to them are the called. Those that believe are the chosen. Where do you come up with the leaders groomed and used of God in this passage????

Mt 22:11 And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:

12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.

13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

We see both in fact, in history and in scripture.

I submit that the answer is not

Calvin vs. Arminius

-but-

Calvin + Arminius

Cannot be. They are directly opposite in their statements.

Either man is dead or he is not dead. Either man is totally depraved or he is not. cannot be C+A

Either God chooses according to His own will or He bases it on some criterum of man's achievement.

Either Jesus paid the debt of every last human being ever to have set foot on this earth or He only paid the debt of those He chose before the foundation of the earth.

Either God's grace is invincible/irresistible or it is not.

Either the saints persevere to the end and Jesus never looses any of them or He doesn't.

Men have drawn a line with their ideologies and with their scripture quotations for hundreds of years and they are no closer to resolving the situation today than they were in the beginning of the debate. Our Lord has been very revealing with the things He has shown us about the Kingdom of God. Why do you suppose He stopped short and did not draw a line of distinction? Did He do it just to create divisions among us, to create arguments and distortions of the truth or did He do it because THERE IS NO LINE?

I suggest that there is a third option, which is outside the box and beyond the lines drawn by man. I suggest that God is firmly and eminently capable of operating in BOTH capacities. Some He chooses. These cannot resist. Most He calls, invites, requests and asks. This is the mystery revealed in Matt 22:14. The answer is that there is no line. God is not in a box and He can operate as He pleases; calling some and choosing others.

My purpose is not to bring God down to the level of man. To say that the Almighty MUST behave according to the understanding of man.

My purpose is to attempt to bring man up to the level of God or at the very least to acknowledge that God's ways are not the ways of man.

Men always stumble when they attempt to create a formula to contain God. It never works.

When men bow to the grace and glory and limitless hand of God, we win.

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

Chapter and verse please. and Matt. 22:14 says nothing of the sort.

[rjp34652]

The posts and ideologies stated here have been used to defend A or C and fall into two categories; to damn men and to justify Christians.

None illuminate men in the actions of God, the "free will" of God or the love of God, for there is no love or freedom in any of this.

It's all a type of formula and by its statement and the vehemence of its adherents do all men know of its foolishness. It does not serve God, the church, or those who innocently seek to follow Christ. Further, all the arguments are fruitless and void because there is absolutely NOTHING that can be done about it from man's point of view. It is all rather like an argument over the design of a rainbow. To whom will you go to rearrange its colors and to whom will you go to justify the days and times of its construction?

This is one of the problems with man's gospel, that men are chained and forced into certain considerations about God that have no bearing at all upon observed fact and holy writ. It is one of the reasons that Protestantism is destroying itself - that it is trying desperately to make God relevant to man rather than the other way around.

It is better to consider those things which a man is free to do rather than to worry one's self about things which one has no power to change.

If all your ideological suppositions are true, then why has the matter NEVER been resolved? It is because God has not revealed the line in the sand you so adamantly persist in drawing. It must be thus and so. Well friend, it isn't. The proof is that the argument goes on and on without end. The frustration and pointless meandering of man is nearly as endless as the mercy of the Most High.

Prov. 3:7

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

Edited July 30, 2012 by rjp34652

[rjp34652]

good post but again get out of the choir, and step behind the Pulpit to do your hollering , LOL

Who are you, sir, to dictate when and where a man is to speak?

Are you an agent of a totalitarian regime that has the power to imprison those who talk out of turn? Restrictions and regulations are part of demonic repression and your attitude is very close to that of the enemy rather than He who gives Liberty to man. Do you respect the twisted cross, the swastika, or the firm and gracious cross of Christ the Lord?

If you are not willing to allow another the liberty to speak then you do not deserve it yourself.

and that's me HOLLERING from the choir loft...

[larryt]

The posts and ideologies stated here have been used to defend A or C and fall into two categories; to damn men and to justify Christians.

None illuminate men in the actions of God, the "free will" of God or the love of God, for there is no love or freedom in any of this.

It's all a type of formula and by its statement and the vehemence of its adherents do all men know of its foolishness. It does not serve God, the church, or those who innocently seek to follow Christ. Further, all the arguments are fruitless and void because there is absolutely NOTHING that can be done about it from man's point of view. It is all rather like an argument over the design of a rainbow. To whom will you go to rearrange its colors and to whom will you go to justify the days and times of its construction?

This is one of the problems with man's gospel, that men are chained and forced into certain considerations about God that have no bearing at all upon observed fact and holy writ. It is one of the reasons that Protestantism is destroying itself - that it is trying desperately to make God relevant to man rather than the other way around.

It is better to consider those things which a man is free to do rather than to worry one's self about things which one has no power to change.

If all your ideological suppositions are true, then why has the matter NEVER been resolved? It is because God has not revealed the line in the sand you so adamantly persist in drawing. It must be thus and so. Well friend, it isn't. The proof is that the argument goes on and on without end. The frustration and pointless meandering of man is nearly as endless as the mercy of the Most High.

Prov. 3:7

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

As I have already stated I am not looking to resolve this or compromise with those that do not believe the scriptures. And it is you who need to take heed to Pr. 3:7. It is not me that is meandering. I have been very consistant in my replies. It is in fact you that is guilty of exactly what you accuse me of. You get confronted with the need to prove your position and you change the subject. I am not interested in your philosophical arguments.

Lu 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

And your hollerin is nothing more that pride.

[wingnut-]

If salvation were assigned by God, and man has no say regarding it, then why bother with life as we know it? Pre-destination makes absolutely no sense to me, if God wanted robots then He would have just made it so. I am not good with chapter and verse recollection, but doesn't it say somewhere in Joshua "Choose you this day whom ye will serve, as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord."? Doesn't sound to me like Joshua believed in pre-destination.

You make two contrdictory assumptions. Because God chooses whom He will save and whom He leaves alone does not mean that man has no say in the matter. I understand that you do not understand predestination. Is predestination referred to in the bible? It is in 4 verses so you need to study and see what the bible says about it and why it is there. Because we choose does not preclude predestination.

Thanks, but I have read it, many times, and I simply disagree with your position. I am curious as to which 4 verses you are referring to, and logically speaking, when one has options and makes a choice, it doesn't add up to predestination by my definition. Perhaps your definition differs from my own.

[larryt]

If salvation were assigned by God, and man has no say regarding it, then why bother with life as we know it? Pre-destination makes absolutely no sense to me, if God wanted robots then He would have just made it so. I am not good with chapter and verse recollection, but doesn't it say somewhere in Joshua "Choose you this day whom ye will serve, as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord."? Doesn't sound to me like Joshua believed in pre-destination.

You make two contrdictory assumptions. Because God chooses whom He will save and whom He leaves alone does not mean that man has no say in the matter. I understand that you do not understand predestination. Is predestination referred to in the bible? It is in 4 verses so you need to study and see what the bible says about it and why it is there. Because we choose does not preclude predestination.

Thanks, but I have read it, many times, and I simply disagree with your position. I am curious as to which 4 verses you are referring to, and logically speaking, when one has options and makes a choice, it doesn't add up to predestination by my definition. Perhaps your definition differs from my own.

If you tell me what specifically you disagree with then I might be able to give you an answer.

Actually the greek word is used 6 times.

Ro 8:29 ¶ For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Ro 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

The same word is translated differently here.

Ac 4:28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.

1Co 2:7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, [even] the hidden [wisdom], which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

And in Rom. 8:29 What does the word "foreknow" mean? If it only means congition then how is it that Jesus "never knew" those in Matt.7:23.

[His_disciple3]

[ And in Rom. 8:29 What does the word "foreknow" mean? If it only means congition then how is it that Jesus "never knew" those in Matt.7:23.

aaahhhh!! but my friend you overlooked 1 peter

1 Peter 1:2

2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

KJV

[larryt]

[ And in Rom. 8:29 What does the word "foreknow" mean? If it only means congition then how is it that Jesus "never knew" those in Matt.7:23.

aaahhhh!! but my friend you overlooked 1 peter

1 Peter 1:2

2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

KJV

Exactly, foreknowledge has to do with relationship and not just cognition. The Father, even before the creation, in His wisdom and power had me in mind, loving me because I was one He chose/elected/ordained to eternal life. Peter is addressing the elect of God, the body of believers.

[rjp34652]

As I have already stated I am not looking to resolve this or compromise with those that do not believe the scriptures. And it is you who need to take heed to Pr. 3:7. It is not me that is meandering.

This discussion has little to do with scriptures and much to do with your personal ideology. Little to do with destiny and much to do with liberty. Liberty. Ever heard that word before? I'm sure you have, but perhaps you've forgotten what it means. Christ is about liberty, not fatalistic assumptions and ideological restrictions. Salvation is about glad tidings, not dark rumors or ethereal chains.

When you write "those that do not believe scriptures" you're really saying 'those that don't agree with my personal interpretation'. What you do not seem to realize is that your position is untenable. You cannot prove that your dogma is the ultimate truth and neither can those who entrench themselves on the other side of the interstate of eternal destiny. The argument has been going on for centuries without any resolution. Doesn't that tell you something?

Man has drawn a line that God did not intend.

Your own logic has painted you into a corner. According to your scheme it doesn't make any difference what you believe, sir.

Calvin once wrote, "There is no such thing as an accident." He leaves no room for the whims of man. No room at all for liberty. If we follow that logic, your own opinion means nothing. God's will be done and that's that. It's a kind of fatalistic approach similar to Islam. I grant the point that Calvin has a truth here, but only in part.

According to Animists, man has a modicum of responsibility in the matter. God grants man an elevation to the position of liberty so as to participate in his own destiny at some level. Animists believe this decision is strictly between the man and God. It's a very personal, spiritually sensual matter, which is inappropriate for you or any man to deny. I grant the point that Animists have a truth here, but only in part.

Either way your one-sided opinion is purely academic. It is irrelevant to any real solution to the logical dilemma. It dictates restriction. It does not provide man with liberty and it does not provide a suitable answer. Calvinism and Animism as separate components do not provide a logical structure. There are inconsistancies in each separate argument which opponents of Christianity rightly point out. Considered together, however, they give light and freedom to an otherwise insoluable puzzle. They provide satisfying answers. Marry the two points of view and you get a confidence in the deliverance and salvation of God that cannot be appreciated separately.

* * *

In the midst of this discussion let us all remember and give thanks to God that apart from the blood of Christ shed upon the cross for us there is no salvation at all. Without it there can be no appreciation of His gift to us and no means to share it with others. Jesus has given us a beautiful gift horse and we stand here looking it in the mouth.

* * *

"And it is you who need to take heed to Pr. 3:7. It is not me that is meandering. I have been very consistant in my replies."

Consistant? Yes you are - stubborn and hard headed too. I don't believe I ever perceived your mind as being anything other than completely concrete.

A meanderer? No you aren't. You have been narrow minded every step of the way.

I am not vacillating either, sir. My position as always has been that both A + C ideologies are found lacking. In as much as they attempt to formulate a singular intepretation of divine redemption they fail. Both of them. That is why the argument slogs on. My point of view is that one ought to consider a marriage of the two dogmas instead of a divorce. God never drew a line of separation. Why is it so difficult to consider that BOTH may be correct?

"You get confronted with the need to prove your position and you change the subject."

I haven't changed the subject once. I've written an anecdote or two to illustrate a point, but that can hardly be construed as changing. My entire effort is aimed at the considered approach to marrying the two arguments into one consistent logical and harmonious system. It is obvious that you favor divorce, fantasy and constant bickering. I applaud your effort if not your position. You're entitled to your opinion even if it is a bit stodgy and obsolete.

"I am not interested in your philosophical arguments."

Oh my dear sir, how wrong you are - again. You continue to invest in considerable effort to disprove my assertions. If you can't succeed by means of logic you resort to the loser's tactic of attacking the opponent's character and liberty to write. This proves to the casual reader that you ARE interested. Why else would you persist if you weren't interested? I love you too!

What else is animism and calvinism if not a philosophical system to explain disparate snippets of scripture?

"And your hollerin is nothing more that pride."

It's considerably more than that my friend. It's an expression of my liberty to write an opinion and my inalienable right to declare the nature of God so far as it has been my priviledge to discover. I stand and holler because I can, despite the wishes of those with totalitarian desires to repress it. Somebody please tell me what's wrong with having pride in the liberty to holler?

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

Edited July 31, 2012 by rjp34652