Calvin vs. Arminius

[serotta]

If I could but in for just a second, I think keslc meant that in her(?) opinion there is truth in both DAISY and TULIP, and she finds fault with both DAISY and TULIP, so she doesn't hold to either doctrinal statement.

[Guest mcm42]

Right, but those are options in the poll, "I agree with parts but not all." and there is even a 50, 50 that says both have merit. So you have to associate with one of the answers in the Pole, unless you think both are totally unfounded and wrong, which I don't think anyone does.

[keslc]

feel it is subscribing to what another *human teacher* has interpreted the Bible to be, not a "deeper understanding" based on personal study and prayerful consideration and listening to the Spirit. I could pay alot more for a pair of "brand name" jeans or buy a pair of "generic" at Wal-mart, buying the more expensive doesn't make me smarter, just makes me feel better about myself

Of course it is subscribing to what another "human teacher" has interpereted. Why is this such a negative, and seemingly powerful point that people hoist around? Your human, and you interpret, which makes you a human interpreter. When you get on worthy and speak of your view, that makes you a "human teacher". Whether or not you've done "personal study and prayerful consideration"

Do you think Calvin didn't prayfully and personally study? He is the same as you, and he probably did it more prayerfully and more personally. Same goes for Arminius.

The question simply is where do you stand on these 5 issues. To say you do not "wear a brand" is to say that you "don't wear clothes". All the brands are listed above. The point is if you say you don't agree with any of these positions, then you don't know what you believe. Just saying I don't agree with any is like saying "I don't wear clothes".

The options above are pretty much all the options you can have, that is why it's broken down as it is.

If you believe in free will, whether you admit it or not, your more with Arminius, if you're a "God Chooses" kind of person, whether you like it or not your more on the Calvin side.

It's not about choosing brands but saying where you stand on the issue.

If I say I"m not a calvinist, but I believe all of Calvinists teachings, well your a Calvinist, sorry! You wear clothes, whether you rip the brand name off so no one can tell what your wearing, or you bear it blatantly, you do wear clothes.

You have a side on this issue, and the sides are above. If you say "i don't agree with any" you either have another belief, or your just plain scared to admit that you agree with one of these two men in some way.

I believe in free will, but that doesn't drop me into the "arminus" bin. God is bigger than two catergories. My point about "brand names" is that a label really means nothing to me. The Holy Spirit is my teacher. When I read the Word, I pray over it and listen for the Spirits leading I don't consult "Calvin" or whoever. A person can walk about saying they are a "Billy Grahamist" (as a generic example of a brand name, lol) and I don't think that suddenly makes them more knowledgable on the Word than anyone else. I don't put my faith in another humans interpretation of the Word, but in what the Holy Spirit reveals to me in my study. Discussing it with other humans and stating my opinion does not make me a teacher, but a discusser. I think there is value in discussing it with others as it challenges me to deeper study and seeking.

[Guest mcm42]

It pretty much does put you in the Arminius "bin".

If you agree with the stance that makes you in his "bin" whether you like to associate with that fact is your own priority.

A person can walk about saying they are a "Billy Grahamist" (as a generic example of a brand name, lol) and I don't think that suddenly makes them more knowledgable on the Word than anyone else

No one said it makes you smarter to say you agree with someone elses position?

I don't put my faith in another humans interpretation of the Word, but in what the Holy Spirit reveals to me in my study

I have a question, are you a human? Do you have an interpretation? Well then you are indeed one who puts their faith in humans...

DO you have faith in Jesus, was he Human? Would you consider Him an "other human". SO yo do put your faith in other humans?

Sorry, I have to make it clear, whether you like it or not, you follow human interpretation. We all claim to have the same Spirit, yet we all have different views, it's clear then that we were all influenced in some way by HUMAN influence, otherwise we would all come to the same exact conclusions.

Fact is your not coming up in your study with anything "new" otherwise you'd be writing a book on it. Chances are if you beleive it, there was a guy like Calvin or Arminius that said it first, or believed it first. And whether you never heard of Arminius or not, if you believe what he believes, that puts you in his "bin".

[keslc]

Right, but those are options in the poll, "I agree with parts but not all." and there is even a 50, 50 that says both have merit. So you have to associate with one of the answers in the Pole, unless you think both are totally unfounded and wrong, which I don't think anyone does.

I never said I thought every part of both sides were wrong or without merit. I just took exception to the implication that by not claiming one side or the other meant I had no interest in and/or wasn't capable of a deep Biblical study.

[Guest mcm42]

I definatly agree Kelsc...

Associating with believers of old does not in anyway show the depth or shallowness of one's study.

I think your study is honest and sincere, and I respect your opinions highly...

God Bless

[keslc]

I definatly agree Kelsc...

Associating with believers of old does not in anyway show the depth or shallowness of one's study.

I think your study is honest and sincere, and I respect your opinions highly...

God Bless

Thank you! As I respect yours.....

[Cerran]

I have a question for the 100% calvinists here, how do you account for the presence of evil (IE Satan) if Man had no free will in Eden, then how did evil come into being is this world? Certainly from what I read out of it is that Eve & Adam made their own choice to sin and that god did not make it for them.

[His son]

I have a question for the 100% calvinists here, how do you account for the presence of evil (IE Satan) if Man had no free will in Eden, then how did evil come into being is this world? Certainly from what I read out of it is that Eve & Adam made their own choice to sin and that god did not make it for them.

You are absolutely right they made that choice of their own freewill, and that choice cost them the freewill to choose between God, and the flesh because they put us all under satans lordship. God gave us rules to keep us as close as we could in the flesh until Jesus came, paid the price for our sins, satisfied God's judgment for our sins, Rescinded satans lordship over us, and returned to us the freewill to choose. Then He sent The Holy Spirit to us to empower us to realize that we can choose to serve God until we are changed into the likeness of Christ while He was here. This is our salvation process. Our part is the same As Jesus' was when He became just like us and lived it just like we can. He started His total obedience and subission of His will to His fathers will, at the age of accountability, and continued it till His flesh was totally cricified. And He tells us that we can Do The same.

satan doesn't want us to accept that possibility, and he has deceived a lot of people into a false sense of security by telling them to just trust that God will never allow you to go away from Him. And man being always ready to find the easiest way to do things readily accept his deception, because they don't want to accept the responsibility of taking up their cross, and following in Jesus' steps.

[Guest sanctification]

<< Man had no free will in Eden, >>

I just have to say that it seems to me that all of us had free will to choose. It's just that we all chose the same thing very deliberately: to deny God.

Rom 1:18-23, 24, 26

So God reaches down in love and in doing so changes a few of our minds. This is what Calvin is talking about.

Read what Paul said about our hearts:

"For I have the desire to do what is good but I cannot carry it out. ...no, the evil I do not want to do--this I keep doing." rom 7:18-19

You see that not only did he have a choice to do what was right. But he also had a desire to do what was right. However he could, as a law, never carry it out into the realm of the flesh. Righteous desires are given birth to and die in, the heart of men.

"So I find this law at work: when I want to do good, evil is right there with me." 7:21

"sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire." rom 7:8

Calvin does not deny free will. I wonder if Armenialists assume too much of the spiritual condition of man?