Calvin vs. Arminius

[Guest Jude 1:3]

Christ died for the sins of the world, but the Atonement applies only to those who He foreknew.

To say that Christ died ONLY for the sins of the Elect is unBiblical:

And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:2) The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. (John 1:29) For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. (Romans 5:6)

Who are the ungodly? According to Romans 3:10-11, There is none righteous, no, not one: there is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

However, it is Biblical to say the Atonement is applied only to those who have faith:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. (Ephesians 1:3-6) 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. (Acts 13:48) Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 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. (1 Peter 1:1-2) etc, etc.

Christ died for the sins of the world; He conquered sin. However, the Atonement is applied only to the believers, the Elect of God.

[Guest stegokitty]

Christ died for the sins of the world, but the Atonement applies only to those who He foreknew.

To say that Christ died ONLY for the sins of the Elect is unBiblical:

And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:2) The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. (John 1:29) For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. (Romans 5:6)

Who are the ungodly? According to Romans 3:10-11, There is none righteous, no, not one: there is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

However, it is Biblical to say the Atonement is applied only to those who have faith:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. (Ephesians 1:3-6) 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. (Acts 13:48) Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 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. (1 Peter 1:1-2) etc, etc.

Christ died for the sins of the world; He conquered sin. However, the Atonement is applied only to the believers, the Elect of God.

To say that Christ died for the sins of an individual, yet that the non-elect individual shall be punished for his sins is unbiblical, illogical, and unjust. God cannot punish Christ for a man's sins and also punish the man for those same sins. That's called injustice. There is no injustice in God. There is non-justice (mercy and grace) in God, but not INjustice.

Divorcing the Word from it's historical context is where the confusion arises.

"...for He is propitiation not only for OUR sins ..." (a Jew speaking to other believing Jews), " ...but also for the sins of the whole world..." (Gentile believers, or those elect of God from Gentile nations).

"For when WE (God's elect) were yet without strenght, at the right time, Christ died for (us) the ungodly.

The word "world" does not mean every individual -- it means people from every tribe, tongue, and nation. Did Christ die for Pharaoh's sins? For what purpose? He was already dead, and burning in Hell. Did Christ die for Moses' sins? You betcha!

John 10:11: "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life FOR THE SHEEP."

The elect are REDEEMED. They are BOUGHT. If everyone is bought, then everyone is redeemed. If everyone is redeemed, then everyone is elect. If everyone is elect, then everyone is saved.

John10:12: "The hired hand is not the shepherd who OWNS the sheep."

John 10:14: ""I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me

[Guest Jude 1:3]

Stego,

You are not being intellectually honest.

'World' in 1 John 2:2 is translated from the Greek 'kosmou' (kosmos), which can refer to a great number of people; OR, for that matter, the entire population of the earth. For instance, consider the English 'cosmopolitan', which originates from two words in the Greek: kosmou and polit

[Guest Jude 1:3]

Also...

The problem with Limited Atonement is that it wraps the Atonement around Predestination, when in fact the Atonement and Predestination are two separate principles. Christ is the redeemer of the world (undoing what Adam did); and yet, Christ's atoning blood will cover only the sins of the Elect, whom the Father predestined in the very beginning. Limited Atonement simply is not supported in the Bible. There are no verses which say Christ died only for the Elect. No matter how "logical" it may seem to you, that does not make it true.

I think it is logical that there are beings on other planets, made in the image of God, and I think it is possible; but I would never dare preach it.

Lastly, I'd like to direct your attention to this -

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txs/calvine.htm

Here are some of Calvin's own words on the subject:

True it is that the effect of [Christ's] death comes not to the whole world. Nevertheless, forasmuch as it is not in us to discern between the righteous and the sinners that go to destruction, but that Jesus Christ has suffered his death and passion as well for them as for us, therefore it behoves us to labour to bring every man to salvation, that the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ may be available to them.

Christ offered Himself as a Victim for the salvation of the human race.

Since Christ desired nothing more than to do the work appointed Him by the Father and knew that the purpose of His calling was to gather the lost sheep of the house of Israel, He wished His coming to be the salvation of all. This was why He was moved by compassion and wept over the approaching destruction of Jerusalem. For when He considered that it had been divinely chosen as the sacred abode, in which should dwell the covenant of eternal salvation, the sanctuary from which salvation should come forth for all the world, He could not help grieving bitterly over its destruction.

Yet I approve of the ordinary reading, that he alone bore the punishment of many, because on him was laid the guilt of the whole world. It is evident from other passages, and especially from the fifth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, that 'many' sometimes denotes 'all'.

Edited November 5, 2006 by Jude 1:3

[st. Worm]

Also...

The problem with Limited Atonement is that it wraps the Atonement around Predestination, when in fact the Atonement and Predestination are two separate principles. Christ is the redeemer of the world (undoing what Adam did); and yet, Christ's atoning blood will cover only the sins of the Elect, whom the Father predestined in the very beginning. Limited Atonement simply is not supported in the Bible. There are no verses which say Christ died only for the Elect. No matter how "logical" it may seem to you, that does not make it true.

I think it is logical that there are beings on other planets, made in the image of God, and I think it is possible; but I would never dare preach it.

Lastly, I'd like to direct your attention to this -

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txs/calvine.htm

Here are some of Calvin's own words on the subject:

True it is that the effect of [Christ's] death comes not to the whole world. Nevertheless, forasmuch as it is not in us to discern between the righteous and the sinners that go to destruction, but that Jesus Christ has suffered his death and passion as well for them as for us, therefore it behoves us to labour to bring every man to salvation, that the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ may be available to them.

Christ offered Himself as a Victim for the salvation of the human race.

Since Christ desired nothing more than to do the work appointed Him by the Father and knew that the purpose of His calling was to gather the lost sheep of the house of Israel, He wished His coming to be the salvation of all. This was why He was moved by compassion and wept over the approaching destruction of Jerusalem. For when He considered that it had been divinely chosen as the sacred abode, in which should dwell the covenant of eternal salvation, the sanctuary from which salvation should come forth for all the world, He could not help grieving bitterly over its destruction.

Yet I approve of the ordinary reading, that he alone bore the punishment of many, because on him was laid the guilt of the whole world. It is evident from other passages, and especially from the fifth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, that 'many' sometimes denotes 'all'.

I don't think limited atonement is scripturally supported either. The doctrine itself is the result of Calvin's view that all Scripture is subject to reason and logic from the human perspective. Calvin, like Zwingli, is a child of the Enlightenment and that is why he rejected the real presence of Christ in the sacrament. To him it couldn't be true because it is not logical to humans that Christ can be present in the elements of bread and wine. His view in that regard now lives through all of evangelicalism as they reject the sacraments and what they do to sinners.

However, none of that is really related to the real argument concerning Arminianism vs. Calvinism with regard to free will. Calvin clearly had it right that man's will is bound by sin and not free in the least. Paul, Luther and Augustine knew the same thing.

[WillingToDie]

50% Calvinist 50% Arminian - Both positions have merit.

However, I'm not blind to the fact that a greater percentage of Calvinists are Bible-Believers.

The liberal all-love gospel (no repentance / no judgement) is rooted in Arminianism.

I disagree with that last bit. I'd say it's more rooted in Pelagianism

50% Calvinist 50% Arminian - Both positions have merit.

However, I'm not blind to the fact that a greater percentage of Calvinists are Bible-Believers.

The liberal all-love gospel (no repentance / no judgement) is rooted in Arminianism.

It's true that the liberal "gospel" comes from Arminianism.

[1]Most people of the Arminian persuation are technically combinations of both, which is what you described, which in reality, is an impossibility. Calvinism only is consistent, and Biblical. It is the Theology of the Bible and of the Spirit, whereas Arminianism/SemiPelagianism is the theology of the flesh. The only "fairly consistent" Arminians are the "you can lose your salvation" types.

I'd love for you to discover that there's really no such thing as a 50% Calvinist or 50% Arminian. I submit to you that Arminianism, Biblically speaking, has no merit whatsoever.

I can suggest some books for you to read, but specifically, because it is so well done, I suggest Loraine Boettner's "The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination". For a quicker read, try RC Sproul's "Chosen By God". But the Boettner book is by far a more comprehensive read. My small argument above, in all of it's inadequacies, renders Arminianism legless.

[2]Notice that not a single proponent of that camp has offered anything else to say. Their mouths are silenced -- and with good reason. The only way that they could say anything valid, would be to ignore what I've said, and try to come at the argument from another angle.

I'll leave it at that. But do, do youself a favour (and me as well for that matter) and read the aforementioned book, and then get back to me with your thoughts. I'd also be happy to read along with you, so to speak, where we could discuss it, chapter by chapter.

Stego

[1] I'd say that Arminianism is more between Pelagianism and Calvinism. You forget that Arminius was initially a follower of Calvin, but through his reading of the Scriptures, he felt Calvinism to not be quite right, so he modified it. Arminianism, when properly represented, isn't as far off from Calvinism as most people seem to think.

[2] Wow, that wasn't arrogant at all to say. Most people come in this topic, say what they feel needs to be said and leave, rarely turning back, since this thread pretty much just goes in circles. You can see this pattern quite clearly going through the thread. Did it not occur to you that perhaps nobody with the necessary knowledge or opposing viewpoint has entered this thread to respond to what you have said?

[Adarian]

9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

This verse 9 is from 2 Peter 3. If the Lord is not willing that any should perish, absolute predestination as a concept is null and void. This reveals emphatically that all who are in hell are there contrary to the stated will of God. Blessed be His name forever.

God is able to save men from every nation and tongue, Greek and English notwithstanding, nor standing in or out of the way between God and men.

God knows all languages as He created each, and is able to produce His word for all. I think that at least is self evident.

[Guest Bill W]

Predestination and Gods Sovereignty

I always had thought you had a choice by chosing to embrace Christ and his work on the cross.

A new friend had recently challenged my view and encouraged me to search the scripture and come to a conclusion.

I believe without doubt that God has chosen whom he has chosen.

It has been a humbling yet uneasy study.

[Guest Biblicist]

I did not read all the posts, goodness there are so many, but I was wondering if anyone has quoted John 17? That's Christ's High Priestley Prayer before he was arrested in the garden. We have been studying it recently, oddly enough. One thing I have noticed in my studies is that the terms "elect or election" are used numerous times. . . Just a thought.

I think splits like this, arguing over the same verses, comes from those who are not aware of the proper use of Hermeneutics. God does not say one thing to one person, and another completely different thing to another person, in the same verses. And I believe that it is possible that people just take their elders word for it and not study for themselves. Which we are admonished not to do.

There are some good studies I have found on the internet, http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=3293 This one talks about Free Will. I think it goes hand in hand with this conversation.

(Link removed by moderator. We don't allow links to youtube) I felt this one was a good video. I would absolutely love the program they use in the video. It's the key verse that Arminians tend to cling to. Listen to it and draw your own conclusions. Remember that we can not learn about God from only one verse or even a few. We must take the entire Bible to learn about our God. I am not convinced that Calvin or Arminius, or anyone, is capable of knowing everything about God.

[mikehev]

One cannot violate "Whosoever will....

One also cannot violate "No man can come to me, except my Father which hath sent me draw him:"

We know that God always makes the first move, for it Was the Almighty who went looking for Adam after the fall and not Adam who went looking for the Almighty.

No man made paradigm will ever be a sufficient lense through which to veiw the Triune God and no man made box will ever be able to contain or house Him. In my own febel mind I admittedly cannot begin to figure out how everything works together...I can, however, assuredly take the position that it does work together, for the ONE who makes it work is Just in all that He does.

Blessed is not the man who affirms all of Calvin's positions and blessed is not the man who supports all of Armenius' claims....

Christ Jesus the LORD made it quite clear that "Blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me"

Edited December 2, 2006 by mikehev