Calvin vs. Arminius

[ohnomelon]

T - I believe in total depravity to a point. I do not believe at all that every well-intentioned act made prior to our justification in Christ is essentially "putrid" to God, which is my understanding of this doctrine. I do, however, think that almost every act is tainted by original sin. What is the root of all sin? I believe it to be selfishness. The only exemptions that I can tell would be self-sacrifice and possibly instinctive altruistic behavior. All other actions are either consciously or subconsciously self-seeking. I do not believe that God can justly judge us based on our subconscious feelings - but they do separate us from God and make us more prone to committing conscious acts of rebellion, which God can and does justly judge.

U - I have not decided on this one completely, but I believe that we are all unconditionally "elected" in a way, and I strongly believe that we must accept God's gift of salvation. Our reconciliation to God is made possible by God and God alone (Calvinists and Arminians agree on this point), however I concur with Arminius in saying we must accept this gift offered to us. I have never understood why this would, in any way, take away from God's sovereignty as Calvinists constantly argue. The verses Calvinists cite in favor of this doctrine usually come from the book of Romans, chapters 9-12, most of which is written about the Hebrew people (the natural seed of Abraham) and their covenant with God. Also, there are far too many conditional statements in the Bible concerning personal salvation to make me believe that salvation is unconditional. lol

L - The doctrine of limited atonement is most people's biggest problem with Calvinism, I think. It creates a paradox of God's will and logically implies the doctrine of reprobation. If God is "willing that none should perish" yet predetermines them to a fate of perpetual death by not including them in the covenant with His Son, then we're faced with a problem: either God's love for mankind isn't as passionate as most Christians have been led to believe; or God does not have the power and/or authority to effect His perfect will and Calvinists are, in reality, the ones diminishing His divine sovereignty; or we create an unnecessary paradox of will vs. will. Not only is this doctrine problematic from a philosophical viewpoint, it is counterintuitive for so many who read the gospels.

I - Irresistible grace pretty much goes hand-in-hand with unconditional election. To be straightforward, I don't think the Lord would force salvation onto any person. I believe each one of us must accept this free gift of our own volition, and, while we are led by the Spirit to repentance, the Spirit does not violate our [God-given] autonomy if our will is to remain captive to sin. God's grace enables us; it does not arrest us. So, in my opinion, there is nothing "graceful" about this particular doctrine.

P - I think this is probably the least offensive doctrine of Calvinism. I agree with the premise but believe that it is taken too far. Yes, I absolutely believe in my heart that nothing can snatch you away from God once you are adopted into His family - nothing except you. As a child can disown himself from his earthly father, a child of God can disown himself from his heavenly Father. As a man can divorce His wife by reason of infidelity, I believe our Lord Jesus Christ does divorce Himself from a person who has lost all faith in Him. Works never enter into the equation. It is not by works that we are saved but by grace through faith. When our faith has been denied or abandoned, how can we expect a share in the kingdom? The Bible tells us that we are to persevere. OSAS folks seem to advocate a very "passive" interpretation of this imperative scripture. It certainly doesn't mean that we can never screw up (we are under God's grace and the protection of the Cross); it means that we must never give up.

I suppose I would be classified as a moderate Calvinist, but my views definitely lean toward Arminianism. I decided to vote for 60% Arminian, 40% Calvinist, because of my complicated view on the doctrine of total depravity and my agreement with the central idea of perseverance of the saints.

[7cworldwide]

Have a listen at this: http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/The_Whi...p?bcd=2007-8-12

[corriee]

What I don't understand is why I have to be something beside Christian.

I am neither. I am a Bible believing person.

I believe John 3:16, Jesus died for the whole world.

I believe Ephesians 1:5 I was predestinated in Him.

I believe Ephesians 1:4 I was chosen before the foundations of this world.

I believe Acts 16:31 Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shall be saved.

But I am not a calvinist, nor a daisy, nor anything but a Christian. I don't

want any tulips. Why not just believe the Bible and

be done with it. Christians have enough trouble getting along as it is.

[Rhonda Lou]

T - I believe in total depravity to a point. I do not believe at all that every well-intentioned act made prior to our justification in Christ is essentially "putrid" to God, which is my understanding of this doctrine. I do, however, think that almost every act is tainted by original sin. What is the root of all sin? I believe it to be selfishness. The only exemptions that I can tell would be self-sacrifice and possibly instinctive altruistic behavior. All other actions are either consciously or subconsciously self-seeking. I do not believe that God can justly judge us based on our subconscious feelings - but they do separate us from God and make us more prone to committing conscious acts of rebellion, which God can and does justly judge.

I believe that the Bible speaks of the total depravity of man.

21When the Lord smelled the pleasing odor [a scent of satisfaction to His heart], the Lord said to Himself, I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the imagination (the strong desire) of man's heart is evil and wicked from his youth; neither will I ever again smite and destroy every living thing, as I have done. (Genesis 8:21)

9The heart is deceitful above all things, and it is exceedingly perverse and corrupt and severely, mortally sick! Who can know it [perceive, understand, be acquainted with his own heart and mind]? (Jeremiah 17:9)

When His disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying,

[Neopatriarch]

L - The doctrine of limited atonement is most people's biggest problem with Calvinism, I think. It creates a paradox of God's will and logically implies the doctrine of reprobation. If God is "willing that none should perish" yet predetermines them to a fate of perpetual death by not including them in the covenant with His Son, then we're faced with a problem: either God's love for mankind isn't as passionate as most Christians have been led to believe; or God does not have the power and/or authority to effect His perfect will and Calvinists are, in reality, the ones diminishing His divine sovereignty; or we create an unnecessary paradox of will vs. will. Not only is this doctrine problematic from a philosophical viewpoint, it is counterintuitive for so many who read the gospels.

Spurgeon expresses the trouble I have with universal atonement fairly well in A Defense of Calvinism:

To think that my Saviour died for men who were or are in hell, seems a supposition too horrible for me to entertain. To imagine for a moment that He was the Substitute for all the sons of men, and that God, having first punished the Substitute, afterwards punished the sinners themselves, seems to conflict with all my ideas of Divine justice. That Christ should offer an atonement and satisfaction for the sins of all men, and that afterwards some of those very men should be punished for the sins for which Christ had already atoned, appears to me to be the most monstrous iniquity that could ever have been imputed to Saturn, to Janus, to the goddess of the Thugs, or to the most diabolical heathen deities. God forbid that we should ever think thus of Jehovah, the just and wise and good!

I believe the verse you quoted is:

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

Peter is talking to believers. This qualifies the scope of the 'all'.

But if God is not wishing that anyone at all should perish, is he eternally miserable because so many are going to hell and he was impotent to stop it (being limited by man's free will)? Or, is he going to wait for everyone to repent no matter how long it takes? Or, maybe he failed since we know that not everyone will be saved.

My understanding of 2 Peter 3:9 is similar to Matthew 18:12-14. Christ died for his sheep, and God is not willing that these should perish.

Matthew 18:12 What do you think? If a man has a hundred sheep and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go in search of the one that went astray? 13 And if he finds it, truly, I say to you, he rejoices over it more than over the ninety-nine that never went astray. 14 So it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.

-Neopatriarch

[patricia1]

armeniesm (or however you spell it) = God chooses ALL men

I think all can agree that not ALL men are saved. That makes the plan a failure. God is not a failure and His plan is not less than perfect. God is 100% sovererign and perfect and we much reject anything that claims otherwise.

but unlovingly rejects all others,

Again, by what standards are we judging "unloving"? By what definition? Do we hold God accountable to human definitions and standards?

perhaps you could explain from a calvanistic point of view why John 3:16-17 says

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condem the world, but to save the world through him.

and does NOT say

For God so loved part of the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever God selected to believe in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to save everyone, but to save only those He decided in advance to love.

whoever believes in Him shall not perish - who here is saying that that is untrue? It is absolutely true. Whoever believes in Him will not perish. As for what it doesn't say - we could go 'round and 'round about what Scripture doesn't say - but what's the point? What it says is what is important.

I did vote but not sure I liked the percentages. It is such a hard call. I personally do not believe once saved always saved for then there are those who may take advantage of Gods Grace. Through out the word of God many had fallen away and still are.

Then I know the Lord God knew me as who I am before I was placed in my mothers womb. The Spirit of the Living God who is the third person of the trinity wooed and guided me to the Saving knowledge of Christ. It is He who illuminated my mind. It is I who said yes to God and thank-you. Yes I want to be your daughter, your friend and thank-you for showing me and giving be this gift of Salvation. A gift placed in my heart that i desrved not. It does say Noone...None comes to the father on his own. It is like the question "did god know that adam and eve will sin before they sinned" or All who call upon the name of Jesus will be saved. Would God enjoy having a child born knowing he is predestined to Hell? NOT MY GOD!!!!! I would have preferred that we can vote on each belief. But hey.. I preferr a lot of things lol

[Guest Biblicist]

I do not believe that John Calvin believed for a second that God brings people kicking and screaming into the Kingdom

He doesn't have to, He's very persuasive.

[patricia1]

I do not believe that John Calvin believed for a second that God brings people kicking and screaming into the Kingdom

He doesn't have to, He's very persuasive.

who quoted from John 3:16 up there?? My bible states something different What bible are you using?

My version14~~~And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so the must the Son of man be lifted up:

That whosoever beliveth in Him should not perish but have eternal life.

For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever beliveth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him MIGHT be saved oh oh I think I may have misread something. salvation depends on our willingness to say yes Lord Yes... We send ourselves to Hell not God. He did not create hell for man....oh well

[patricia1]

I do not believe that John Calvin believed for a second that God brings people kicking and screaming into the Kingdom

He doesn't have to, He's very persuasive.

who quoted from John 3:16 up there?? My bible states something different What bible are you using?

My version14~~~And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so the must the Son of man be lifted up:

That whosoever beliveth in Him should not perish but have eternal life.

For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever beliveth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him MIGHT be saved oh oh I think I may have misread something. salvation depends on our willingness to say yes Lord Yes... We send ourselves to Hell not God. He did not create hell for man....oh well

I wonder what the gender would be. how many men are tulips and such well I'd rather be a daisy...they last longer and can loose more petals and still look good.

[jamie]

I personally wish people would read the bible and draw their own conclusions without having to wear the lable of some fallible mans name. In other words I hate "isms".

An interesting piece about John Calvin..

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/ashes.htm