Why Calvinists and Arminianists are both wrong

[historyb]

If a person is dead can that person do anything, can a dead person escape the grave. That is as good as will get I will not debate no more, I believe as I do and you believe as you do nothing will change that

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Historyb: I believe nothing merely because Calvin taught it, but because I have found his teaching in the Word of God.- CH Spurgeon

HP: By the way, Spurgeon sure missed it there.

Have a great day in the Lord!

 

[historyb]

No he didn't I also found the Doctrines of Grace in Scripture after Arminism lead me to the RCC, I fully agree with Spurgeon Calvinism is in Scripture

 

[webdog]

Webdog, you have gone over the edge. I guess you'd like to rewrite the Bible. Your favorite English translations have the word "before" -- deal with it. You have no authority on the matter -- before, now, or later. Your argument is not biblical, historical Christianity. Join the more orthodox folks -- drop your nonsense.

Where have I denied the word "before" is found in the Bible? I'm sure you are trying to make a point about something, but as usual, fall short.

 

[Gup20]

Where have I denied the word "before" is found in the Bible? I'm sure you are trying to make a point about something, but as usual, fall short.

Though I agree with webdog here, I would offer a small correction to our thinking.

I think what he's talking about is the phrase "before the foundation of the world" and how it applies to the concept of "before time" which is an oxymoron.

Eph 1:4 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:

1Pe 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Jhn 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Jhn 17:24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

1Cr 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:

2Ti 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called [us] with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

Tts 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
​

In order to be "before," time must necessarily exist. You cannot have "before time" because the word 'before' means "prior to a point in time".

However, if we look at the verbiage of Genesis 1, we can see that it says "In the beginning... ". All the subsequent verses begin with "And". And statements are inclusive, meaning it is part of the original statement. In the beginning, God created the heaven AND the earth. "The earth" relates back to "In the beginning God created" because of the word AND. Each verse in Genesis 1 begins with the word AND, meaning it relates back to the phrase "in the beginning, God created...".

Therefore, it is clear that "the beginning" lasts 7 days. Therefore "began" - which is the past tense of 'begin' or 'the beginning' doesn't happen until the beginning is completed. Which means you have 7 days of creation until you can say the creation 'began'. So 'before the foundation of the world' or 'before the world began' can - by literal interpretation - apply to any of the original first 7 creation days.

To bolster this, consider Genesis 1:2 and Genesis 1:3. In verse 2 it says "darkness was upon the face of the deep", and in verse 3 it says "And God said let there be light, and there was light". The word And still includes these statements to "in the beginning", but it sets up an order of "A before B before C". Therefore, it is clear that time exists, as you have things happening 'before' something else, but it is all part of of "the beginning" stated in Genesis 1:1.

Therefore, it is possible to have the point of time "before the world began" and be logically consistent. The days of creation were, logically, before the world began.

Furthermore, if one looks up the word "before" in the Greek (from the verses above), one of the accepted uses of this word is the word "above". The Greek word pro is used this way in the following verses:

Jam 5:12 But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and [your] nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.

1Pe 4:8 And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins.
​

The word "above" in these two verses is the same word translated "before" in the other scriptures I listed - the Greek word pro. If we apply this, we can conceptualize the idea of "before the foundation of the world" to mean "the first thing" as it relates to time.

Of course, this does nothing to resolve our debate as it doesn't speak to the concept of knowing the outcome VS causing the outcome. Clearly if one creates time, he isn't bound by time, therefore his foreknowledge of events is just as perfect as if he had already experienced the event.

 

[webdog]

Though I agree with webdog here, I would offer a small correction to our thinking.

I think what he's talking about is the phrase "before the foundation of the world" and how it applies to the concept of "before time" which is an oxymoron.

Eph 1:4 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:

1Pe 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Jhn 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Jhn 17:24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

1Cr 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:

2Ti 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called [us] with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,

Tts 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
​

In order to be "before," time must necessarily exist. You cannot have "before time" because the word 'before' means "prior to a point in time".

However, if we look at the verbiage of Genesis 1, we can see that it says "In the beginning... ". All the subsequent verses begin with "And". And statements are inclusive, meaning it is part of the original statement. In the beginning, God created the heaven AND the earth. "The earth" relates back to "In the beginning God created" because of the word AND. Each verse in Genesis 1 begins with the word AND, meaning it relates back to the phrase "in the beginning, God created...".

Therefore, it is clear that "the beginning" lasts 7 days. Therefore "began" - which is the past tense of 'begin' or 'the beginning' doesn't happen until the beginning is completed. Which means you have 7 days of creation until you can say the creation 'began'. So 'before the foundation of the world' or 'before the world began' can - by literal interpretation - apply to any of the original first 7 creation days.

To bolster this, consider Genesis 1:2 and Genesis 1:3. In verse 2 it says "darkness was upon the face of the deep", and in verse 3 it says "And God said let there be light, and there was light". The word And still includes these statements to "in the beginning", but it sets up an order of "A before B before C". Therefore, it is clear that time exists, as you have things happening 'before' something else, but it is all part of of "the beginning" stated in Genesis 1:1.

Therefore, it is possible to have the point of time "before the world began" and be logically consistent. The days of creation were, logically, before the world began.

Furthermore, if one looks up the word "before" in the Greek (from the verses above), one of the accepted uses of this word is the word "above". The Greek word pro is used this way in the following verses:

Jam 5:12 But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and [your] nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.

1Pe 4:8 And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins.
​

The word "above" in these two verses is the same word translated "before" in the other scriptures I listed - the Greek word pro. If we apply this, we can conceptualize the idea of "before the foundation of the world" to mean "the first thing" as it relates to time.

Of course, this does nothing to resolve our debate as it doesn't speak to the concept of knowing the outcome VS causing the outcome. Clearly if one creates time, he isn't bound by time, therefore his foreknowledge of events is just as perfect as if he had already experienced the event.

I think you did a good job thinking this out logically (unlike some here). I will add that I believe time was created with matter, and this goes back to day one of the creation. While you have given one viable alternative at when we were chosen, I still believe the author was intending the wording to be along the lines of the example of "above", that the act was done by an eternal God without respect to time and order as we know it. Even "above" points to anthropomorphic language, as material beings were chosen who didn't even exist.

 

[Contemporary Calvinist]

I would agree that Calvinism and Arminianism are both logically consistent. Even so I reject both because I am convinced that God's ways cannot always be explained by human logic. I believe that Calvinism and Arminianism are human attempts to logically explain what God has not chosen to completely reveal. For that reason I hold that Calvinism and Arminianism are both in error. Since some questions are simply unanswerable, it is better to leave those questions with God rather than attempt to formulate an answer that conforms to human logic but in the end produces error.

I reject both because I am convinced that God's ways cannot always be explained by human logic.

God's ways cannot be understood completely or fully as Paul says 'we see through a glass darkly'. However, God has revealed his ways to us through His Son. He has revealed his ways in a way that humans can understand. To deny this is to embrace relativism and to deny the doctrine of the sufficiency of scripture.

I believe that Calvinism and Arminianism are human attempts to logically explain what God has not chosen to completely reveal.

God has chosen to reveal the way of salvation. John Calvin's Institutes are an unpacking of the bible. A teaching of the Word of God. An attempt to explain clearly what God has chosen to reveal.

Since some questions are simply unanswerable, it is better to leave those questions with God rather than attempt to formulate an answer that conforms to human logic but in the end produces error

Or is it that instead of some questions being unanswerable the answers are undesirable to fallen man?

You seem to bat around the word 'human logic' a lot. You do not define what you mean by this. It seems to be applied to any view which you disagree with.

 

[webdog]

God has chosen to reveal the way of salvation. John Calvin's Institutes are an unpacking of the bible. A teaching of the Word of God. An attempt to explain clearly what God has chosen to reveal.

If it has been so clear, why has the debate gone on for hundreds of years? The issue is not the way of salvation, but the mechanics behind it.

God has chosen to reveal the way of salvation. John Calvin's Institutes are an unpacking of the bible. A teaching of the Word of God. An attempt to explain clearly what God has chosen to reveal.

...which is one man's opinion.

Or is it that instead of some questions being unanswerable the answers are undesirable to fallen man?

What's undesirable?

 

[Gup20]

Both Calvinism and Arminianism have the same humanist flaw - that man determines truth.

The consistent calvinist has to eventually admit that God is responsible for all the sin and evil in the world, not man. He also has to admit that there is no reason to preach the gospel.

The consistent Arminian has to eventually acknowledge their system says that man isn't completely dead in his sin, and Jesus didn't pay the full penalty for sin.

What Calvinism VS Arminianism boils down to is the following humanist argument: Calvinists say "God is responsible for my sin". Arminians say "I am not responsible for my sin". It's the same, humanist montra, and they spend hundreds of years arguing and debating over who is right. Calvinists like their doctrine better because it is "focused on God" whereas Arminianism is "focused on man". Arminians like their doctrine better because it doesn't make God out to be the horrible, unjust monster that Calvinism makes him out to be.

But the truth is they are both wrong. We are responsible for our own sin. We are responsible for the evil and death in the world. God made a way for salvation in Jesus Christ, and commanded us to choose the way or choose to remain in death. He rewards those who choose Jesus with life, and he does not reward those who reject Jesus and choose death.

 

[historyb]

The consistent Calvinist has to eventually admit that God is responsible for all the sin and evil in the world, not man. He also has to admit that there is no reason to preach the gospel.

Now that is completely off base and wrong, you really don't know much about it. Calvinism is straight from Scripture

 

[Pastor Larry]

Both Calvinism and Arminianism have the same humanist flaw - that man determines truth.

Calvinists believe that God determines truth and has revealed it in Scripture. We refuse to bow to the ideas of man. So when the Bible says that God chose us before the foundation of the world, we don't apply some kind of convuluted logic to say that before doesn't really mean before. We simply accept that God knew what he was talking about.

 

[Gup20]

Now that is completely off base and wrong, you really don't know much about it. Calvinism is straight from Scripture

As shocked as I am that a Calvinist doesn't readily agree that his faith in Calvin is humanistic, perhaps you can be equally as shocked that your argument here hasn't convinced me.

Calvinists believe that God determines truth and has revealed it in Scripture. We refuse to bow to the ideas of man.

Like I said ... you are in the "God is responsible for my sin" camp. Perhaps it would be more appealing to you if I rephrased it to say "God is sovereign in your righteousness".

we don't apply some kind of convuluted logic to say that before doesn't really mean before.

I see. But you do employ "convoluted logic" to say that all, whole, none, and world don't mean what they mean.

We simply accept that God knew what he was talking about.

And I accept that God made us, and wrote the Bible to us, and therefore everything in the Bible can be understood by us.

 

[historyb]

As shocked as I am that a Calvinist doesn't readily agree that his faith in Calvin is humanistic, perhaps you can be equally as shocked that your argument here hasn't convinced me.

Maybe someday God's Word will

 

[Pastor Larry]

Like I said ... you are in the "God is responsible for my sin" camp.

Really?

Perhaps it would be more appealing to you if I rephrased it to say "God is sovereign in your righteousness".

Perhaps. God is sovereign in everything which certainly includes sin and righteousness. That does not mean he is responsible for it in the sense that you seem to want to use it.

But you do employ "convoluted logic" to say that all, whole, none, and world don't mean what they mean.

Really? I didn't know that. Do you have some passages in mind? I bet you don't even think "all, whole none, and world" mean what they mean. (Now that's a bit convoluted ... but you probably get the point).

And I accept that God made us, and wrote the Bible to us, and therefore everything in the Bible can be understood by us.

So you understand how God is one, the Father is God, Jesus is God, and yet Jesus and the Father are distinct? If so, you are the first one in human history other than Jesus to understand that.

But more to the point, I think the Bible is generally understandable. I think Calvinism is really easily understood for the most part. Almost twenty years ago, when I started taking the Bible seriously, the doctrines known as Calvinism were so clearly seen and so contrary to what I had believed my whole life. Since then, I have never understood the confusion that some like Webdog and others seem to manifest. It just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Rippon]

As shocked as I am that a Calvinist doesn't readily agree that his faith in Calvin is humanistic ...

Gup, I know you're just a pup here as far as your number of posts -- but I really expect more than that tired old junk. Who here has faith in Calvin? That would be precisely ... no one. So knock off the bunk. Please deal with things we actually say -- not things you make up or recycle from two-bit Semi-Pelagian websites.

I see. But you do employ "convoluted logic" to say that all, whole, none, and world don't {sic}mean what they mean.

We say that those words have to be viewed in their context. (Why you mentioned "none" is beyond me.)For instance, "flesh" doesn't always mean skin in Scripture. It has multiple meanings depending on the context in which it is used. The word "world" also has more than half a dozen meanings in the Bible. Be a Berean.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Rippon: "Initial faith"? The faith that God gives is only saving faith. The Lord grants that to some only -- not each and every.

HP: Who said the only faith God gives is saving faith??

Ro 12:3 For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

Now if I acted as some on this list I would take this approach. Are you calling God a liar? If every man is not every man…..

Relax Rippon. I am not going to take you down the same road so often presented to me. I would rather converse in a reasonable manner. J

So again, where do you establish that God gives only saving faith?

 

[webdog]

Calvinists believe that God determines truth and has revealed it in Scripture. We refuse to bow to the ideas of man. So when the Bible says that God chose us before the foundation of the world, we don't apply some kind of convuluted logic to say that before doesn't really mean before. We simply accept that God knew what he was talking about.

Oh, God knows what He is talking about...you don't know what he is talking about.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Pastor Larry: Calvinists believe that God determines truth and has revealed it in Scripture. We refuse to bow to the ideas of man.

HP: Tell us Pastor, did this knowledge God possessed necessitate the outcome? If so, what man told you that?

 

[Gup20]

Gup, I know you're just a pup here as far as your number of posts -- but I really expect more than that tired old junk. Who here has faith in Calvin? That would be precisely ... no one. So knock off the bunk. Please deal with things we actually say -- not things you make up or recycle from two-bit Semi-Pelagian websites.

God used an ass to speak to Israel in the old testament. I don't think my number of posts speaks to God's ability to use me to speak truth, nor the authority I have in Christ. But rather to the amount of free time one has. Your appeal to your larger number of posts as a source of authority is a purely humanistic source of authority.

Mat 21:16 And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?

1Cr 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

You can call me all the names you want, but Pelagius isn't in the Bible either, and wrote exactly 0 books of the Bible. His writings, along with Calvin are irrelevant to scripture.

And one more thing. I've never read the works of Pelegius... or Calvin... or Arminius... or Augustine - not in book form or on websites. I have read scripture, though, and all of the things I say here come from scripture alone. My knowledge of the Calvinism vs Arminianism debate comes from a 4.5 hour DVD (made by calvinsts) trying to convince everyone of calvinism. It was a DVD called "Amazing Grace" presented by "The Apologetics Group". It featured RC Sproul (Sr and Jr), James Kennedy, Stephen Mansfield, Kenneth Talbot, George Grant, Thomas Ascol, Thomas Nettles, Walter Bowie, Roger Schultz, Walter Chantry and Joe Morecraft. Everyone except the two walters has a "Dr." in front of their name (the walters have a "Rev."), so I am guessing they have an even greater claim to authoriy than you do, Rippon. Yet, their arguments were transparent and full of holes and problems, and disagreed with what I can plainly read in scripture.

We say that those words have to be viewed in their context. (Why you mentioned "none" is beyond me.)For instance, "flesh" doesn't always mean skin in Scripture. It has multiple meanings depending on the context in which it is used. The word "world" also has more than half a dozen meanings in the Bible. Be a Berean.

Several verses you have to ignore the meaning of:

2Pe 3:9 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.

1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Rom 9:33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Rom 10:11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one [judgment came] upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one [the free gift came] upon all men unto justification of life.

2Cr 5:14 For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead:
15 And [that] he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.

 

[Gup20]

Deu 11:26 Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse;
27 A blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you this day:

Deu 30:1 And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, and thou shalt call [them] to mind among all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath driven thee,
Deu 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, [that] I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
​

God sets before us the choice of life or death and commands us to choose. He wouldn't do this unless he intended to honor our election. How do we choose life?

Jhn 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
​

Believing in Jesus is "choosing life". Even though we are totally dead we can still choose to believe. The Scripture tells us what happens if we choose to believe - if we (as Deu 30 says) choose blessing:

Mat 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
​

The Bible says we have a role to play in our salvation. We have to believe.

Psa 21:3 For thou preventest him with the blessings of goodness: thou settest a crown of pure gold on his head.
4 He asked life of thee, [and] thou gavest [it] him, [even] length of days for ever and ever.
5 His glory [is] great in thy salvation: honour and majesty hast thou laid upon him.
6 For thou hast made him most blessed for ever: thou hast made him exceeding glad with thy countenance.
​

The Bible also tells us why people are "not elected".

Psa 109:17 As he loved cursing, so let it come unto him: as he delighted not in blessing, so let it be far from him.

Jhn 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

​

We can clearly see that in both Psalms 109 and John 3 it is a choice made by man that leads to life & blessing or death & cursing, just as Deuteronomy 30 says is the exact choice God sets before us, and commands us to choose.