-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Why Calvinists and Arminianists are both wrong
- Thread starter Gup20
- Start date
So you are telling me I can't trust God's word? I can't trust the work of the Spirit? I have to depend on you to know what it really means?
You tell me. Can God know something false? If God knows all things at all times since he has existed, can God know something as a true happening that won't actually happen. In other words, if God knows all things, and knows that you will eat lunch at McDonald's today, can you eat lunch anywhere else?
I can't speak for all, but I believe this. I don't ignore it.
I believe this one too.
I believe this one too.
This one too.
This one too.
This one too.
This one too.
Wow, looks like you were wrong. I don't ignore these verses. I fully and without qualification affirm them all. I completely and absolutely believe them. Do you have any others that you think we ignore? because you clearly are wrong on this list.
Heavenly Pilgrim
New Member
HP: No.
HP: No.
HP: More than likely I could but God obviously knows I will not. Foreknowledge, in the case of free moral agents, held eternally responsible for their actions, does not nor can it justly, necessitate the outcome. God simply foreknows matters of perfect choice as well as those our finite foreknowledge is limited to, i.e. matters of necessity. Why do you limit an Omnipotent God to the foreknowledge of mere men? What man have you been listening to? Sure sounds like Augustine and Calvin to me.
Excellent
Excellent, again.
Now you have contradicted what you just said above, and on top of that are playing games with words. If God knows something and his knowledge is always true, then it has to happen the way God knows it. It cannot happen any other way. So to say "I can but God knows I won't" creates a wordplay that I don't think can stand up.
I think the distinction should be about causation. Does God's knowledge cause something directly. My answer is no. The fact that God knows you will eat at McDonalds does not mean he directly causes it. (I am still thinking through this.)
I don't. I didn't even bring the foreknowledge of mere men up. I don't know what you are talking about with respect to that.
Just Jesus, Paul, Peter. Ezekiel of late, reading this morning about the certain judgment of Egypt. Jeremiah I just finished.
Never read anything other than select quotes from either. Never listened to them either. No recordings have been perserved.
Gup20
Active Member
I commend your belief of scripture, and unwillingness to compromise it, even though these scriptures do great damage to the doctrine of Calvinism.
One tenet of Calvinism is that Jesus did not die for all mankind, but that he only died for the 'elect'. This is the L in TULIP and it stands for Limited Atonement. This is the idea that Christ did not die for all, but only for the chosen.
Do you ignore Deuteronomy 30 where God commands US to choose life or death?
This is the true debate - knowing VS causing. Does God's foreknowledge mean he caused? No it doesn't. For the very simple reason that God is outside of time and not bound to the limitations of time. God IS... equally now and in the past and in the future simultaneously. So it would be logical to say that God has already experienced you and me and every choice we will ever make. He experienced this at the foundation of the universe. I use the word "experience" because it indicates a past-tense, presently aware event. God doesn't choose for us, he knows what our choices will be because he is present - even now - when we make those future choices.
Consider the word "choice" and how ineffective it is for an eternal being. The only way we can make a choice is because we are trapped in a linear, progressive "time". If we were eternal, then making a choice would mean that whatever we decided would have ALWAYS been true, forever in the future and past. If we changed our minds, the new choice would change to eternal truth - going forever forward and forever backward. There is no "point" of decision because there is no time. A choice is only possible because we are trapped in time.
Therefore when Deuteronomy 30:19 says "I have set before you life, death, blessing and cursing... so choose life", it's really saying I created an entire universe - everything you see around you - the fabric of time and space itself - to allow you to make one decision, therefore make the decision. And by the way, it is in your best interest to choose life.
I am not aware of any damage these do to Calvinism. Every Calvinist I know fully affirms these verses without compromise.
No, not really. The “L” means that Christ intended to save only the elect, only those who believe. He did not die to save unbelievers. But many Calvinists disagree with this point. Most however make a distinction between sufficiency and efficiency.
Of course not. God didn’t tell “US” to choose anything. He said that to Israel living under the Law of Moses getting ready to enter the promised land. We can certainly draw some applications from that, but he didn’t say it to us. The better verse is Acts 17:30 where “Acts 17:30 God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent,”
Your answer is correct but your logic is wrong. It has nothing to do with being outside of time. So far as I know, you can’t show anywhere in Scripture that that argument is appealed to as a reason. If you know a place where Scripture (not you or Webdog) uses that argument, please put it forth for consideration.
I think this is part of the problem. Where my commitment is to Scripture and what Scripture says regardless of where human logic might lead me, you are more committed to logic. I think logic plays a role, but only when it is submitted to Scripture.
No, it’s not really say that at all. It is saying, “Obey the Law, and live long in the land.” Read all of the Palestinian covenant in Deut 28-30 to get the background. Don’t just lift this verse out of context.
I began reading this and got bored about 5 pages in. How many ways can you say the same thing? so I followed the poster that I found most interesting and curiously the most off track as well as most diometricly opposed to those things that the scripture teaches (in context).
Historyb,
In all of your many, many, Many posts you quote 20 scriptures, 16 of which are in the same post and have no explination as to how they apply to the subject matter at hand and are all built around the premise that man can in and of himself make no choice. Conveniently they are all out of context and none of them actually say "man can not make a choice". Surely and un doubtly if this is the center of your argument you can find at least one scripture (in context) that says it directly. For example:"whosoever will let him drink of the water of life(ie. the Lord Jesus Christ) freely".
I have spoken to many Calvinists from mild to hyper some of whom I love dearly and not one single one of them build upon the scripture to form this doctrine. You say no its doctrines. I say no it is one doctrine. the entire Calvanistic teaching hinges on Predestination. One word that never occures in the scriptures, the word predestinate occures twice as does the word predestinated. The only way that you can make these scriptures teach Calvanism is to take them out of context.
Any scripture taken out of context is a pre text. Which leads me to this. Every Calvanist that I have ever spoken to does the same thing. They have a pre aranged set of doctrines (ie. TULIP) and they run around proping these doctrines up with Primarily Old Testament verses that are for the most part out of context. Why not take God at his Word and allow him to form the doctrines.
The truth is that honostly if you can show me in the scripture (in context, and in agreement with the total canon) ANYTHING, and I mean Anything I will believe it. I have studied this predistination thing out as far as I can, (which is why I have spoken to so many Calvanists) and I cannot find it in the scriptures. What I do find in the scriptures is that God Knowing all things, chose the way, not the people of salvation( faith in the Death burial and resurection of Jesus Christ) before the foundation of the world which you will see in Eph.1, which encompasses both of the occurances of the word Predestinated.
All of this is said in love and I would suggest that you and every other Christian who reads this, take this opportunity to reconsider this and every other doctrine that you hold close to your heart by setting aside all that you have been taught by others as well as those things that you believe yourself to understand and come to the Word of God with an empty vessel and no predisposition and allow God to teach you his Word and he will, just as he promised.
With all of that said, there is a great deal of untruth in Armenianism as well.
Last edited by a moderator:
This is how I became a Calvinist. I was something else, and tried to be, but the Word would not let me go that way. I had to set aside what I had been taught my whole life. And I didn't do it intentionally. The teaching of Scripture overwhelmed my objections. If others in good conscience differ, that's fine with me. But I cannot, in good conscience, be anything else.
BTW, I have seen very few Calvinists use OT passages, because the OT is harder to deal with because it is about God's working with the nation of Israel. In my experience, most of the OT passages (such as above with Deut 30) are brought up by Arminians (or non-Calvinists if you prefer).
Last edited by a moderator:
I believe that this is incorrect despite the powerful intuitive appeal.
The argument that shows otherwise is lengthy and complex. If time permits, perhaps I will return to this.
So God can know something and be wrong about it?
No, I am not saying this.
Obviously, I would not say that if God knowsin advance that a certain human will do "X", then God can turn out to be mistaken.
I am saying that even if that if God knows in advance that a certain human will do "X", there is no specifically logical reason why that human being was not free to do something other than X.
I think I misunderstood your position. I just read back and it seems that you also believe that "foreknowledge is not causation", and in fact I share your critique of the reason "its because God is outside of time". Like you, I think that it is a faulty argument.
I am not sure there is anything for me to pursue here. If someone thinks that God's foreknowledge necessarily robs man of free will, that I would dispute.
Gup20
Active Member
Perhaps you "semi-Calvinists" should join forces with the semi-palegians and overthrow your respective doctrinal leadership in a Coup-de-doc(trine).
Well that's a slippery slope. I know many who say that Jesus' words were not meant for Gentiles because he was speaking exclusively the the Jews. It seems to me if we can be made sinners by the law, then the law applies to us equally as it does the Jews.
It is perhaps the most commonly used argument we use - 2 Peter 3:9. The context of this is verse 8:
2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
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.
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.
I don't think logic trumps scripture, but I do think that scripture is always logical. If we can't make sense of scripture, or if it doesn't seem logical, then our logic is wrong, or our interpretation is wrong. The scripture is never wrong. I think we are both saying that. At your prompting, I read Deuteronomy 28-30 and found this verse of interest:
Deu 29:29 The secret [things belong] unto the LORD our God: but those [things which are] revealed [belong] unto us and to our children for ever, that [we] may do all the words of this law.
The "palestinian covenant"? What is that? I've never heard that term before, and I don't find it in Deu 28-30. Perhaps you can explain this concept to me and how it applies to scripture.
Pastor Larry, I feel you are genuinely interested in the truth. Let me speak a word of it to you here.
I suggest you take the same approach to the Old Testament and "Israel" that the Apostle Paul takes. For example:
Gal 4:21 Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he [who was] of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman [was] by promise.
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
27 For it is written, Rejoice, [thou] barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
Here, the Apostle Paul equates "spiritual Israel" to Christians, and "Spiritual Ishmael" to Jews. Paul realizes the physical heir of Abraham is Ishmeal, like the physical seed of Abraham is the Jews. Paul also realizes that the spiritual seed of Abraham is Isaac - the child of promise - just as Christians are the spiritual seed of Abraham -- or more specifically Christ is the spiritual seed of Abraham. Paul applies the Old Testament as though it were a legal document proving that Salvation is by Faith in Jesus Christ to any who believe. 22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he [who was] of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman [was] by promise.
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
27 For it is written, Rejoice, [thou] barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
A church I used to attend, and was on staff with for 5 years started proclaiming a doctrine called "Dual Covenant Theology" a few years ago. I did an extensive study on it, and am willing to share the results of it with you if you like.
There is not doctrinal leadership, and what I stated is full-blown five point Calvinism. But some Calvinists are actually what are called Amyraldians, or four point Calvinists.
In some places this is true. If I tell my son, "You can't play in the yard next door," that does not meant that you (Gup20) can't play in the yard next door. You see, we easily recognize that all words do not equally apply to us. But for some reason, some jettison common sense when it comes to Scripture.
Perhaps, but we are not made sinners by the Law. We are made sinners by the disobedience of one man (Rom 5). And the Law was for Israel as a nation. It was a "schoolmaster" to bring us to the time of faith.
V. 8 won't help you here. The argument against you is that Peter is writing to "us" ... believers (as in the opening verses). He is not writing about unbelievers. Now, I think God is not willing that any should perish universally. HE is not actively seeking their perishing. But as we all know, God's moral will is distinguished in the Scripture from his decreed will. Some Calvinists take this as God's decreed will (meaning that the "us" is the elect) and some take it as God's moral will (meaning that the "us" is humanity). Either way, it doesn't prove a problem for Calvinism.
Exactly.
The Palestinian covenant is not universally recognized as a distinct covenant. Many think it is part of the Mosaic covenant. I think it is distinct. In Deut 28-30 you see the promise: If you obey me you will live in the land of Palestine with freedom, blessing, etc.'; if you disobey me you will be evicted from the land of Palestine with slavery, disease, destruction, famine, etc.
That is the explicit covenant of God with Israel concerning the land of Palestine previously promised to Israel.
I think I do.
In a nutshell, no. I don't have time to get into this, but I think your understanding here is definitely wanting.
Other than perseverance (and not the way it is used in TULIP), the other words that make up the acrostic are not found in Scripture.
Last edited by a moderator:
You do not read very well. I was not appealing to my greater number of posts in order to wield some sense of authority.I had said that it was a sinful fiction that Calvinists have faith in Calvin. You won't find any Calvinists on this boaerd or in Church history who claim that. I told you to deal with what people are actually saying rather than make up stuff or borrow ideas from semi-Pelagian sources.
Many Arminians have never read the works of Arminius. Usually those who claim they are neither Arminians nor Calvinists are either semi-Pelagian or Arminian.
So I guess you need to study more in order to be truthful and more knowledgeable on the subject.
Again, my so-called authority was not the point of my last post. Please read more carefully.
Please enlighten us as to these apparent holes and problems are.