Calvinists vs Armenians: A Challenging--But Senseless--Debate

[jomarc]

It's a crazy battle this thing about Calvinism and predestination. Truth is when you really stop to think about it...there is no battle at all. Calvinists believe they are to evangelize so that the elect can come to Christ. Armenians essentially believe that they are to evangelize so that they can 'recruit' new Christians. In the end, the result is the same.

I currently lean somewhat more toward the Calvinist point of view on predestination (or at least understand it more), just by virtue of Scriptures that I had not be exposed to until just recently. [Oh yes, that Romans 9 stuff that is so very hard to understand].

I think it is sad that we spend so much time debating the predestination issue when there is so much more to the Bible that we need to be addressing. But it is fun and challenging--as always--to debate the issues that confuse us (e.g. predestination and the end of times). Let's just not let these things become our primary focus. More importantly, let's not let these non-essentials of our faith divide us.

 

[JonC]

I agree and disagree. What is of most importance transcends this issue. But that does not mean these are unimportant topics worth discussing. Scripture is replete with doctrines that do not need to be understood for salvation to take place, but are important nonetheless.

Also, I believe there can be value in these discussions even if common resolution seems evasive. It allows us to look at our own views, understand others, and walk through doctrines of God.

That said, we mostly just argue. You're new, but just hang out until the "hypers" on either side kick in and debauchery overrides dialogue. You ain't seen nothing yet.

 

[StefanM]

And we aren't even addressing the Lutherans! They seem to want it both ways----unconditional election but resistible grace. I have tried just about every angle I can imagine to make that concept "work" in some coherent manner. I've failed every time.

 

[TCassidy]

The Gospel is important. It can't be properly preached if it is not properly understood.

StefanM, I no longer use the term "Irresistible Grace" as it is so badly misunderstood by most people. I now use the term "Efficacious Grace." The Grace of God is Efficacious to all who receive it. And no person who has received Efficacious Grace will ever be condemned.

 

[Revmitchell]

Grace is offered by God and chosen to be received by man. Grace is offered to every single person indiscriminately and only received by those who believe. The credit for salvation can never go to the receiver no matter what they part in receiving it because nothing can be received unless it is first offered by the one who has the power and authority to offer it. No man told God to offer it nor could he. The grace of God is purely the plan of God and man is only the recipient of that plan. The elect become the elect after they have received the grace of God.

John 3:16
John 1:12,13
Romans 3:22
Romans 5:12;18

 

[MB]

It's a crazy battle this thing about Calvinism and predestination. Truth is when you really stop to think about it...there is no battle at all. Calvinists believe they are to evangelize so that the elect can come to Christ. Armenians essentially believe that they are to evangelize so that they can 'recruit' new Christians. In the end, the result is the same.

It is my belief that there is more to look at before you make such a decision about this on going argument. It's true both evangelize but is it to the same end, I can't help but wonder.

"Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house."
..Notice they didn't say you have to be regenerated first so you can believe. Regeneration for all intents and purposes is being Saved.

I currently lean somewhat more toward the Calvinist point of view on predestination (or at least understand it more), just by virtue of Scriptures that I had not be exposed to until just recently. [Oh yes, that Romans 9 stuff that is so very hard to understand].

The understanding of Romans 9 is in reading it in context. Try starting at the beginning of the book and read to the end for clear understanding.

I think it is sad that we spend so much time debating the predestination issue when there is so much more to the Bible that we need to be addressing. But it is fun and challenging--as always--to debate the issues that confuse us (e.g. predestination and the end of times). Let's just not let these things become our primary focus. More importantly, let's not let these non-essentials of our faith divide us.

The division was place there by misunderstanding and will not be removed until it's clear truth..
MB

 

[Yeshua1]

Grace is offered by God and chosen to be received by man. Grace is offered to every single person indiscriminately and only received by those who believe. The credit for salvation can never go to the receiver no matter what they part in receiving it because nothing can be received unless it is first offered by the one who has the power and authority to offer it. No man told God to offer it nor could he. The grace of God is purely the plan of God and man is only the recipient of that plan. The elect become the elect after they have received the grace of God.

John 3:16
John 1:12,13
Romans 3:22
Romans 5:12;18

From Eternity past Godhad te elect written down in lambs Book of Life, and they were found to be in Christ before foundation of the world, so how could they choose Jesu before God choset hem?

 

[Yeshua1]

And we aren't even addressing the Lutherans! They seem to want it both ways----unconditional election but resistible grace. I have tried just about every angle I can imagine to make that concept "work" in some coherent manner. I've failed every time.

They hold that GOd gives saving faith to the Baby in the water, and that Jesus is spirituall in the Communion also...
in between Cayjolic andReformed positions, much less Baptist!

 

[Revmitchell]

From Eternity past Godhad te elect written down in lambs Book of Life, and they were found to be in Christ before foundation of the world, so how could they choose Jesu before God choset hem?

God's choice is tied up in those who believe and you need to try harder on your typo's it has reached absurd heights.

 

[Rippon]

God's choice is tied up in those who believe

All who are appointed [ordained] for eternal life will believe.

 

[Rippon]

Grace is offered to every single person indiscriminately

Every single person who has and shall live? No, absolutely not.

The elect become the elect after they have received the grace of God.

No, assuredly not. They become believers after they are drawn by the Lord and enlightened by the Holy Spirit.

The elect are known by God as his chosen ones (elect) before the foundation of the world. You cannot use Scripture to contend that people become elect in their lifetime.

 

[Yeshua1]

God's choice is tied up in those who believe and you need to try harder on your typo's it has reached absurd heights.

Jesus said though they did not accept him , but that the Father choose them and gave them to Jesus!

 

[Yeshua1]

Every single person who has and shall live? No, absolutely not.

No, assuredly not. They become believers after they are drawn by the Lord and enlightened by the Holy Spirit.

The elect are known by God as his chosen ones (elect) before the foundation of the world. You cannot use Scripture to contend that people become elect in their lifetime.

When you accept that God did all of the saving, no way I can boast that "I choose to accept Jesus, while you failed to!"

 

[Revmitchell]

When you accept that God did all of the saving, no way I can boast that "I choose to accept Jesus, while you failed to!"

Who says that?

 

[Yeshua1]

Who says that?

NOT saying that you do, but that is what Arminian theology reduces down to, as there has to be a reason why one accepts and one does not same message heard!

 

[Revmitchell]

NOT saying that you do, but that is what Arminian theology reduces down to, as there has to be a reason why one accepts and one does not same message heard!

No sir, this is why we cannot have discussions. This kind of impositions on others is quite dishonest. No one claims that nor believes that and to think that you know there is only two options to believe is arrogant. It is also an informal fallacy called the "either or" fallacy. The bigger problem with this other than it being a fallacy is it is dishonest and falsely accuses people of holding to a position they do not hold. It is a mere debate tactic to make the one leveling the accusation feel as if they have won the debate.

In other words it is a cheap shot and I believe you are better than this.

 

[Yeshua1]

No sir, this is why we cannot have discussions. This kind of impositions on others is quite dishonest. No one claims that nor believes that and to think that you know there is only two options to believe is arrogant. It is also an informal fallacy called the "either or" fallacy. The bigger problem with this other than it being a fallacy is it is dishonest and falsely accuses people of holding to a position they do not hold. It is a mere debate tactic to make the one leveling the accusation feel as if they have won the debate.

In other words it is a cheap shot and I believe you are better than this.

Think about this though, we state that the sinner accepts Jesus due to God enabling him to do that, but if one denies that, then on what basis did the sinner choose to accept? Why dd he and not someone else? smarter/better why?.
It is either/or, in that either God does it all, or we assist Him by cooperation...

 

[Revmitchell]

Think about this though, we state that the sinner accepts Jesus due to God enabling him to do that, but if one denies that, then on what basis did the sinner choose to accept? Why dd he and not someone else? smarter/better why?.
It is either/or, in that either God does it all, or we assist Him by cooperation...

No its not. See you all are looking to create a doctrine on who gets the credit. So in your mind if man responds in any way then he must share the credit with God. I do not see it that way. It certainly is not what I have espoused. See you guys try to set the perimeters of what the debate should be thereby placing on other with whom you disagree beliefs they do not in fact hold to.

If you want to engage me ask me what I believe and deal with my words. Do not put positions or words in my mouth. It is dishonest debate.

Man's response to God is not evidence of cooperation of salvation. That is a poor argument. God created salvation, God offers salvation, therefore the credit is all his regardless of how man responds. The response is not in fact cooperation.

If I hand you a gift wrapped in paper with a bow do you then say we worked together to give you the gift? Is your reception of that gift ever considered part of the giving?

 

[Yeshua1]

No its not. See you all are looking to create a doctrine on who gets the credit. So in your mind if man responds in any way then he must share the credit with God. I do not see it that way. It certainly is not what I have espoused. See you guys try to set the perimeters of what the debate should be thereby placing on other with whom you disagree beliefs they do not in fact hold to.

If you want to engage me ask me what I believe and deal with my words. Do not put positions or words in my mouth. It is dishonest debate.

Man's response to God is not evidence of cooperation of salvation. That is a poor argument. God created salvation, God offers salvation, therefore the credit is all his regardless of how man responds. The response is not in fact cooperation.

If I hand you a gift wrapped in paper with a bow do you then say we worked together to give you the gift? Is your reception of that gift ever considered part of the giving?

 

[Yeshua1]

Unless/until the Holy Spirit enables us to freely respond, none of us could even desire/want to get saved by God, correct?