Calvinism VS Arminianism Comparison Chart by L. Boettner

I'd be interested in seeing a short definition from how you see the Scriptures relating to these points, if you're willing.
If you believe the summaries to be incorrect, then please correct them.

 

I have listed them on this board more than a handful of times over the years. If you want to know something specific ask

 

They are incorrect.

Answering a straw man argument? No thank you.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL

 

I do not care about pelagius, I don't study him, and in fact I do not want to know nor do I care what he thinks. You guys are all tied up in these past man made doctrines that you want to pin on someone else. Leave me out of it.

 

I think that is where we misunderstand one another.

I'm not here to debate.
I'm here to present the truth as I see it, and let the readers decide.
To me, debate is a competitive tactic rooted in pride that is used to win esteem from other people...it's designed to win over the audience to one's position....like a baseball game or a boxing match, one side tries to outwit, out play or out think their opponent.

I already know how most of the audience will react, so I'm not all that concerned.

Truthfully, I couldn't care less about winning this debate or any other, as the majority of professing believers will always side with either "Wesleyanism" or "Traditionalism".
My primary focus here is practice, not debate.

I'm here to get experience for whatever the Lord has for me to do in the future.
That practice is paying off, and I've learned quite a bit since I joined this board.

 

You're not interested in listing the points from the "Arminian" side and developing from Scripture why you disagree with each of them?

I think that this would have been a good opportunity for you to list them, since I cannot recall ever seeing you make more than short responses to anything in this section.
But, since I've only been here a year or so, perhaps I've missed those threads in which you've answered "Calvinism" point by point and had developed it in detail.

 

I'm not interested in propping up strawmen and using deceitful tactics to try and discredit you.
That's the furthest thing from my mind.

To me, that is also juvenile, and I would not want anyone to do it to me.
However, I genuinely would like to see why you disagree with the 5 "points of "Arminianism", and how.
Call it an exercise.
After all, it's never a bad thing to dig into God's word and sharpen up on doctrine, only a good thing.

In addition, I seem to recall making this request sometime last year.
I believe that I phrased it something like, " If Traditionalists claim not to be "Arminians", then please show me how they differ from "Arminians" in the the "Calvinism versus Arminianism" chart.
I've yet to receive a good reply on it, that I'm aware of.

As far as I can tell from my own experience, they differ in only one "point"...loss of salvation.

The remainder of their teachings are right in line with the other 4 "points".
Since the claim is "I'm not an "Arminian", then to me, nothing on the "Arminian ( Wesleyan )" side of the chart should even remotely resemble what the "Traditionalist" can list, if it were done point by point in a summary fashion.

So, if not "Arminian", then we're back to square one, as I see it.

How "Traditionalists" can agree with 4 of the 5 points of the "Arminian" chart and yet not consider themselves as "Arminians", puzzles me.
It also confused me years ago when I asked one of my former pastors about it, and he said that we were "Calvinistic"...later on, I discovered that he not only did not consider himself an "Arminian" because he disagreed with loss of salvation, but that he considered himself "Calvinistic" because he agreed with "eternal security".
Apparently, his idea of "Arminian" hinged completely on whether or not someone believed in loss of salvation.

On a side note, I'm almost sure that a "non-Calvinist" would call someone who believes in one of the first 4 "points" of the "Calvinist" chart, a "Calvinist"...for example, "Unconditional Election", but none of the rest.
Wouldn't you say?

I'll put it another way...
What would you call me if I only believed in 4 of the 5 points of "Calvinism"?

A "Calvinist"?

 

The problem is you are too busy looking for labels. I have new for ya bub, you do not set the standard by which we define our doctrine. If you do not want to respect that then you get no conversation. Further, your stated reason for being here is itself a problem. "To present the truth". Who asked you to come and present your "truth". Who needs you to come here and present your "truth". The whole thing wreaks of the flesh.

 

The idea that I should argue against gross mischaracterizations of Arminianism to prove to you I'm not an Arminian is a fool's errand.

These are not the five points of Armininianism. The section titles might be close but the extraneous commentary, interpretation, and paraphrasing alters them into a grotesque facsimile.

No doubt because it is not Arminianism that is being presented in this chart. It's a Calvinist's interpretation and commentary on what they think it is. It is slanted so as to make it sound like a ridiculous belief system.

<snip rest of diatribe>

 

Obviously I've rebutted Calvinist's posts here, mostly the first couple of years after I joined. When I first joined I asked honest questions of Calvinist doctrine. There was a lot I didn't know about it and was eager to learn. The answers I received were not very satisfying. Then I debated and rebutted. Then I started giving briefer rebuttals. Finally, for brevity's sake I developed my numbering system you can see in my signature (below, if you are reading this on a PC.) I would say 95% of Calvinist's arguments fall under one of the six responses in my sig. For example, the OP is one HUGE #4. I certainly do not believe "election is determined on what man might do" nor do I believe "the sinner's choice is the ultimate cause of salvation". I would venture to say that no Arminians believe this either. This is the very definition of a strawman.

 

Mr. Mitchell,
I don't need your permission to post here.

Respectfully,
I'm here until the Lord tells me it's time to go.

As long as I abide by the rules, I get the same privileges that you do.

There are other works of the flesh as well.

Reviling, mocking, calling someone names, ridiculing, railing, speaking evil of men, complaining, talking bad about political figures, etc.
I encourage you to examine yourself, as well as to notify others of their shortcomings.
After all, we as believers are commanded to do such, and to heed biblical correction when it is appropriate.

I, for one, am always willing to take correction where it is due.


That said, I bid you a good evening, sir.

 

Nice try Dave. Fact is though when those of a different belief than you put down their arguments and you seek to give rebuttals on such points as you've done many, many times you're debating.

Potentially among the immature it can be this. But was Paul full of pride and seeking to take away esteem from other people when he debated in Acts 15:2?

 

In short God ordained that He would send the gospel to the lost, the gospel is the power (that which opens up the heart to enable to believe), and God ordained that man would choose to accept or decline the offer of salvation.

 

God's truth does not change with age and none of those men were inspire by God to give revelation.