Arminian, Calvinist, Biblicist

[Michael Wrenn]

I will take God at His word, 1 Peter 1:3-5 says "3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, 5 who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time."

I'll take him at His word, too -- we are protected as long as we continue to have faith.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

The Calvinist claims only two positions exist. However, since some Arminians agree with the idea of total spiritual inability due to the fall, but say God then overrides that and gives folks enough spiritual ability to seek God and trust in Christ, the classic view of prevenient grace, he leaves out the position that the fall did not result in total spiritual inability. So three positions.

And again, the Calvinist only sees individual election before the foundation of the world and is blind to the view that the election before the foundation of the world was corporate and that our individual election for salvation occurs during our lifetime.

The reality is that both Calvinism and Arminianism are unbiblical and are based on shoddy bible study.

I'd have to agree with you there, although I might not put it exactly like that.

 

[Herald]

I'll take him at His word, too -- we are protected as long as we continue to have faith.

"through faith" in 1 Peter 1:5 is a one time act that has a continuing action. That is the verb tense of pistis (faith). The maintenance of this faith is provided by "the power of God." The grammatical structure of this passage eliminates the idea that a person can lose their salvation.

 

[Herald]

The reality is that both Calvinism and Arminianism are unbiblical and are based on shoddy bible study.

Wow. What an indictment of Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox, Jeremiah Burroughs, John Wycliffe, Martin Bucer, John Gill, Charles Spurgeon, Huldrych Zwingli, Benjamin Keach, Jonathon Edwards, Matthew Henry, John Bunyan, John Owen, Richard Baxter, John Lightfoot, Edmund Calamy, George Whitfield, Richard Sibbes...whew! I'm out of breath. Obviously these men where shoddy theologians. It makes one wonder how the Church ever survived the Reformation. I'm glad to be reminded that the Church has been maintained by theologians who flew by the seat of their pants.

 

[convicted1]

God did not force you to believe;

Agreed.

you had to accept or reject salvation.

Agree again, that's two.

You have that same ability after you are saved;

I am not so sure about this one, Brother. How can we "unbelieve/unfaith" ourself? We can not "unfaith" ourself.

God does not force you to stay.

Agree.

To do so would be against His nature and the gift of free will that He bestowed on all His sentient creatures -- yes, even Lucifer in heaven in the beginning.

Here are some verses I want you to ponder on, okay, Brother?

Rev. 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.


John 14:23Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.


John 14:26But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.


Now, here you see several verses where it shows that when we are saved, we get the Triune God; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. They come into our soul and make their abode in our soul. Now, if one could reject their faith, and go out and be lost again, then that would mean the Triune God would have to leave. Here is what Jesus says about leaving us:

Matt. 28:18-20
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

"through faith" in 1 Peter 1:5 is a one time act that has a continuing action. That is the verb tense of pistis (faith). The maintenance of this faith is provided by "the power of God." The grammatical structure of this passage eliminates the idea that a person can lose their salvation.

But Hebrews 6 doesn't eliminate that idea.

I don't believe a person can lose their salvation, either; I do believe they can reject it and turn away from it, and God does not use His "power" to force them to stay. To do so, He would have to cease being God.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Wow. What an indictment of Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox, Jeremiah Burroughs, John Wycliffe, Martin Bucer, John Gill, Charles Spurgeon, Huldrych Zwingli, Benjamin Keach, Jonathon Edwards, Matthew Henry, John Bunyan, John Owen, Richard Baxter, John Lightfoot, Edmund Calamy, George Whitfield, Richard Sibbes...whew! I'm out of breath. Obviously these men where shoddy theologians. It makes one wonder how the Church ever survived the Reformation. I'm glad to be reminded that the Church has been maintained by theologians who flew by the seat of their pants.

The church survived the Reformation despite the Calvinists.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Agreed.




Agree again, that's two.




I am not so sure about this one, Brother. How can we "unbelieve/unfaith" ourself? We can not "unfaith" ourself.





Agree.







Here are some verses I want you to ponder on, okay, Brother?

Rev. 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.


John 14:23Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.


John 14:26But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.


Now, here you see several verses where it shows that when we are saved, we get the Triune God; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. They come into our soul and make their abode in our soul. Now, if one could reject their faith, and go out and be lost again, then that would mean the Triune God would have to leave. Here is what Jesus says about leaving us:

Matt. 28:18-20
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Thank you for your kind post, and for those verses. I have read and considered them before, and still come to the same conclusion: Yes, Jesus is with us always -- as long as we want Him to be; he doesn't stay where He is no longer wanted. One thing God has always given to His sentient beings is the freedom to accept or reject Him, and He never takes that away since it is an inherent part of His character, and, by His gift, our character.

 

[DiamondLady]

Thank you for your kind post, and for those verses. I have read and considered them before, and still come to the same conclusion: Yes, Jesus is with us always -- as long as we want Him to be; he doesn't stay where He is no longer wanted. One thing God has always given to His sentient beings is the freedom to accept or reject Him, and He never takes that away since it is an inherent part of His character, and, by His gift, our character.

Michael, Jesus said in Hebrews 13:5 for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.

Never. Never is an infinity. Once a man has given his heart to Jesus that man can turn his back and walk away, can build a wall so high he thinks it can never be breached, commit heinous sins to where he feels his soul is unredeemable but Jesus is ever faithful and is still waiting for that man to turn back to him. We can give up on God, but He NEVER gives up on us. He stands waiting, arms open wide.

Jesus shows us that in the parable of the prodigal son. If you understand the deep symbolism in that parable you understand the never ending love of Jesus. When the prodigal son took his portion and left he, in reality, stole the livelihood of every single person in his father's care. His entire family, ever bondservant, every slave, but the father loved his son and gave him what he asked for. After his season of riotous living the prodigal son returned home, not knowing what his fate would be, but he had nothing left but to return home. Because of what he had done they had the right to kill him, to stone him to death but the father ran and covered him with his own body to protect him as well as to welcome him home. How did the father know the prodigal was home? He was watching for him. He never gave up that his son would come home again. He never stopped loving his son. Luke 15:24 tells us "For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry."

Just as you can never stop being your mother's son, neither can you stop being God's child once you've given your heart to him. Never is for eternity.

 

[Van]

On the other hand,

Wow. What an indictment of Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox, Jeremiah Burroughs, John Wycliffe, Martin Bucer, John Gill, Charles Spurgeon, Huldrych Zwingli, Benjamin Keach, Jonathon Edwards, Matthew Henry, John Bunyan, John Owen, Richard Baxter, John Lightfoot, Edmund Calamy, George Whitfield, Richard Sibbes...whew! I'm out of breath. Obviously these men where shoddy theologians. It makes one wonder how the Church ever survived the Reformation. I'm glad to be reminded that the Church has been maintained by theologians who flew by the seat of their pants.

On the one hand Luther advocated scripture alone as the basis of faith and practice, but then went off the rails and invented the "secret will of God" which desired the opposite of what scripture said. That is sloppy bible study.

On the one hand Calvin said we should not take scripture too far and plunge into error, but then went off the rails and invented a theology based on extrapolation.

In the history of our church we can find lots of folks who got some things right and also held some errant view. The issue is not that we can find a whole laundry list of folks who held some errant views, but rather to discern what scripture actually teaches.

I posted several scriptures which teach that both Arminianism and Calvinism are mistaken on some points, but also that on other points they present truth.

Eternal security is truth, so Calvinism hits close to the mark.

General Reconciliation is truth, so Arminianism hits close to the mark.

The Fall resulted in mankind being separated from God, i.e. spiritually dead, and corrupted, i.e. predisposed to sin, so both hit close to the mark.

However, both miss the mark when it comes to when our individual election for salvation occurs, which is after we trust in Christ according to 2 Thessalonians 2:13.

 

[Van]

But Hebrews 6 doesn't eliminate that idea.

I don't believe a person can lose their salvation, either; I do believe they can reject it and turn away from it, and God does not use His "power" to force them to stay. To do so, He would have to cease being God.

One of the most common errors of doctrine is to nullify scripture because of a claimed attribute of God. For example to say if God forces someone, then He would not be God. However scripture teaches us that God hardened the hearts of unbelieving Jews, Romans 11, to prevent them from believing and therefore send the gospel to the Gentiles. So the nullification tool, God would not do this or that, is bogus if it runs counter to His inspired word.

So to be clear, God does not force a person to come to Jesus, i.e draw does not mean drag, but once God credits a person's autonomous choice to fully trust in Christ, and credits their "faith in the truth" as righteousness, then He causes them to be born again and protects their faith according to scripture.

 

[TadQueasy]

After all these years of struggle between theological views, Van has it all worked out. Impressive. I shall now call myself a Vanist.

 

[Herald]

You accused those who posit Calvinistic (Reformed) theology of shoddy bible study. You can't honestly try to put the genie back in the bottle after making a statement like that. Of course Reformed theologians have made errors. All theologians make errors. But when you compare the scope of work from the early magisterial Reformers to the Puritans, you will find a consistent agreement on biblical interpretation based on the study of Scripture alone. To call that shoddy is truly an arrogant statement. You could have said you consider their theological system in error. That would have been fine. But shoddy? It's as though you're accusing them of laziness and ineptitude. I wouldn't even say that about Charles Wesley or C.I. Scofield, men with whom I have substantial disagreement.

 

[Luke2427]

The Calvinist claims only two positions exist. However, since some Arminians agree with the idea of total spiritual inability due to the fall, but say God then overrides that and gives folks enough spiritual ability to seek God and trust in Christ, the classic view of prevenient grace, he leaves out the position that the fall did not result in total spiritual inability. So three positions.

And again, the Calvinist only sees individual election before the foundation of the world and is blind to the view that the election before the foundation of the world was corporate and that our individual election for salvation occurs during our lifetime.

The reality is that both Calvinism and Arminianism are unbiblical and are based on shoddy bible study.

It's easy to hide behind ambiguous titles like "non-cal" and attack others.

It's like how I did two of my friends who were Crimson Tide fans a few years ago.

I didn't have a specific team but I criticized the Tide left and right. I pulled for various teams against the Tide that year and when they would criticize the team I pulled for I'd simply shrug it off saying, "Hey, this is not my team either. I'm just saying the Tide has this problem and that..."

The guys told me it was low down to not adopt a team that they could critique and compare to the Tide and see which one was superior all the while I vehemently critiqued the Tide.

They were right.

You don't have a theology to compare to Calvinism or Arminianism. These are both teams on the field advancing the ball, shedding blood, sometimes fumbling, but getting up and staying in the game.

Their theologies are clearly expressed for all to see.

If you don't have a theology then it's low down for you to assault the ones who actually have the courage to submit theirs to scrutiny.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

It's easy to hide behind ambiguous titles like "non-cal" and attack others.

It's like how I did two of my friends who were Crimson Tide fans a few years ago.

I didn't have a specific team but I criticized the Tide left and right. I pulled for various teams against the Tide that year and when they would criticize the team I pulled for I'd simply shrug it off saying, "Hey, this is not my team either. I'm just saying the Tide has this problem and that..."

The guys told me it was low down to not adopt a team that they could critique and compare to the Tide and see which one was superior all the while I vehemently critiqued the Tide.

They were right.

You don't have a theology to compare to Calvinism or Arminianism. These are both teams on the field advancing the ball, shedding blood, sometimes fumbling, but getting up and staying in the game.

Their theologies are clearly expressed for all to see.

If you don't have a theology then it's low down for you to assault the ones who actually have the courage to submit theirs to scrutiny.

:thumbs::thumbs: Agreed...generally. Sometimes I like to use the term non-Cal ony to leave open the possibility of things like Amyraldianism....OSAS Arminian (which is not inconsistent with classical Arminianism), or Molinism. I think more Baptists would embrace the label "Arminian" ....but they get really hung up on the OSAS thing. I understand why they get that way. They dislike a label which is non-commital (at best) on the issue. Arminians claim (rightly) that OSAS is a legit belief in Arminianism....it's just that there are so many who AREN'T!! But a "label" so to speak is a good thing, if at all possible. I sometimes say I am "non-Cal" but it cannot be something to hide behind. If forced to take a label, I claim: Arminian (OSAS) and Molinist.

There is nothing new under the Sun....any time I have personally come up with a brilliant new idea which NNE has ever thought of before....I realize that my ground-breaking discovery was debated hotly 1,000 years ago, and there was a label given to it. Sometimes the refusal to take a label is based on intellectual arrogance.

GO GATORS!!!!

 

[Skandelon]

It's easy to hide behind ambiguous titles like "non-cal"

"What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas "; still another, "I follow Christ." [And, "I follow Calvin."] Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?" - Paul

"You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," [and still another, "I follow Calvin] are you not mere men?" - Paul

Could it be that those with "NON" titles are simply trying to follow scripture?

 

[humblethinker]

Could it be that those with "NON" titles are simply trying to follow scripture?

They should not take the title, "Christian" then, no? That title was not given by godly people... if they take the title then they are letting ungodly people define who they are. It seems to me that their belief can accurately be labeled something. Sane, insane? Literal, figurative? Maybe the title would be hyphenated but still, the unrelenting insistence on not being titled by some really just seems evasive at some point.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Michael, Jesus said in Hebrews 13:5 for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.

Never. Never is an infinity. Once a man has given his heart to Jesus that man can turn his back and walk away, can build a wall so high he thinks it can never be breached, commit heinous sins to where he feels his soul is unredeemable but Jesus is ever faithful and is still waiting for that man to turn back to him. We can give up on God, but He NEVER gives up on us. He stands waiting, arms open wide.

Jesus shows us that in the parable of the prodigal son. If you understand the deep symbolism in that parable you understand the never ending love of Jesus. When the prodigal son took his portion and left he, in reality, stole the livelihood of every single person in his father's care. His entire family, ever bondservant, every slave, but the father loved his son and gave him what he asked for. After his season of riotous living the prodigal son returned home, not knowing what his fate would be, but he had nothing left but to return home. Because of what he had done they had the right to kill him, to stone him to death but the father ran and covered him with his own body to protect him as well as to welcome him home. How did the father know the prodigal was home? He was watching for him. He never gave up that his son would come home again. He never stopped loving his son. Luke 15:24 tells us "For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry."

Just as you can never stop being your mother's son, neither can you stop being God's child once you've given your heart to him. Never is for eternity.

Sorry, but you can't equate a physical condition with a spiritual one.

 

[DiamondLady]

Sorry, but you can't equate a physical condition with a spiritual one.

That's ALL you got out of what I wrote? I wasn't equating a physical condition but using it as an example of never.

 

[Van]

You accused those who posit Calvinistic (Reformed) theology of shoddy bible study. You can't honestly try to put the genie back in the bottle after making a statement like that. Of course Reformed theologians have made errors. All theologians make errors. But when you compare the scope of work from the early magisterial Reformers to the Puritans, you will find a consistent agreement on biblical interpretation based on the study of Scripture alone. To call that shoddy is truly an arrogant statement. You could have said you consider their theological system in error. That would have been fine. But shoddy? It's as though you're accusing them of laziness and ineptitude. I wouldn't even say that about Charles Wesley or C.I. Scofield, men with whom I have substantial disagreement.

Still no effort to defend Calvinism from scripture. The reason, it is based on shoddy bible study and does not stand up to study. So instead we get yet another ad hominem argument, Van is so arrogant.

I presented the basis of the statement with specific examples,i.e. Luther's secret will shame.

Calvinism cannot be defended because it is based on reading doctrine into the text. Take regeneration, rebirth, before faith, and John 1:12-13. Anyone who can read can see that after we believe we are given the right to become children of God, born from above.

I could once again go through the whole stack of verses offered by unstudied Calvinists. You want another one, how about claiming "faith" is not of ourselves" based on Ephesians 2:8-9. The grammar precludes that view, and so is yet another example of shoddy study.