Arminian...Calvinist....Must one decide?

[seekingthetruth]

That's a nice strawman argument. Please show where I used the words of Calvin, OK?

That's right, I didn't and you can't.

My reference of being slaves, it's found in the Word of God, try John 8, thus we're not free prior to salvation.

Actually argue spoken facts, not assumptions or pipe dreams. :wavey: :thumbsup: :smilewinkgrin:

Now Preacher, we both know that your response was entirely based on your belief in Calvinism.

John Calvin is the central figure in Reformed Theology and Reformed Churches.

Calvinists are like reformed alcohlics. If you meet one for the first time, they can't go 5 minutes into the conversation without bringing up AA or DoG. John Calvin is the focal point of the Reformed Church and their lives, and the center of all that they believe, just like an AA member's life is to AA.

But like I said, if it werent for a couple extreme beliefs in Calvinism, and the extreme way that Calvinists push them on everyone else, I am alot closer to being a Calvinist than being an Arminian. I agree with alot more of Reformed Theology than I do Arminian, but those couple of extreme teachings are too much for me to accept or even overlook.

I, instead of worshipping a theology, or a man that died 400 years ago, choose to worship the Trinity. There are only 3 in the Trinity, not 4, so Calvin is not included.

John

 

[preacher4truth]

Now Preacher, we both know that your response was entirely based on your belief in Calvinism.

John Calvin is the central figure in Reformed Theology and Reformed Churches.

Calvinists are like reformed alcohlics. If you meet one for the first time, they can't go 5 minutes into the conversation without bringing up AA or DoG. John Calvin is the focal point of the Reformed Church and their lives, and the center of all that they believe, just like an AA member's life is to AA.

But like I said, if it werent for a couple extreme beliefs in Calvinism, and the extreme way that Calvinists puch them on everyone else, I am alot closer to being a Calvinist than being an Arminian. I agree with alot more of Reformed Theology than I do Arminian, but those couple of extreme teachings are too much for me to accept or even overlook.

I, instead of worshipping a theology, or a man that died 400 years ago, choose to worship the Trinity. There are only 3 in the Trinity, not 4, so Calvin is not included.

John

So you can't show me, can you? Show me one Calvin quote or even one of his thoughts.

Jesus says we are slaves, not free. You preach 'we' are free ('we' being specifically the lost).

I'll believe the Word of God over the word of 'Francis Sawyer.'

:wavey: :thumbs:

 

[seekingthetruth]

So you can't show me, can you? Show me one Calvin quote or even one of his thoughts.

Jesus says we are slaves, not free. You preach 'we' are free ('we' being specifically the lost).

I'll believe the Word of God over the word of 'Francis Sawyer.'

:wavey: :thumbs:

If we weren't free to choose, then God wasted alot of time inspiring the Bible which pleads with us to make that choice. Why would God ask us many many times in the Bible to "choose" if we have no choice? Based on Reformed Theology, the Bible makes no sense.

And why would God need the sacrifice of the Blood of Jesus if He already decided who He was going to save? After all, He is God, he can do anything He chooses.

I really don't care what you preach in your church. That is between you and your congregation. But, I am very upset that you (Calvinists) are on this crusade to convert all of us regular Christians to Calvinism.

Regular Christians are not Calvinist or Arminian. And we are certainly not unsaved heretics, as one Calvinist is arguing on here.

Growing up I never even heard of a real Calvinist. Yes, I had heard of Calvinism, but never ever met one. Now, they are tearing our churches apart, accusing non-Cal's of heresy and unbelief.

Sadly, there is just enough truth in Reformed Theology to make it sound reasonable to alot of uneducated church members. But the truth that Reformed Theology contains does not justify the lies it contains.

Calvinism is dangerous theology, and it is splitting God's Kingdom into.

And that needs to stop. Believe and preach what you want to....but do it in your church, not mine.

John

 

[seekingthetruth]

Sorry Preacher4truth

You know I like you and respect you.

But I am very upset at some of the posts that Cals have made over the past week implying that Regular Christians are all Arminian, are all uneducated, and are all unsaved heretics.

Please forgive me for my rant.

John

 

[seekingthetruth]

I honestly believe that some Cals "plant" themselves in non-Cal churches with the mission of converting Regular Christians to Calvinism.

It won't happen where i go to church. Cals on that mission would swiftly be put out the door, preferably on their rears.

John

 

[The Biblicist]

That is not correct. Arminianism actually magnifies the sovereignty of God by glorifying His character; it accentuates how God loves us enough to endow us with an essential part of His character -- freedom.

God's will is not free from His own nature. He cannot lie, He cannot choose to do or be anything contrary to His own nature. His will is a servant of His nature. His nature is immutable and so is His will. Man's will is no more free than God's will. Man cannot choose contrary to his own nature. The Divine will and the human will serve only to express what both God and man are by nature.

The Divine will nor the human will have any independency separate from the nature of the being but are servants of what God is and man is by nature.

The only FREEDOM they possess is from EXTERNAL compulsion but neither are free from INTERNAL compulsion. The new birth is God creating a different INTERNAL compulsion in the elect so that they FREELY choose to come to Christ.

 

[seekingthetruth]

God's will is not free from His own nature. He cannot lie, He cannot choose to do or be anything contrary to His own nature. His will is a servant of His nature. His nature is immutable and so is His will. Man's will is no more free than God's will. Man cannot choose contrary to his own nature. The Divine will and the human will serve only to express what both God and man are by nature.

The Divine will nor the human will have any independency of their own separate from the nature of the being but are servants of what God is and man is by nature.

How do you explain the many times that the Bible instructs us to make a choice?

And, if the HS is all we need to be quickened, then why even have the Bible?

Why does the Bible go to such extremes when pleading with us to make the choice to come to God if we cant do it?

John

 

[The Biblicist]

How do you explain the many times that the Bible instructs us to make a choice?

God has predestined the means of salvation as much as the persons of salvation. The predetermined means is through repentance and faith in the gospel (1 Thes. 1:4-5; 2 Thes. 2:13-14). In addition, the Bible reveals the responsibility of all men regardless if they are willing to meet that responsibility or not (Jn. 6:36).

And, if the HS is all we need to be quickened, then why even have the Bible?

Answered this above - the predestinated means is through the preaching of the gospel - Acts 13:48; 1 Thes. 1:4-5; etc.

Why does the Bible go to such extremes when pleading with us to make the choice to come to God if we cant do it?

John

It is not a matter of "can't" so much as a matter of "will not." The problem is not in the will but in what controls the will - the heart. The will is but the servant of expression for the heart. The predestinated means of salvation is through the preaching of the gospel calling upon man to repent and believe. The gospel comes in "power in the Holy Spirit" to the elect but it comes in "word only" to the rest of mankind. The "word only" still calls upon the sinner to repent and believe the gospel regardless if they have any inward compulsion to do so or not.

 

[seekingthetruth]

God has predestined the means of salvation as much as the persons of salvation. The predetermined means is through repentance and faith in the gospel (1 Thes. 1:4-5; 2 Thes. 2:13-14). In addition, the Bible reveals the responsibility of all men regardless if they are willing to meet that responsibility or not (Jn. 6:36).






Answered this above - the predestinated means is through the preaching of the gospel - Acts 13:48; 1 Thes. 1:4-5; etc.



It is not a matter of "can't" so much as a matter of "will not." The problem is not in the will but in what controls the will - the heart. The will is but the servant of expression for the heart. The predestinated means of salvation is through the preaching of the gospel calling upon man to repent and believe. The gospel comes in "power in the Holy Spirit" to the elect but it comes in "word only" to the rest of mankind. The "word only" still calls upon the sinner to repent and believe the gospel regardless if they have any inward compulsion to do so or not.

"Elect" is a corporate term used to define the church body. It is never used to identify any one individual as being 'predestined" by God.

God doesnt need a "predestined means of salvation" to save whom He chooses. this is just a strawman explaination that Cals use to jusitfy their beliefs.

I believe the HS speaks to every man that hears the Word. It's just that most reject it. That doesnt mean that God just overlooked them and "predestined" them to damnation by refusing to speak to their hearts, it just means that they love the things of the world more than they do the things of God. So they hear the Word but refuse to obey the Word.

BTW, I noticed a slight change in your response that leans more towards free will than your previous post does. I notice this alot by Cals when they are really questioned hard....their answers change because they cannot explain how a man can get saved without making the choice to get saved.

We all made a choice, or we wouldnt be saved.

John

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

That's a nice strawman argument. Please show where I used the words of Calvin, OK?

That's right, I didn't and you can't.

My reference of being slaves, it's found in the Word of God, try John 8, thus we're not free prior to salvation.

Actually argue spoken facts, not assumptions or pipe dreams. :wavey: :thumbsup: :smilewinkgrin:

Arminian false teachings actually detract from the Sovereignty and Glory of God. Big time. It's actually narcissistic at its core and is a prime example of anthropocentric theology.
Specifically.... You said "The Sovereignty & Glory of God."

 

[seekingthetruth]

Arminian false teachings actually detract from the Sovereignty and Glory of God. Big time. It's actually narcissistic at its core and is a prime example of anthropocentric theology.
Specifically.... You said "The Sovereignty & Glory of God."

And by that he means DoG and Calvinism.

Thank you for proving my point for me

John

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

It is not a matter of "can't" so much as a matter of "will not." The problem is not in the will but in what controls the will - the heart. The will is but the servant of expression for the heart. The predestinated means of salvation is through the preaching of the gospel calling upon man to repent and believe. The gospel comes in "power in the Holy Spirit" to the elect but it comes in "word only" to the rest of mankind. The "word only" still calls upon the sinner to repent and believe the gospel regardless if they have any inward compulsion to do so or not.

AMEN:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup: YOU NAILED IT!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

And by that he means DoG and Calvinism.

Thank you for proving my point for me

John

You extrapolate ....you dont prove. He never said DoG & Calvinism......He said Sovereignty of God. You are the one who added DoG & Calvinism. What is your motive for doing that?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Biblicist: I have never espoused "Calvinism" because I do not believe in the entire system endorsed by that title. I do believe in unconditional election, effectual calling through the gospel, eternal preservation of the elect, definite atonement and the total depravity of the human nature. God has elected the persons as well as the means of salvation.

HP: Biblicist denies he is Calvinist and then spells out his views as listed above. Is it any wonder why it is so hard to debate with some on this list, when they cannot even see their own nose on their own face?

Total Depravity: Biblicist says he believes that
Unconditional Election: Biblicist says he believes that
Limited Atonement: Biblicist says he believes in a definite (limited) atonement
Irresistible Grace: Biblicist has to believe in that if God sovereignly elects, unless he believes that God elects some that will not be saved and some He does not elect will be saved.
Perseverance of the Saint: Biblicist clearly believes that

The truth of the matter is one cannot get any more Calvinistic than Biblicist is by his own admissions. What honest hope is there of having a sane debate with one so blinded to their own held positions?

If these debates do nothing for the ones actually debating, it should enlighten an honest seeker of truth as to the self deception some are so obviously engaged and engulfed in.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

HP: Biblicist denies he is Calvinist and then spells out his views as listed above. Is it any wonder why it is so hard to debate with some on this list, when they cannot even see their own nose on their own face?

Total Depravity: Biblicist says he believes that
Unconditional Election: Biblicist says he believes that
Limited Atonement: Biblicist says he believes in a definite (limited) atonement
Irresistible Grace: Biblicist has to believe in that if God sovereignly elects, unless he believes that God elects some that will not be saved and some He does not elect will be saved.
Perseverance of the Saint: Biblicist clearly believes that

The truth of the matter is one cannot get any more Calvinistic than Biblicist is by his own admissions. What honest hope is there of having a sane debate with one so blinded to their own held positions?

If these debates do nothing for the ones actually debating, it should enlighten an honest seeker of truth as to the self deception some are so obviously engaged and engulfed in.

Let me get this straight. You are calling Biblicist a Calvinist? You may be due for an unpleasant surprise. I will check back later ....after church.

 

[The Biblicist]

HP: Biblicist denies he is Calvinist and then spells out his views as listed above. Is it any wonder why it is so hard to debate with some on this list, when they cannot even see their own nose on their own face?

Total Depravity: Biblicist says he believes that
Unconditional Election: Biblicist says he believes that
Limited Atonement: Biblicist says he believes in a definite (limited) atonement
Irresistible Grace: Biblicist has to believe in that if God sovereignly elects, unless he believes that God elects some that will not be saved and some He does not elect will be saved.
Perseverance of the Saint: Biblicist clearly believes that

The truth of the matter is one cannot get any more Calvinistic than Biblicist is by his own admissions. What honest hope is there of having a sane debate with one so blinded to their own held positions?

If these debates do nothing for the ones actually debating, it should enlighten an honest seeker of truth as to the self deception some are so obviously engaged and engulfed in.

Augustine shared some of the same views as Calvin but can hardly be called a Calvinists since he predated Calvin by more than a thousand years. Moreover, Augustine embraced things Calvin did not. Paul shared many things that both Augustine and Calvin believed but hardly could be called an Augustinian or a Calvinist as the rejected many things Augustine and Calvin believed.

I am a follower of Paul and thus a Paulinist. Paul does present himself as the role model or "pattern" to be followed by Gentile believers - 1 Tim. 1:16:

1. Paul believed in total depravity of mankind - Rom. 3:9-23; 8:7-8

2. Paul believed in the effectual call - 1 Cor. 1:26-31; 2 Cor. 4:6; 1 Thes. 1:4-5

3. Paul believed in preservation of the saints - Philip. 1:6; 2:13; Rom. 8:28-37

4. Paul believed in definite atonement - Rom. 8:32-33

5. Paul believed in unconditional election - Rom. 9:13; 1 Thes. 1:4-5; 2 Thes. 2:13; Eph. 1:4; 2 Tim. 1:7; etc.

I am a follower of Paul, not Augustine or Calvin as they both depart from Paul on many other things (infant baptism, the church and ordinances, etc.).

 

[Michael Wrenn]

LOL!!!!!! :laugh: Thanks for the laugh. :thumbs: :wavey:

Wasn't it Jesus who said we are slaves, not free?

Arminian false teachings actually detract from the Sovereignty and Glory of God. Big time. It's actually narcissistic at its core and is a prime example of anthropocentric theology.

And thanks for the laugh in return. Any system such as Calvinism that is deterministic and fatalistic casts a pall over God's character and totally distorts Who He is. Your religion makes a mockery of the freedom that's an inherent part of God's character and the Gospel.

Further, I am not an Arminian; it has too much in common with Calvinism, although it is to be preferred to the latter precisely due to its differences.

 

[seekingthetruth]

You extrapolate ....you dont prove. He never said DoG & Calvinism......He said Sovereignty of God. You are the one who added DoG & Calvinism. What is your motive for doing that?

The thread is about the question of why decide to be Arminian or Calvinistic.

1. He attacked Arminiansm

2. He has stated over and over that he is a Calvinist/Reformed Baptist.

Hence, his response was based on his Calvinistic views, and my answer took that into consideration.

Why are you and him suddenly ashamed of being Calvinists?

John

 

[seekingthetruth]

Augustine shared some of the same views as Calvin but can hardly be called a Calvinists since he predated Calvin by more than a thousand years. Moreover, Augustine embraced things Calvin did not. Paul shared many things that both Augustine and Calvin believed but hardly could be called an Augustinian or a Calvinist as the rejected many things Augustine and Calvin believed.

I am a follower of Paul and thus a Paulinist. Paul does present himself as the role model or "pattern" to be followed by Gentile believers - 1 Tim. 1:16:

1. Paul believed in total depravity of mankind - Rom. 3:9-23; 8:7-8

2. Paul believed in the effectual call - 1 Cor. 1:26-31; 2 Cor. 4:6; 1 Thes. 1:4-5

3. Paul believed in preservation of the saints - Philip. 1:6; 2:13; Rom. 8:28-37

4. Paul believed in definite atonement - Rom. 8:32-33

5. Paul believed in unconditional election - Rom. 9:13; 1 Thes. 1:4-5; 2 Thes. 2:13; Eph. 1:4; 2 Tim. 1:7; etc.

I am a follower of Paul, not Augustine or Calvin as they both depart from Paul on many other things (infant baptism, the church and ordinances, etc.).

First, you misrepresent paul's teachings.

And then, you split hairs over labels.

What difference does your label make? You believe in TULIP which makes you "Reformed" at the very least.

I never used to think of Reformed Baptists as an enemy, but lately, when i see how they are trying to just take over our churches, and call the rest of us heretics, uneducated, and unsaved, I am changing my mind.

Maybe you guys are an enemy, else you wouldn't be so nasty and aggressive in your theology and approach to others.

John

 

[seekingthetruth]

Augustine shared some of the same views as Calvin but can hardly be called a Calvinists since he predated Calvin by more than a thousand years. Moreover, Augustine embraced things Calvin did not. Paul shared many things that both Augustine and Calvin believed but hardly could be called an Augustinian or a Calvinist as the rejected many things Augustine and Calvin believed.

I am a follower of Paul and thus a Paulinist. Paul does present himself as the role model or "pattern" to be followed by Gentile believers - 1 Tim. 1:16:

1. Paul believed in total depravity of mankind - Rom. 3:9-23; 8:7-8

Rom 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

Rom 3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Paul never says that "only God's elect are saved. Paul says in these two verses that those that "believe in Jesus" will be saved. Belief requires a choice. You don't believe anything unless you choose to. Your own verses you provided dispute "total depravity". Is it man's nature to reject God? Of course it is. But that does not mean man cannot reject that nature and come to God.

Rom 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
Rom 8:8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

Paul is by no means saying here that man cannot come to God. He is simply saying that those that choose to live in the flesh cannot please God.


2. Paul believed in the effectual call - 1 Cor. 1:26-31; 2 Cor. 4:6; 1 Thes. 1:4-5

1Co 1:26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
1Co 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;
1Co 1:28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
1Co 1:29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
1Co 1:30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
1Co 1:31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

This calling is not a call to salvation. Look in verse 1, paul says that he was "called to be an apostle". He never said he was called to salvation.

Paul is saying that God calls upon the believers to show His Glory to the rich and noble. "Base things" are simply people of lowly birth,(at least according to the world. Paul never said that that the rich and noble are not called to salvation, he just says that the believers are called to be witnesses to the world.

2Co 4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ

Paul had been accused of preaching a gospel of himself. Here he is defending his preaching and stating that he was called to prech the "light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ" This has nothing to do with calling men to salvation.

1Th 4:4 That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour;
1Th 4:5 Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God

I included verse 4 because it is part of the same sentence in verse 5. Paul is writing about santification, particualarly, sexual sanctification. Verse 4 says that we should know how act honorably, and verse 5 says as even some Gentiles 'which know not God' know how to do.

This has nothing to do with God calling men to be saved.


3. Paul believed in preservation of the saints - Philip. 1:6; 2:13; Rom. 8:28-37

This, you are correct on.

4. Paul believed in definite atonement - Rom. 8:32-33

Rom 8:32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
Rom 8:33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.

Your own verse that you provided here states that God "delivered Him up for us all", not just some of us. The problem is not in the offering of salvation by God, but by the rejection of salvation by man.

Verse 33 talks about God's elect. Again, the church was predestined, and it's members are the elect. The elect were NOT predestined, just the church. When a pastor starts a new church he plans for it and builds it, but it is up to the individual to attend it or not. This is just another misuse of the term elect by Cals.

5. Paul believed in unconditional election - Rom. 9:13; 1 Thes. 1:4-5; 2 Thes. 2:13; Eph. 1:4; 2 Tim. 1:7; etc.

Rom 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated

Again, this is a corporate statement. Jacob is the nation of Isreal and Esau is the nation of Islam.

Th 1:4 Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God.
1Th 1:5 For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake

These verses in no way promote unconditional election. They are the elect after they were saved, not before. And yes, verse 5 confirms that the HS is the power behind salvation, but it NEVER says that the power is only shown to some and not all.

2Th 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

Again, this is simply stating that God chose to save the Gentiles before the beginning of the world, by means of sanctification of the Spirit, and "BELIEF OF THE TRUTH" Belief requires making a choice. The verse here affirms that the 'chosen" are the New Testament Church, not the individuals in it.

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:
Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

This again is speaking of the adoption of the Gentiles and God's plan to do so befor the foundation of the world. It is not individuals but the Church as a whole that was predestined. Read the whole chapter and you will see this.


I am a follower of Paul, not Augustine or Calvin as they both depart from Paul on many other things (infant baptism, the church and ordinances, etc.).

None of the scripture you provided prove Reformed theology. In fact, they blatantly dispute it

John