Arminianism and Calvinism are not that different

[Van]

Mindbogglingly thread. We can certainly agree Calvinism and Arminianism share concepts.

1) Christ died for all mankind or some of mankind.
2) God's choice for salvation of individuals is based on faith or is not based on faith.
3) Once saved always saved or perhaps you are able to become unreborn.
4) God's grace is irresistible or resistible.
5) God's exhaustive knowledge of the future foreordains everything or not.

Yep, two peas in a pod!

 

[StefanM]

Mindbogglingly thread. We can certainly agree Calvinism and Arminianism share concepts.

1) Christ died for all mankind or some of mankind.
2) God's choice for salvation of individuals is based on faith or is not based on faith.
3) Once saved always saved or perhaps you are able to become unreborn.
4) God's grace is irresistible or resistible.
5) God's exhaustive knowledge of the future foreordains everything or not.

Yep, two peas in a pod!

In a nutshell, my overall statement wasn't about the subpoints. It was about the reality that under both systems, you have to deal with the question of God's choice to save some and not others, and "free will" isn't really a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Even if someone contends that election is based on foreknowledge of who would choose him, one must still recognize that God would have still chosen to create that specific world. If it's based on free choice, then it's likely that a person lost in this world might have been saved in another, had God acted differently.

God's choice whether or not to act in a way that would lead a person to exercise a free choice (including the option to reject) one way or another is not too far from unconditional election. God makes the call in either scenario--he either sets up the scenario and knows exactly what will happen by free choices, or he unconditionally elects.

 

[Mr. Davis]

Arminianism is man reaching up to God.
Calvinism is God reaching down to man.
Diametrically opposed concepts!

 

[Alan Gross]

The difference crystalized:

Synergism: the doctrine that the human will cooperates with the Holy Ghost in the work of regeneration.

Monergism: the doctrine that the Holy Ghost acts independently of the human will in the work of regeneration.

"not of him that wills"

 

[Alan Gross]

Arminianism is man reaching up to God.
Calvinism is God reaching down to man.
Diametrically opposed concepts!

Ummm.

False man-made Religion, without God, is 'man reaching up to God', hopelessly unable, and blind,...

... and Bible Belief is God Reaching Down to man.

...
Who mixed in the two names of man?

 

[Alan Gross]

Mindbogglingly thread. We can certainly agree Calvinism and Arminianism share concepts.

1) Christ died for all mankind or some of mankind.
2) God's choice for salvation of individuals is based on faith or is not based on faith.
3) Once saved always saved or perhaps you are able to become unreborn.
4) God's grace is irresistible or resistible.
5) God's exhaustive knowledge of the future foreordains everything or not.

Yep, two peas in a pod!

Yep, sharing the discription of, 'infinitely opposite'.

 

[Van]

In a nutshell, my overall statement wasn't about the subpoints. It was about the reality that under both systems, you have to deal with the question of God's choice to save some and not others, and "free will" isn't really a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Even if someone contends that election is based on foreknowledge of who would choose him, one must still recognize that God would have still chosen to create that specific world. If it's based on free choice, then it's likely that a person lost in this world might have been saved in another, had God acted differently.

God's choice whether or not to act in a way that would lead a person to exercise a free choice (including the option to reject) one way or another is not too far from unconditional election. God makes the call in either scenario--he either sets up the scenario and knows exactly what will happen by free choices, or he unconditionally elects.

Yes, God chose to save believers, those whose faith He credits as righteousness, and the rest face perfect justice.

Yes, "free will" is a fiction, as we can only make choices within the purview allowed by God. We could add to our list, God allows people to appropriately respond to the general call of the gospel or not.

Yes, Arminians contend that the individual election for salvation before the foundation of the world was based on foreseen faith, and Calvinists based not only any individual characteristic, yet both are mistaken views. But they are similar views.

 

[Alan Gross]

Yes, God chose to save believers, those whose faith He credits as righteousness, and the rest face perfect justice.

Yes, "free will" is a fiction, as we can only make choices within the purview allowed by God. We could add to our list, God allows people to appropriately respond to the general call of the gospel or not.

Yes, Arminians contend that the individual election for salvation before the foundation of the world was based on foreseen faith, and Calvinists based not only any individual characteristic, yet both are mistaken views. But they are similar views.

reference: sin.

 

[Reformed]

In a nutshell, my overall statement wasn't about the subpoints. It was about the reality that under both systems, you have to deal with the question of God's choice to save some and not others, and "free will" isn't really a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Even if someone contends that election is based on foreknowledge of who would choose him, one must still recognize that God would have still chosen to create that specific world. If it's based on free choice, then it's likely that a person lost in this world might have been saved in another, had God acted differently.

God's choice whether or not to act in a way that would lead a person to exercise a free choice (including the option to reject) one way or another is not too far from unconditional election. God makes the call in either scenario--he either sets up the scenario and knows exactly what will happen by free choices, or he unconditionally elects.

Stefan, if I am understanding you correctly, you seem to be saying that in either schema God's sovereign choice wins the day. Is that a fair assessment?

 

[StefanM]

Yep, sharing the discription of, 'infinitely opposite'.

In no sense are they "infinitely opposite views." They are both Protestant, evangelical views within Christianity, and neither are universalist.

 

[StefanM]

Stefan, if I am understanding you correctly, you seem to be saying that in either schema God's sovereign choice wins the day. Is that a fair assessment?

Indeed it is.

 

[MartyF]

Arminianism is man reaching up to God.
Calvinism is God reaching down to man.
Diametrically opposed concepts!

I disagree.

Arminianism is God sleeping because he’s already seen the movie and can’t make any changes.

Calvinism is God playing with marionettes.

 

[MartyF]

Even if someone contends that election is based on foreknowledge of who would choose him, one must still recognize that God would have still chosen to create that specific world. If it's based on free choice, then it's likely that a person lost in this world might have been saved in another, had God acted differently.

As I mentioned before, this is where the Arminians fall back on mystery and basically say that the way God maintains an exhaustive foreknowledge while allowing people free-will is an unknowable mystery.

This is a exactly what Arminius and F. Leroy Forlines did in his book Classical Arminianism on page 74.

So you need to realize that if you’re trying this argument against an Arminian, then at best, you’ll finally get them to evoke the mystery defense and then biblically cuss you out.

I guess you could hope they move on but I wonder if this will actually change anyone’s mind. If it does, I’d like to know about it.

 

[Alan Gross]

In no sense are they "infinitely opposite views." They are both Protestant, evangelical views within Christianity, and neither are universalist.

One involves The Bible Doctrine and Revelation of 'sin'.

The other is absolutely 100% non-Biblical in it's existence, with a foundation and premise based on the full denial of The Bible Doctrine and Revelation, from God, of 'sin'.

...
For them both to be "Protestant, evangelical views within Christianity," means that one or both are Eternally Fatal.

...
A premise that "They are both Protestant, evangelical views within Christianity" and could both be worthy is Infinitely impossible.
...

There has never been any debate.

There has been a denial of The Bible Doctrine of 'sin'.
...

All lost soul hold The Bible Doctrine of 'sin' and are Suffering Eternally, in The Lake of Fire, as Calvinists.
...

Jesus is The Savior.

If someone calls themselves some banner title, after a man's name that is in the name of a false system of teaching, when Jesus has Saved then, and they are bearing false witness out of ignorance, then God is Merciful, isn't He?

I can't call them lost.

Jesus Separates the sheep and the goats.

 

[Alan Gross]

As I mentioned before, this is where the Arminians fall back on mystery and basically say that the way God maintains an exhaustive foreknowledge while allowing people free-will is an unknowable mystery.

This is a exactly what Arminius and F. Leroy Forlines did in his book Classical Arminianism on page 74.

So you need to realize that if you’re trying this argument against an Arminian, then at best, you’ll finally get them to evoke the mystery defense and then biblically cuss you out.

I guess you could hope they move on but I wonder if this will actually change anyone’s mind. If it does, I’d like to know about it.

Try making a debate out of attempting to eliminate 'the mystery' of sin and see if God Changes anyone's mind.

The 'mystery' would be God's Doctrine of sin.

Then, the 'sin' that is Revealed in The Bible loses it's position to boast.

If it doesn't, it's not of God.

The Bible is about Jesus Being The Savior for the sins of sinners that He Had to Pay for their sins, by Giving His Perfect Life.

Those Jesus Saves must be Convicted of their sins, not asked if they would be Highly Intelligent enough to tell God to give them a Bus Ticket to Ride to Heaven, when others are not smart enough.

That was the Pharisee's route in The Parabal of The Pharisee and The Tax Collector.

Sin in the soul of a lost sinner Must Be Convicted by The Holy Spirit through the Preaching of The Bible, The Law, The Schoolmaster, The Gospel.

The Gospel Teaches that Jesus Christ Died.

Why did Jesus Die?

Sin.

The one component that is always left out of 'arguing religion'.

Sin that has not been Convicted
AND GIVEN REPENTANCE

Has Not been Granted Faith and Belief
and never WILL or can be, until there is Conviction,

of what?

Sin.

And Repentance,

Of what?

Sin.

Then Faith May be Granted by God for what?

JESUS DIED BECAUSE OF THE SINS PLACED ON HIS PERFECT LIFE, FOR THE SINS OF HIS PEOPLE.

Jesus died The Just for the unjust.

The well are not unjust, so the well need not The Great Physician.

Faith is Granted by God after Conviction and Repentance.

Repentance toward God in having disobeyed Him and His Moral Law and Commandments, not Turning from The State, Habbit and Practice of sin, to agree with God, about their sin against His Holiness and...

Faith in JESUS DYING FOR THEIR PERSONAL SINS, as Payment for the Eternal Hell they have earned and are Hopelessly guilty of and bound to, apart from Jesus Giving His Life a Ransome for many.

 

[StefanM]

Try making a debate out of attempting to eliminate 'the mystery' of sin and see if God Changes anyone's mind.

The 'mystery' would be God's Doctrine of sin.

Then, the 'sin' that is Revealed in The Bible loses it's position to boast.

If it doesn't, it's not of God.

The Bible is about Jesus Being The Savior for the sins of sinners that He Had to Pay for their sins, by Giving His Perfect Life.

Those Jesus Saves must be Convicted of their sins, not asked if they would be Highly Intelligent enough to tell God to give them a Bus Ticket to Ride to Heaven, when others are not smart enough.

That was the Pharisee's route in The Parabal of The Pharisee and The Tax Collector.

Sin in the soul of a lost sinner Must Be Convicted by The Holy Spirit through the Preaching of The Bible, The Law, The Schoolmaster, The Gospel.

The Gospel Teaches that Jesus Christ Died.

Why did Jesus Die?

Sin.

The one component that is always left out of 'arguing religion'.

Sin that has not been Convicted
AND GIVEN REPENTANCE

Has Not been Granted Faith and Belief
and never WILL or can be, until there is Conviction,

of what?

Sin.

And Repentance,

Of what?

Sin.

Then Faith May be Granted by God for what?

JESUS DIED BECAUSE OF THE SINS PLACED ON HIS PERFECT LIFE, FOR THE SINS OF HIS PEOPLE.

Jesus died The Just for the unjust.

The well are not unjust, so the well need not The Great Physician.

Faith is Granted by God after Conviction and Repentance.

Repentance toward God in having disobeyed Him and His Moral Law and Commandments, not Turning from The State, Habbit and Practice of sin, to agree with God, about their sin against His Holiness and...

Faith in JESUS DYING FOR THEIR PERSONAL SINS, as Payment for the Eternal Hell they have earned and are Hopelessly guilty of and bound to, apart from Jesus Giving His Life a Ransome for many.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but no one here is denying that salvation is by grace through faith (which most certainly requires Christ's death as the atonement for sin).

 

[Alan Gross]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but no one here is denying that salvation is by grace through faith (which most certainly requires Christ's death as the atonement for sin).

Right, The Bible Doctrine of sin is left out of any discussion of religion without God, prior to 'debating' the means by which Heaven may be assumed to be accessed, When THERE IS NO ABILITY available to the sinner, by which Heaven may be assumed to be accessed, when the sin of the sinner is defined by The Bible Doctrine of sin.

'Salvation by Grace through Faith' is fundamentally denied, by ignoring The Bible Doctrine of sin.

It becomes the, 'I assume I have the ability to access Heaven, because I am a blind sinner and do not realize The Bible Doctrine of sin Reveals my actual total inability to access Heaven and there are no routes or means available, that I have any power to take, apart from my continuing to be a deceived sinner that practices evil sin against God, continually'.

The Bible Doctrine of sin provides all human beings with Hell, as their credited ability to achieve.

A sinner is not A Perfect Holy Divine Being with Eternal Life in their Nature.

A sinner's Nature is a sinner who sins and only has the capability to sin.

A sinner has no means by which 'Heaven' may be accessed.

The Bible Doctrine of sin is that the sinner is Spiritually dead in trespasses and sins.

That dead sinner is dead to God.

Non-life does not become life.

...

You can go through this thread, or any through the years, and any discussion of the subject, elsewhere, and look for the mention of the word, 'sin'.

Try not to get caught up in just one post you view, with other things being said, and look for The Bible Concept of sin, or anything called 'sin'.

See what you find.

...
I picked one at random.

It references 'Total Depravity'.

Ummm. Big fail on my theory.

Anyway, I commented there.

Still, attempt to include sin as God defines it.

This discussion topic is a Satanic sidetrack devise, wherever it is found, to me.

By Satan distracting is one thing.

For Satan to attempt lifting both sides of the fake debate to be 'valid' is horrifying.

One side does not have a Spirit Wrought Conviction of The Bible Doctrine of sin.

When they do, their knee will bow and their mouth will be shut, either in this life, or in the Life to Come, at The Judgment Seat of Christ.

 

[Alan Gross]

I would add there is agreement on total depravity as well.

The disagreement is only on how God goes about breaching total depravity to reach the depraved.

I can not compute that I am seeing this written

I just told StefanM to come look and see if 'sin' is ever mentioned in the discussions on this subject and you actually call out the Doctrinal name....

...

Now, I have to rub my eyes.

Something is mentioned, but it is said to be agreed upon by both sides of this Man-named System of Theology 'debate'.

My point had been that the 'debate' is bogus, because only the means by which 'Salvation' is ASSUMED to be 'able' to be accessed is debated and not the REASON for Salvation, in the first place, which is a Totally Depraved State and Nature in sin, which is utterly, absolutely alienated from The Eternal Holy God of The Universe, Who IS A DIVINE SPIRIT, and HAS NO ABILITY, WHATSOEVER, to assume it may be dead and have strength toward any end, other than to be evil, hate God, and be His enemy.

...
Then, here's this monstrosity.

I would add there is agreement on total depravity as well.

The disagreement is only on how God goes about breaching total depravity to reach the depraved.

So, this is coming off as maybe miss speak.

First: one camp might not agree with this 'agreement' , vehemently, and if anyone does, I think there is a shape misunderstanding of the words,

Secondly: "how God goes about", in the second sentence negates a controversy.

That would end a one side VS the other dynamic and give it all back to God.

...
Anyway, Bible Thumpin would make a great politician, I suppose.

Brother, did he slip that in the legislation, or what?

Bravo, for The Total Depravity Doctrine Taught by God, long before Calvin side!!!

...

I am actually insulted to the bones, by being called a 'Calvinist'.

I have more against him than any of you.

 

[StefanM]

I can not compute that I am seeing this written

I just told StefanM to come look and see if 'sin' is ever mentioned in the discussions on this subject and you actually call out the Doctrinal name....

...

Now, I have to rub my eyes.

Something is mentioned, but it is said to be agreed upon by both sides of this Man-named System of Theology 'debate'.

My point had been that the 'debate' is bogus, because only the means by which 'Salvation' is ASSUMED to be 'able' to be accessed is debated and not the REASON for Salvation, in the first place, which is a Totally Depraved State and Nature in sin, which is utterly, absolutely alienated from The Eternal Holy God of The Universe, Who IS A DIVINE SPIRIT, and HAS NO ABILITY, WHATSOEVER, to assume it may be dead and have strength toward any end, other than to be evil, hate God, and be His enemy.

...
Then, here's this monstrosity.



So, this is coming off as maybe miss speak.

First: one camp might not agree with this 'agreement' , vehemently, and if anyone does, I think there is a shape misunderstanding of the words,

Secondly: "how God goes about", in the second sentence negates a controversy.

That would end a one side VS the other dynamic and give it all back to God.

...
Anyway, Bible Thumpin would make a great politician, I suppose.

Brother, did he slip that in the legislation, or what?

Bravo, for The Total Depravity Doctrine Taught by God, long before Calvin side!!!

...

I am actually insulted to the bones, by being called a 'Calvinist'.

I have more against him than any of you.

It seems like you are looking for controversy where there is none.

We are discussing specific details of doctrine among Christians, not presenting the gospel to someone. Some points of the discussion may not explicitly be mentioned because, among believers, we don't have to detail every single foundational point upon which we agree before we can discuss more specific matters.

For instance, we didn't have to discuss arguments for the existence of God or to explain the deity of Christ from the Bible in order to discuss this topic.

No one is denying the reality of sin, and no one is saying we have no need to be saved from it, that we do not need atonement, or anything similar.

I hope we can assume the best and interpret each other's posts in the most charitable manner possible. I apologize if I have failed to do so.

 

[Alan Gross]

The Spiritual Reality of God's Revelation to Mankind in The Bible regarding The Sin Nature of All Human Beings, is denied, when sinful souls profess to have any ability to 'choose', 'believe', 'have faith', 'have power', etc.

That is the issue.

Sin.

The blind, deceived, at times Logically lost, flesh-filled, carnal, sin-cursed activity within a sinful mind as a descendant of Adam is OBLIVIOUS to The Spiritual Reality of God's Revelation to Mankind in The Bible of their Nature of sin, when sinful souls profess to have any ability to 'choose', 'believe', 'have faith', 'have power', etc.

It is impossible with man.

...

One side of the false 'debate' is Biblically Impossible.

That is a consent to defeat.

Now, it would require The Holy Spirit of God for sin to be Convicted, before the Nature of sin is Enabled to be acknowleged.

Where The Holy Spirit allows false debates about religious notions, without God, is what remains.

A bogus topic, with one irrational side, IF THE BIBLE on sin is not ignored...

...
I am not talking about, 'the reality of sin', as a general vauge concept of some people, or all people doing or being capible of bad things.

I am talking about The Realty of sin that ALL HUMAN BEINGS ARE GODLESS.

GODLESS.

Sinners.

Sinners who sin, only.

From God's Perspective.

God is Eternally Holy, without sin, from Eternity Past to Eternity Future, if He Had NEVER Created Adam, who then fell into sin, and caused all his offspring to be sinful, by Nature.

Sinners, who's personal sins deserve Hell and who sin because their Nature is to sin.

They have No 'spark of imagined divinity'.

They were Not made as God's, or in The Image of God, as an innocent, sinless baby.

They were Not born 'children of God'.

All human being are born Naturally Lost descendants of, and children of Adam, and freely sin and are only capible of sin, because they are sinners, by Nature.

Dead to God, enemies of God, and Evil, Haters of God.

That is what we are.

What people imagine they are, if other than that, is the result of their sin Nature deceiving them.