Arminianism & Calvinism issue to split over?

[SovereignGrace]

election to eternal life is favorites

That is how we know it is false

That’s God eternal decree. God chose us from before the creation of the world. He did this via the counsel of His own will. [Ephesians 1:4,5,11]

 

[loDebar]

God chose Israel for His purpose to bring salvation to the world. Just as He chose you to be here discussing this with me. But just as this discussion, you are free to believe one way or another.

He did chose Israel for His purpose. We know this from scripture. We know God provided a way that each of us that has a opportunity may believe in Him or not. HE does not make you believe but gives you opportunity.
He stands at the door and knocks waiting for you to answer. He is not opening your door.

 

[loDebar]

Correction of your thoughts is not a clarification on my part.



Yes. Two are inseparable. The error of your ---ology is that you seek to have man assembling himself into a group for God. What we see in scripture is that God chooses for Himself a people from every tribe, tongue, and nation and that group is obviously made up of God's chosen individuals.



This is a red herring. No one is debating that God puts people in certain places and times. What we are debating is the meaning of Romans 8:29-30 in which you seem to think that God predestines things when the text clearly is stating He predestines people. It says, "Those whom He...;" it does not say "That which He...." There is a difference.



Nope. You can come to this conclusion only if you cut Romans 8:29-30 out of your Bible. The saved are chosen, predestined, called, justified, and glorified by God. The language is exceptionally personal. God is doing the action (which is in the Aorist tense in all five verbs, by the way) and He is doing these actions to people, not circumstances.



Hamfisted might be a compliment at this point.



That's debatable, but it isn't part of this debate.

The Archangel

29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
This plainly says what it means.

Aortists means active with no regard to time. no regard to group.
The subject of the statement of 29-30 is in v17, children, heirs.. so already saved

Read the chapter and see if you can find a statement about the lost

 

[loDebar]

That’s God eternal decree. God chose us from before the creation of the world. He did this via the counsel of His own will. [Ephesians 1:4,5,11]

It is written to those already saved and of the blessing of God

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

Jas 2:5¶
Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?

look at it this way, was Jonah predestined to go to Nineveh?

 

[loDebar]

This statement displays an enormous ignorance.

The Archangel

In my area I think Primitive Baptist teach hyper Calvinism.

Saying proves both ignorance and apathy.

Why should anyone study this error? It is offensive to God. Do you not realize this?

 

[McCree79]

Well, actually, no. The Remonstrance went much much farther than James Arminius. Arminius was a 4 point "calvinist" in that he agreed with all which later because the "points" or "Heads of Doctrine" of what is (wrongly) called "calvinism" except "Unconditional Election." Arminius believed Election was based on God's foreknowledge of a person's eventual faith in Christ. The Remonstrance goes way, way beyond that disagreement.

"Way, way beyond"??? You sure? I will have to read it again. It seemed pretty 4 point to me with a little waver on article 5.
Their "natural inability" (article 3) seems more of a different shade than split from Calvinism. Article 4 seems to be the "big split". It seems the 1610 is at least a 3.5 point calvinist document



Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[loDebar]

Sadly that’s how he views election.

God chose Israel for His purpose, just as He chose Cyrus. Was Cyrus saved?

Isa 45:1

Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;

 

[loDebar]

Jacobus Arminius
The five articles include:[5]

• that the divine decree of predestination is conditional, not absolute;
• that the Atonement is in intention universal;
• that man cannot of himself exercise a saving faith;
• that though the grace of God is a necessary condition of human effort, it does not act irresistibly in man; and
• that believers are able to resist sin but are not beyond the possibility of falling from grace.[3]

Is what is being discussed? and there is a problem with this?

 

[McCree79]

Jacobus Arminius
The five articles include:[5]

• that the divine decree of predestination is conditional, not absolute;
• that the Atonement is in intention universal;
• that man cannot of himself exercise a saving faith;
• that though the grace of God is a necessary condition of human effort, it does not act irresistibly in man; and
• that believers are able to resist sin but are not beyond the possibility of falling from grace.[3]

Is what is being discussed? and there is a problem with this?

Those are highly concise and interpretive. But pretty much.

*I find the 1610 much more consistent than Wesleyan or Finneian(made up word) theology.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[loDebar]

Rom 1:20

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Rom 1:21
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Rom 2:1¶
Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
Rom 2:2
But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.
Rom 2:3
And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?

Why would a non-elect need an excuse , because they could blame God for not choosing them.

 

[loDebar]

Those are highly concise and interpretive. But pretty much.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

Do we believe these as Baptists, Normal Baptists

 

[McCree79]

Do we believe these as Baptists, Normal Baptists

I dont like the "normal baptist" term. Early baptist were split between Particular (Calvinists) and General (more 1610 Arminians). If Normal means belief in General/unlimited atonement, than yes, some do. Others are more Wesleyan

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[The Archangel]

29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
This plainly says what it means.

And yet you refuse to see it.

Aortists means active with no regard to time. no regard to group.

Nope. Aorist is one aspect of determining the meaning of a verb, and it does not mean "active." It is, in simplest terms, a snapshot of past time (when indicative, as it is in Romans 8:29-30). Aorist would never refer to group or an individual on its own, because that is determined by whether the verb is singular or plural. Aorist can be both singular and plural. In this case, because it is referring to God's action, it is singular.

The interesting thing about Romans 8:29-30 is that all the verbs--including glorified--are described as God's actions toward individuals and those actions are depicted in the past, even the glorification of the person God chooses to save.

The subject of the statement of 29-30 is in v17, children, heirs.. so already saved

Not even close.

Read the chapter and see if you can find a statement about the lost

Why would you assume I haven't read this chapter, or the book of Romans?

The Archangel

 

[loDebar]

And yet you refuse to see it.



Nope. Aorist is one aspect of determining the meaning of a verb, and it does not mean "active." It is, in simplest terms, a snapshot of past time (when indicative, as it is in Romans 8:29-30). Aorist would never refer to group or an individual on its own, because that is determined by whether the verb is singular or plural. Aorist can be both singular and plural. In this case, because it is referring to God's action, it is singular.

The interesting thing about Romans 8:29-30 is that all the verbs--including glorified--are described as God's actions toward individuals and those actions are depicted in the past, even the glorification of the person God chooses to save.



Not even close.



Why would you assume I haven't read this chapter, or the book of Romans?

The Archangel

as the verse says, the only thing we are predestined for is to me a human like Jesus was.


Aoristis is not only the past it is present and future, no time is intended.

The aorist tense is characterized by its emphasis on punctiliar action; that is, the concept of the verb is considered without regard for past, present, or future time. There is no direct or clear English equivalent for this tense, though it is generally rendered as a simple past tense in most translations.

The events described by the aorist tense are classified into a number of categories by grammarians. The most common of these include a view of the action as having begun from a certain point ("inceptive aorist"), or having ended at a certain point ("cumulative aorist"), or merely existing at a certain point ("punctiliar aorist"). The categorization of other cases can be found in Greek reference grammars.

The English reader need not concern himself with most of these finer points concerning the aorist tense, since in most cases they cannot be rendered accurately in English translation, being fine points of Greek exegesis only. The common practice of rendering an aorist by a simple English past tense should suffice in most cases.

The recipient of this action is children in verse 17 not nations

God is the subject of proginōskō.

Aorist does not determine the whether the subject is plural or singular,


The lost are not mentioned in this chapter , are they?. This is referring to those who are children and already saved and called to service

 

[MartyF]

Back to the op question.

The more I look into it, the more I realize two beliefs are incompatible. There will be a split eventually. I wouldn't mind if the forum split now.

I originally wrote something far stronger, but I don't want to stir the pot. Certain people are becoming extremely defensive about the issue - like snowflakes.

Marty

 

[loDebar]

Back to the op question.

The more I look into it, the more I realize two beliefs are incompatible. There will be a split eventually. I wouldn't mind if the forum split now.

I originally wrote something far stronger, but I don't want to stir the pot. Certain people are becoming extremely defensive about the issue - like snowflakes.

Marty

I totally agree, the beliefs are incomparable, totally contradictions. I cannot believe this error is allowed by Baptists. Other denomination seems to be bleeding over with other doctrines as well. Baptist do not know what they believe or why. Those who choose Calvinism cannot be Baptists,
So the OP is wrong. It is not an equal split just a falling away of some.

 

[The Archangel]

as the verse says, the only thing we are predestined for is to me a human like Jesus was.

You cannot be a "God-man," so try again.

Aoristis is not only the past it is present and future, no time is intended.

The aorist tense is characterized by its emphasis on punctiliar action; that is, the concept of the verb is considered without regard for past, present, or future time. There is no direct or clear English equivalent for this tense, though it is generally rendered as a simple past tense in most translations.

The events described by the aorist tense are classified into a number of categories by grammarians. The most common of these include a view of the action as having begun from a certain point ("inceptive aorist"), or having ended at a certain point ("cumulative aorist"), or merely existing at a certain point ("punctiliar aorist"). The categorization of other cases can be found in Greek reference grammars.

The English reader need not concern himself with most of these finer points concerning the aorist tense, since in most cases they cannot be rendered accurately in English translation, being fine points of Greek exegesis only. The common practice of rendering an aorist by a simple English past tense should suffice in most cases.

You should learn to cite your sources, since you seem to not know any of this on your own. You found this here (Lexical Definition for Aorist Tense), right? I doubt you actually understand what is being said.

The recipient of this action is children in verse 17 not nations

????? Where did I or anyone else say the recipient was "nations?" This is, then, a strawman.

God is the subject of proginōskō.

Aorist does not determine the whether the subject is plural or singular,

Ok... I think that is what I said.

The lost are not mentioned in this chapter , are they?. This is referring to those who are children and already saved and called to service

Why would they be? This is a letter to believers, not "the lost." Again, you've put up a red herring. Paul does, however, masterfully describe how the lost became believers. There is a reason, after all, that Romans 8:29-30 is referred to as "the golden chain of salvation."

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

I totally agree, the beliefs are incomparable, totally contradictions. I cannot believe this error is allowed by Baptists. Other denomination seems to be bleeding over with other doctrines as well. Baptist do not know what they believe or why. Those who choose Calvinism cannot be Baptists,
So the OP is wrong. It is not an equal split just a falling away of some.

You do realize, don't you, that there is a LONG line of Calvinistic Baptists in Baptist history. The "Particular" Baptists in England were Calvinists, and they stretch back into the early 1600s.

Know your history before you further embarrass yourself with more asinine statements like "
Those who choose Calvinism cannot be Baptists."

The Archangel

 

[loDebar]

You cannot be a "God-man," so try again.



You should learn to cite your sources, since you seem to not know any of this on your own. You found this here (Lexical Definition for Aorist Tense), right? I doubt you actually understand what is being said.



????? Where did I or anyone else say the recipient was "nations?" This is, then, a strawman.



Ok... I think that is what I said.




Why would they be? This is a letter to believers, not "the lost." Again, you've put up a red herring. Paul does, however, masterfully describe how the lost became believers. There is a reason, after all, that Romans 8:29-30 is referred to as "the golden chain of salvation."

The Archangel

We are spirit being in s human body like Jesus, except He spirit was God you are a sinner
Heb 2:14
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

Argue with scripture,


now you are agreeing with me? I do not understand. Did I answer you as another? sorry

yes, I copied Aorist from Blue letter Bible to show your statement regarding plurality from a verb was incorrect

Paul does review the salvation of the children, He knew us, put us here in a body , called us,
justified (a legal situation) us when He saved us , glorified us because of salvation. We should give all glory back to Him because we left the 99 to find the lost sheep.

 

[loDebar]

You do realize, don't you, that there is a LONG line of Calvinistic Baptists in Baptist history. The "Particular" Baptists in England were Calvinists, and they stretch back into the early 1600s.

Know your history before you further embarrass yourself with more asinine statements like "
Those who choose Calvinism cannot be Baptists."

The Archangel

yes, but the teachings of individual responsibility and believers baptism are older and shared by others before we were called Baptists, Calvin denied both.