Arminianism

Clearly - You need to do some more thinking.

EVEN In the Calvinist model those that hear "I never knew you" will include Calvinists. And those in heaven will include Arminians. And none of the Arminians will be able to claim that God did not predestine them to BE Arminian and expose the errors of Calvinism, that in fact they had no free will in the mater at all.

(And THAT is - assuming the Calvinist model is correct).

But - here IS the saddest thing - I can think of in that Calvinist future you anticipate.

There you are standing in eternity - IF you are one of the arbitrarily selected FEW of Matt 7 and you observe your precious little child suffering in agony for all eternity. In that heavenly realm of ultimate selfless love and bliss your compassion is 100 fold what it was ever here on earth.

You run to God with hot tears of agony and anguish crying out - "O my Lord and Savior - Couldnt' you have done SOMETHING to save my precious little child?"

And in that Calvinist future - you will hear the words that Calvinism holds so dear -- "SURE I could have my child - IF I had CARED to. Didn't you KNOW that NOTHING ABOUT a person recommends them for salvation - NOT even who their parents are? Didn't you KNOW that it is only a FEW that are chosen, a FEW that I select for eternal life? Of course you did! That's what I call SO LOVING the WORLD - surely you knew that!. Now go your way and enjoy the bliss of eternity".

Truly - THAT is one of the saddest things one can comprehend as the natural outcome of the errors of Calvinism.

In Christ,

Bob

[ September 14, 2002, 10:27 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

A very sad scenario you paint there, Brother Bob, a very sad scenario indeed.

Ken

 

Brother PB,

My guess is the altar idea has to do with offering our lives as a living sacrifice(Romans 12:1-2).

Ken

 

Primitive Baptist,

I don't know where some denominations get their word altar, that railing in front of the church.. I'm kidding with you now. We stole the idea of the altar from the Roman Catholics; the five points of Calvinism you stole from St. Augustine before we got there. Thank the Lord for this great blessing.

 

Heh heh heh.....good one.

 

As to the sad scenario . . .

Think about it. If unconditional election is true, then there would be no importance for Jesus to say what He did in Matthew 7:21-23. Your election would have been either to Heaven or everlasting destruction. But, it election is conditioned on a person's faith in Jesus then II Peter 1:10 is redolent with meaning. ‘ . . . give diligence to make your calling and election sure . . . ' There is more than a tad of human responsibility noted here in the words of the Apostle Peter.

 

Bob, this is a very distorted view of Calvinism. And a sad view of God's goodness, justice and mercy.

Let's look for a moment at the other view. You have a child. Your child hears the gospel, but refuses to accept Jesus. Your child grows to be a adult and lives a long life, but in sin and rebellion against God. Now, here's your dilemma. You realize that God could have taken the life of your child before the age of accountability and spared him an eternity in hell. But He didn't. Wouldn't love acting to the point of doing whatever is neccessary to save someone require such a thing? Surely the power to take the life of your child would be in God's hands.

Maybe its better just to believe the Bible than try to construct arguments against what it says. "Ephes. 1:4 (ESV)...he chose us in him before the foundation of the world..."

BTW, nowhere have I said that only a FEW are elect.

 

Bob, this is a very distorted view of Calvinism. And a sad view of God's goodness, justice and mercy.

Let's look for a moment at the other view. You have a child. Your child hears the gospel, but refuses to accept Jesus. Your child grows to be a adult and lives a long life, but in sin and rebellion against God. Now, here's your dilemma. You realize that God could have taken the life of your child before the age of accountability and spared him an eternity in hell. But He didn't. Wouldn't love acting to the point of doing whatever is neccessary to save someone require such a thing? Surely the power to take the life of your child would be in God's hands.

Maybe its better just to believe the Bible than try to construct arguments against what it says. "Ephes. 1:4 (ESV)...he chose us in him before the foundation of the world..."

BTW, nowhere have I said that only a FEW are elect.</font>[/QUOTE]The view of Calvinism is accurate........

The bible says that only a few are the elect. Many are called, few are chosen.. Narrow is the gate and few there be that find it….

Ok, let’s take a look little closer look at your resolution. Why does not God do what is necessary to save all his children. He has the power…

You have five children, your house is on fire: You rush in and you carry two to safety. You have fifteen minutes more of safety in which you can go back into the house and get the other three. You have the power and the means to save all your children, but you decide that you only need two to serve your purposes. So you leave the other three to the fire.

Do you now want a metal for heroism for saving the two? Does not your utter lack of love and compassion for the three that perished overshadow any glory that you would receive for saving the two. Why did you save the two, was it love, not according to Calvinism’s assessment of God’s plan. He only needed two to accomplish the purposes for his eternal kingdom.

The God that you ascribe your form of glory and compassion to has the power to save all his children, but only needs two for personal reasons. My God keeps running back into that fire to save all his children, the problem is; as soon as he get’s one out of the fire, when he goes back for another, the first one runs back in. Not only that, the ones still in the fire, when he goes back in for them; they want to play hide and seek. God will only play our games for so long before he leaves us to play alone…

That which you attribute to God in an effort to glorify him would not glorify man, let along God….

 

Chappie, when someone tells you waht they believe, it is not your option to tell them they are wrong. Timothy told Bob that Bob's view of what Timothy believed was inaccurate. For to correct Timothy about what he believes is inappropriate. As a calvinist, I can tell you with no fear of contradiction that Bob's and your view of calvinism is simply inaccurate.

For you to say, Why does not God do what is necessary to save all his children. He has the power… impugns your own position for if any goes to hell, it implies that God had the power but chose to do nothing. In your view, it seems that if someone goes to hell, it is because God didn't care enough to change it. We on the other hand, have a viable view of why that happens. Now you can sort through on your own why anyone would go to hell. But do not presume to tell us what we believe is not what we believe. You may disagree with it. But when someone says you have distorted, take their word for it. I would think they would know.

 

I am afraid that the negative advertising gimmicks of U.S. political campaigns have invaded our debate forum. I have run into this when discussing Calvinism with other people. They will say "You are saying this" or "You are saying that". No, I am saying what I am saying.

Despite the fact that we have explained to the non-Calvinists in this forum why we preach the gospel(just like they do) and why salvation must be monergistic and not synergistic, I get the impression that they would rather not have us stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them and proclaim the evangel.

If there is someone we can reach with the gospel that they don't reach, would they have us remain silent and not tell that person to repent and believe? After all, we are all telling the lost the same thing that they must do to be saved. It is the animating force behind the person being saved where we disagree. We say it is all of God. They say it is God plus the person responding in the required way by some ability that is inherent within all spiritually dead sinners.

I believe that salvation is monergistic. I believe that it is what is required to understand what the Bible is teaching in its canonical context. Here I stand.

Ken

 

First of all - I agree that exposing Calvinism's teaching in this way shows that it does present a goodness-and-justice-challenged view of God.

I do not agree that the principles of Calvinism that create this scenario - do not exist. And in your response - you remain silent on that point -as do all the pro-calvinist posts that have followed your post - to this point in time.

Clearly if you had the point of Calvinism that would negate such a future state - you or someone else of a pro-Calvinist view would gladly share it - rather than avoiding it.

Please note that you are doing the only thing that can be done in that situation. Trying to show that as bad as the case is for Calvinism in that future - it is even worse if you take the Arminian POV.

I congratulate your approach as that is what I might do if left with no other choice.

Continuing...

Saying that "the tragedy" is that
God loved my child,
died for my child,
asked me to serve him in giving the Gospel to my child,
sent His Holy Spirit to "convict her of sin and righteousness and judgment"
and then "Drew her along with all mankind unto himself"
and delayed His own return having "Longsuffering not willing for ANY to perish"

but in the end - because she STILL had free will because God supernaturally enabled her with the dignity of 'choice' (by His Drawing her) and respected her refusal -- instead of killing her as an infant....

IS FAR from impugning God's mercy and justice. It is in fact - to His praise.

How extended the "complaint" that "God failed to slaughter the children". And yet it is the "Worst" that Calvinism can comprehend about that Arminian future.

It is the bane of Calvinism that it must appeal to common ground between Calvinists and Arminians to construe support for its distinctives.

Arminians and Calvinists BOTH contend that God sees from all eternity and chooses us - long before we exist and can choose him. But does He choose in light of His infinite knowledge or out of a lack of its use? Arminians insist that it is in light of it. Clavinists hope that it is in the lack of its use that the choice can be truly arbitrary and not in consideration of the response to salvation by the one loved.

Perhaps from lack of opportunity to comment on Matt 7 OR is it because you would argue that the FEW of Matt 7 that do enter into eternal life are NOT the Elect - I leave the choice for your response.

In Christ,

Bob

[ September 15, 2002, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

May I respectfully suggest that you are missing the point entirely.

We are very happy to have both Calvinist and Arminian evangelists appealing to the lost to choose Christ.

We are very happy to have both Calvinist and Arminan organizations working for the lost by NOT ONLY explaining to them that Christ IS the only Savior - but ALSO by assuring them that Christ died for THEM and for their families and all their friends. Telling them to choose to come - and pray for all their friends and family that they too will choose to come by virtue of the sovereign and loving power of God who "Draws all men unto Him".

We know that this Arminian model IS the only one that works and we rejoice that Calvinists are so ready to adopt it.

But - it raises the obvious point - why not ask the Calvinists if they "notice" what they are doing and why they don't see this as a flaming red flag telling them that they have redefined scirpture too much. They have trimmed down the meaning of "Whole World" and "All men" so that now it is "The arbitrarily selected FEW of Matt 7" - and this does not fit with what they are telling people in evangelism - in fact evangelism won't work under that model.

Praise God they dump that model when it comes to Evangelism - we applaud you for doing so! Better to save the lost than to exault Calvinisms redefinition for "all men" and "World" and "God so loved the World".

Far from objecting to it -- We rejoice in your joining with us, as inconsistent as that choice is for Calvinism.

In Christ,

Bob

[ September 15, 2002, 05:34 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

Chappie, when someone tells you waht they believe, it is not your option to tell them they are wrong. Timothy told Bob that Bob's view of what Timothy believed was inaccurate. For to correct Timothy about what he believes is inappropriate. As a calvinist, I can tell you with no fear of contradiction that Bob's and your view of calvinism is simply inaccurate.

For you to say, Why does not God do what is necessary to save all his children. He has the power… impugns your own position for if any goes to hell, it implies that God had the power but chose to do nothing. In your view, it seems that if someone goes to hell, it is because God didn't care enough to change it. We on the other hand, have a viable view of why that happens. Now you can sort through on your own why anyone would go to hell. But do not presume to tell us what we believe is not what we believe. You may disagree with it. But when someone says you have distorted, take their word for it. I would think they would know.</font>[/QUOTE]Pastor Larry:
If you are capable of reading my response with an open mind, do so. At which time you will find that I neither focused on Timothy’s nor Bob’s personal view. My comments were, and I repeat; ”The view of Calvinism is accurate”........ Just as you consider yourself capable of studying the bible and arriving at informed conclusions, I consider my self also capable of studying Calvinism and doing the same. And I have spent many, many hours studying Calvinism, even talking to many Calvinist about their faith.

My assessment of Calvinism stands. I will discuss my understanding with you if you like, but I will not lie to please you. I have made absolutely no attempt to state either Timothy’s or Bob’s personal faith. Pastor Larry, believe it or not, all claiming to be Calvinist do not believe exactly the same; but the five points of Calvinism are available to anyone looking for them…

Your second point:
As far as my impugning my own position, you are incorrect sir. I see God as having all the power necessary to accomplish anything that he wants to accomplish without resorting to any injustice in any way shape or form.. Yet his power is in perfect harmony with his Love, his mercy, and his sense of justice. His sense of Justice does not go into a coma so that he can demonstrate his power.

A holy God will judge sin without respect of persons. God created man in his image, with free will. And God has not rescinded one edits of creation. God pulls all his children from the fire; we just keep running back in. Calvinism says, he just pulls out those that he loves. (Nepotism) God’s grace is not about God’s power, nor his sovereignty, it’s all about the relationship based on freewill that he wants with man..

God created man to have fellowship with him. Fellowship is based on love. Love is indigenously volitional. God’s glory is manifested in those that he created. I can just see God setting on his throne, he tells the Angels of heaven, these are those that I chose out of the earth, see how much they love me. I can almost hear one of the angels whisper, but he had to brainwash them…

Wake up Pastor Larry, efficacious grace does not glorify God.

You said, “In your view, it seems that if someone goes to hell, it is because God didn't care enough to change it”. What I said is that if a person wants to come out of the fire, God does not keep throwing them back in. God did what a just God would, he offered salvation to all his creation, without changing or disrespecting his original plan for creation. You agree that Adam had freewill, God's plan has not changed. Men still have freewill.

He did not say, think I’ll pick a few so I can build my kingdom, oh and btw, I don’t need the rest; burn them… Ah, waite a minute; make that burn them tormentingly for eternity. But why Lord? Because they would not come to me. But Lord, from the day of their conception until the day of their death, not for one second was it possible for them to come.

Pastor Larry, does it offend you that God loves not only the ones that are to spend eternity with him; but also every single soul that he has ever created, god loves. He hates sin, but he loves the sinner…

You said:
“We on the other hand, have a viable view of why that happens”. IMHO, any viable view that does not glorify God is not viable. Efficacious grace does not glorify God. And the evidence of this truth does not change because you believe it otherwise.. A viable view, you have God pulling this one off by the hair on his chini chin chin. Not so Pastor Larry.

I shall close this post by reiterating; I have not personalized this issue to the point of telling you, bob, or timothy or anybody else what they believe. But I do understand Calvinism, I understand election, I understand efficacious grace, and I understand predestination…….

[ September 15, 2002, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: Chappie ]

 

Bob, do the principles that you are considering really exist when we factor in the reality that ALL are in sin and rebellion against God, that ALL deserve hell and that NONE deserve salvation?

 

My point wasn't to make the Arminian POV worse than the Calvinist "situation" that you had presented; my point was to show the the same objection that you had made to the Calvinist view with regard's to God's love-- that same objection could be made to the Arminian view.

 

Among the teachigs in The "Common ground" between the Arminian and Calvinist positions - is the one that ALL are sinners and ALL are lost and ALL will go to hell unless they choose to accept salvation.

No one is presenting the idea that "Some people should not go to hell because they are just too good to go there". By redirecting your focus to that point you do not advance the argument in favor of Calvinism. Both the Arminian and Calvinist positions start out with the fact that ALL are in need of the Saviour.

So the point remains. "WHy sure I COULD if I had CARED to" in response to the grief stricken parent - IS the desired result for Calvinism. This is "not" explained away by the point that BOTH Calvinist and Arminian views agree on - that ALL are sinners and ALL are lost apart from Christ.

Obviously in this innevitable scenario for Calvinism - the Crux of the matter is the contrast between the caring parent and the uncaring God of Calvinism - Who calls this uncaring attitude toward the child -- "So loving the World".

God "could" have "So NOT loved the World" - and then we might expect more love and concern from the parent than from the unloving God who does "not so love the World".

But instead - God sovereignly chooses that HE WILL claim to "So Love the World"

- and NOT only that but He chooses that He will claim to "Not be willing for ANY to PERISH but for ALL to come to repentance"

and then He also sovereignly CHOOSES to claim that "HE is the Atoning Sacrifice for OUR sins and NOT for Our sins only but for those of the WHOLE WORLD"

and also He sovereignly choose to BE "The Savior of the World"

With ALL those claims sovereignly Chosen by God - the CONTRAST between the Caring parent and the Uncaring God of Calvinism compells the conclusion that in fact - the Arminian position is the correct one on this point, God is correct in His claims and the "uncaring God" scenario that Calvinism's first principles accomplishes is myth.

In Christ,

bob

[ September 15, 2002, 09:51 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

Brother Bob,

God is always correct in his claims , and certainly anyone who teaches that God is uncaring, or who claims falsely that someone is teaching that God is uncaring, is not telling the truth.

Ken

[ September 15, 2002, 10:24 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

With all due respect, your view of Calvinism as you have presented it here is wrong. Perhaps you know more than you are letting on, but so far you are striking out. You asked me in another thread if you were getting under my skin. This is what gets under my skin … when people tell me what I believe, when people distort it to fit their own preconceived notions of what it should be. I am a Calvinist as generally accepted and what you are saying is not Calvinism.

My point exactly. But it seems that for you, his love does go into a coma. Tell me why, in your view, a God of love with sufficient power to keep people from going to hell does not do so. That seems totally inconsistent. God is not a respecter of persons, choosing those who for any number of reasons chose him first. God respects no man. He chooses purely of his own gracious purposes.

 

Because God has given human agency He cannot 'call it in' as it were, because someone becomes older than 'the age of accountability.' If they commit every sin in the book repeatedly, God allows them to do so. He may try to Providentially stop that person to get them to think and or He may convict and convince this awful sinner of his end result and destination. That person then will go to Hell because of their Adamic nature plus their long list of rebellious sins of commission.

So what's the problem with God in His sovereignty allowing human beings to reflect on their own pilgrimage during this lifetime?