Calvinism and Arminianism are Each Partially Right

[ivdavid]

If it was impossible to choose to please God, then why the constant appeals?

If it's impossible to keep the law of works, then why the constant appeals under the OC?

 

[Yeshua1]

Here is reality.

Evil exists, and God exists. Therefore God wills evil to exist. If God did not will for evil to exist it would not exist. Evil is not good but it is good that there is evil because it brings ultimate glory to God as his attributes are put on display.

Arminianism tries to give God a pass by explaining away evil but the problem is it all leads back to God. Now, God is not evil, God is only good, but you have to say He wills evil to exist.

Everything that exists had to come about because God choose it to exist!
Now to me chose it does not mean determined it directly all of the time though!

 

[Steven Yeadon]

If it's impossible to keep the law of works, then why the constant appeals under the OC?

Hard question, while works cannot cleanse us of sins. faith in God and the works form this done by the righteous still pleased God back then. The verses I quote make that evident. Abraham's faith and his willingness to sacrifice Isaac show this. In fact it is repeatedly said in the old testament that obedience to the Law was more pleasant than burnt offerings. Burnt offerings still pleased God though, but not if the heart, of greater concern, was bad. The people and priests are repeatedly called back to obey the Law so that God will gladly accept their sacrifices and burnt offerings.

Now, all of the old testament saints are children of wrath in so much that without Christ and the Cross they too are not perfect (Hebrews 11:39-40 in the context of the hall of faith being all old testament saints), and I assume saved on account of a Holy, Holy, Holy God. The key in the old testament as shown in 1 Corinthians 10:5 was to please God. Really all the verses in the old testament I quote show that. The key is to please God and obey the covenant, which led to a blessed life on earth, or to displease God and disobey the covenant, which led to horrors on a scale of the worst in the 20th century for the Jews.

While the old testament saints did not have their sins dealt with permanently until Jesus Christ and His Cross. They also pleased God by their faith and the works it generated. Look at Enoch or Elijah, whose lives of faith so pleased God they did not die.

 

[ivdavid]

while works cannot cleanse us of sins. faith in God and the works form this done by the righteous still pleased God back then.

You seem to be overlapping the law of works with the law of faith (Rom 3:27).

Just so we're on the same page -
Lev 18:5 is the Law or Principle of Works: If a person does God's commandments, he shall have life in so doing them.
And this Law is not of Faith at all. Gal 3:12.
And given Heb 11:6, speaking to your central point, it is therefore impossible to please God under the Law of Works.
And this is primarily so because none are righteous in keeping the Law - Rom 3:19, Gal 3:10. More specifically, none in the flesh can ever submit to God and be pleasing to Him (Rom 8:7-8).

Therefore, we seek not our own righteousness but rather have it worked in us through faith in Christ - under the Law of Faith and not of Works (Rom 10:4-5). Why then was the Law of Works in Lev 18:5 given if anyway it is impossible to keep and if anyway it's to be replaced by the Law of Faith? The answer to this question is the same answer to your question on why God commands the impossible of man.

 

[George Antonios]

Guys, I gotta tell you. Calvinistic arguments are always philosophical in nature. Study the arguments.
They are pre-supposed philosophical talking-points which sound good and rational, and which are then used as molds into which Bible verses are forced to fit despite the verses contradicting our dearly-beloved philosophical gems.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

If it's impossible to keep the law of works, then why the constant appeals under the OC?

Are the following scriptures in error?

The bible says the following please God:

Singing praise to God (Psalm 135:3 and 147:1)

The words of our mouth and the meditation of our heart should be aimed to please Him (Psalm 19:14)

Those that fear Him (Psalm 147:10-11)

Those that hope in His steadfast love (Psalm 147:10-11)

Burnt offering (Exodus 29:18)

When God smelled the burnt offering Noah gave Him (Genesis 8:20-22)

Making Israel God’s possession (1 Samuel 12:22)

Israel when it is brought back from exile (Ezekiel 20:41)

The young son of Jeroboam (1 Kings 14:12-14)

God’s covenant with David that his kingdom be established forever (1 Chronicles 17:27)

God had pleasure in David before making him king over Israel (1 Chronicles 28:4)

Wisdom (Proverbs 3:17)

Fearing God and steadfastly loving Him (Psalms 147:11)

When people turn from sin to live Ezekiel 18:23 and Ezekiel 33:11. God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked or of anyone (Ezekiel 18:23, 32).

To do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with God is more pleasing than sacrifice and burnt offering (Micah 6:6-8)

The temple of God (Haggai 1:8)

Hosea 10:10 shows God executes justice when it pleases Him to.

Hezekiah claims righteousness from his actions and is rewarded with longer life in Isaiah 38:1-8

Isaiah 5:7 compares Israel to a pleasant plant planted by God

Hosea 6 in context shows God desires mercy and the knowledge of God and He does not desire sacrifices or burnt offerings without such. This becomes more evident given Psalm 40:6. Psalm 50:7-15 shows God wants are vows to His commandments fulfilled and that we call upon Him in our day of trouble. Psalm 51:16-17 adds that God desires a contrite and broken spirit before sacrifice. Isaiah 1:10-20 exhorts us to do right, seek justice, correct the oppressor, defend the fatherless, plead the case of the widow before burnt offering and sacrifice. Giving God praise and thanksgiving is better than burnt offerings and sacrifices. Jeremiah 6:19-20 shows God takes no pleasure in sacrifice and burnt offering if there is rejection of His Law and no attention paid to His Words.

Isaiah 56:4 shows God rewards those that please Him.

Isaiah 42:21 shows God is pleased to have made His Law great and glorious.

Proverbs 21:3 tells us to do the right thing and justice are more pleasing to God than sacrifice

Psalm 69:30-31 shows that we can praise God with song and thank Him to please Him.

1 Kings 3:10 shows us Solomon does something of his own volition that pleases God.

Psalm 149:4 tells us God takes pleasure in His people Israel

Key question, did any of these works on account of having faith in God and His Law by people in the old covenant require regeneration by the Holy Spirit?

 

[Steven Yeadon]

Guys, I gotta tell you. Calvinistic arguments are always philosophical in nature. Study the arguments.
They are pre-supposed philosophical talking-points which sound good and rational, and which are then used as molds into which Bible verses are forced to fit despite the verses contradicting our dearly-beloved philosophical gems.

That is exactly the problem I ran into. I was about to become a 4-point Calvinist yesterday when I realized that reading the bible made no sense. I had to read into the text using theology all the time. From now on, in this debate it is an avalanche of scripture or nothing to support my claims. I must use a sledgehammer of the Spirit to make points in this debate. I will come to the truth in time if I do that.

Thank you sir.

 

[ivdavid]

Key question, did any of these works on account of having faith in God and His Law by people in the old covenant require regeneration by the Holy Spirit?

Firstly, what is meant by faith in His Law? The Law is not of Faith, right?

And isn't the answer to your question an obvious Yes? Why else does David pray Psa 51:10 and why does God command Eze 18:31 if a new heart was not needed to walk pleasing to God?

 

[ivdavid]

Calvinistic arguments are always philosophical in nature.

I'd agree with this pertaining to certain doctrines.

But discussing a point such as the present one over whether God could command and exhort the impossible of man, isn't this a common belief irrespective of whether you're calvinist or arminian, that no flesh can ever keep the law and be pleasing to God? That's not even an interpretation according to a particular theological system - that's simply direct Scripture in Rom 8:7-8 etc, right?

Given that I agree with most parts of both classical calvinism and classical arminianism, I'm still hopeful of reconciliation between the two

 

[Steven Yeadon]

Firstly, what is meant by faith in His Law? The Law is not of Faith, right?

And isn't the answer to your question an obvious Yes? Why else does David pray Psa 51:10 and why does God command Eze 18:31 if a new heart was not needed to walk pleasing to God?

I'm sorry for not being clearer. I mean that those who have faith in God are in a whole different category to God than those that do not have faith in Him. For it is by faith in Him whether back in the old covenant or now in the new covenant that we please God. (Hebrews 11:6). Fools cannot please Him (Ecclesiastes 5:4). And one thing a fool does is say there is no God. (Psalms 14:1 and Psalms 53:1).

I should avoid the term faith in His Law, since that is confusing. I meant they have faith in Yahweh, the God of the Law.

Faith in Jesus Christ now saves us and it was also what brought about the redemption of those in the old covenant (Hebrews 9:15 and Hebrews 11:39-40).

 

[Steven Yeadon]

I'd agree with this pertaining to certain doctrines.

But discussing a point such as the present one over whether God could command and exhort the impossible of man, isn't this a common belief irrespective of whether you're calvinist or arminian, that no flesh can ever keep the law and be pleasing to God? That's not even an interpretation according to a particular theological system - that's simply direct Scripture in Rom 8:7-8 etc, right?

Given that I agree with most parts of both classical calvinism and classical arminianism, I'm still hopeful of reconciliation between the two

I argued that for a long time as well, out of theology. That the will is dead entirely in sin. However, I realize now having done so much research on what pleases God that it doesn't make sense of the old covenant before the people of God were given life by the Spirit at Pentecost, onward. How about Abraham or really any of the patriarchs, how could they please God before there is even Law known to them?

 

[Reformed1689]

Guys, I gotta tell you. Calvinistic arguments are always philosophical in nature. Study the arguments.
They are pre-supposed philosophical talking-points which sound good and rational, and which are then used as molds into which Bible verses are forced to fit despite the verses contradicting our dearly-beloved philosophical gems.

And you think Arminianism isn't?

 

[Reformed1689]

Given that I agree with most parts of both classical calvinism and classical arminianism, I'm still hopeful of reconciliation between the two

They are fundamentally different.

 

[Reformed1689]

I argued that for a long time as well, out of theology. That the will is dead entirely in sin. However, I realize now having done so much research on what pleases God that it doesn't make sense of the old covenant before the people of God were given life by the Spirit at Pentecost, onward. How about Abraham or really any of the patriarchs, how could they please God before there is even Law known to them?

There is a natural law as well. But there was a law of God given from the very beginning in the Garden.

 

[Iconoclast]

Guys, I gotta tell you. Calvinistic arguments are always philosophical in nature. Study the arguments.
They are pre-supposed philosophical talking-points which sound good and rational, and which are then used as molds into which Bible verses are forced to fit despite the verses contradicting our dearly-beloved philosophical gems.

That is a subjective point of view that is offered by those who do not welcome the Absolute Sovereignty of God. Trying in vain, they seek to call every truth a philosophy, a theory, man made .etc.
Biblical truth is derived from scripture itself. Any form of teaching that can be called Christian philosophy, is the bible revealed and explained, then put into a biblical world view.
What is that?
psalm1, psalm 139 speak to this.Deut4:4-9

 

[Yeshua1]

That is exactly the problem I ran into. I was about to become a 4-point Calvinist yesterday when I realized that reading the bible made no sense. I had to read into the text using theology all the time. From now on, in this debate it is an avalanche of scripture or nothing to support my claims. I must use a sledgehammer of the Spirit to make points in this debate. I will come to the truth in time if I do that.

Thank you sir.

The 5 points of grace make perfect sense from a biblical context in regards to salvation, as each point is consistent with each other as a unified whole!

 

[George Antonios]

That is exactly the problem I ran into. I was about to become a 4-point Calvinist yesterday when I realized that reading the bible made no sense. I had to read into the text using theology all the time. From now on, in this debate it is an avalanche of scripture or nothing to support my claims. I must use a sledgehammer of the Spirit to make points in this debate. I will come to the truth in time if I do that.

Thank you sir.

I was a four-point Calvinist myself for a couple of years (and the 5 pointers are right that if you're 4, you must be 5).

Brother, there is not a single verse in that Book that speaks of a lost man being predestinated unto salvation.
The verses on predestination are always about saved men being predestinated to inherit a resurrection body in the image of Christ and to stand before God in love and holiness.

 

[Yeshua1]

I argued that for a long time as well, out of theology. That the will is dead entirely in sin. However, I realize now having done so much research on what pleases God that it doesn't make sense of the old covenant before the people of God were given life by the Spirit at Pentecost, onward. How about Abraham or really any of the patriarchs, how could they please God before there is even Law known to them?

God's method of salvation same in both old and the new, as it has always been based upon the Cross and resurrection of Jesus, and saved by grace alone thru faith alone!

 

[George Antonios]

that no flesh can ever keep the law and be pleasing to God?

We are definitely agreed on that, as it's written.

 

[George Antonios]

And you think Arminianism isn't?

What do you understand by "Arminianism"? Because a lot of Arminianists disagree with me.