Calvinism vs Arminianism: The Real Difference

You certainly hit the nail on the head there. Your citation of Erickson is not blatant heresy, thus revealing by your own admission that you don't know what is ... You have to admit you walked right in to that one and left the door wide open!! I am just tweaking you a bit there ... but seriously ...

... Erickson is right. The failure to understand the difference between God's decreed will and his desirative will has led many to be confused.

Consider in the OT
Psalm 33:11 The counsel of the LORD stands forever, The plans of His heart from generation to generation.
Isaiah 14:24 The LORD of hosts has sworn saying, "Surely, just as I have intended so it has happened, and just as I have planned so it will stand,
Isaiah 46:10 'My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure';

And many more could be listed but the forum wiouldn't handle them all. The point is that the OT declares that all God's will will be accomplished.

Therefore, if 2 PEter 3:9 is talking about that will spoken of in these verses, than all would be saved. That is clearly not the case, so it is clear that God's will has another dimension. </font>[/QUOTE]Hi Larry

I see that you have again started twisting what we write. You have again misunderstood me, I am not agreeing with Erickson, nor do I think that his position is Biblical. I think that this whole thing of God have two plans, one that we wants to carry out, and the other, a direct contradiction to His first plan, He does not really wish to carry out. What complete nonsense

I see that yo agree with Erickson's view on the "wills of God". How about his position on 2 Peter 3:9, which he clearly indicates that it refers to everyone? Or, are you going to play silly games again?

 

I would like to further quote from Erickson on 2 Peter 3:9, because he is right here:

"We should also observe that God does not send anyone to hell. He desires that none should perish (2 Peter 3:9). It is the choice of humans to experience the agony of hell" (Christian Doctrine, p.402)

It is another case of a Calvinist seeing the "light" on God's "Universal Atonement"?

 

How did I twist what you wrote? I know you don't agree with Erickson. That was exactly my point. You said Erickson's comments were either blatant heresy or you didn't know what blatant heresy was. I pointed out that Erickson was not blatant heresy and that was proof that you didn't know what blatant heresy is by your own admission. And I added a grin, a smiley face, and a "seriously" transition to let you know I was just giving you a hard time.

As for the actual substance of the issue, you completely ignored the Scripture. I quoted a number of passages where God says his will always comes to pass. Now, if you plug that in to your understanding, you have a problem. You have a God who promises his will always comes to pass, with a God who's will does not come to pass in the matter of salvation.

Erickson's view on the "wills of God" is the standard orthodox view. That view is defended in many places. It is hte only view consistent with Scripture, no matter whether you are arminian or calvinist. The only people who can escape such a conundrum are open theists, which is why open theism is increasingly popular. It avoids the hard questions.

As for 2 Peter 3:9, I have said previously that I believe it refers to all men, in line with Ezek 33 that God is not desiring the death of the wicked. That is a viable calvinist position, and is completely consistent with limited atonement. The fact that you think it is a problem shows yet again that you don't understand the issues. I hate to keep saying that, but you keep demosntrating it. A person who believes in limited atonement (as I do) is not prevented from understanding that Christ died for the world, and that God is not willing that any should perish. What Erickson said is perfectly consistent with what Calvinists believe. Ironically, as I pointed out last week, your comments on 2 PEter 3:9 have almost convinced me to switch back to the other position that it refers to the elect. Your comments on patience made a great case for it, although you did not intend that.

Lastly, don't accuse me of playing silly games. YOu know that is not true. I answer things straightforwardly. I don't play games about it. I don't have time. If you don't like the answers, that is fine. I don't really care. If you can, in good conscience, disagree with me, then that is up to you. You will answer for what you believe, as will I. But don't accuse me of playing games. I have never done that.

 

Larry, by your own admission you show that, either you are very confused about your own position on the Atonement, or, you do not fully understand the "Calvinistic" position?

Tell me, how can you say that 2 Peter 3:9 refers to "all men" (which would be "without exception); and yet hold that Christ's death id only for the elect? It just cannot be so. For you to admit that Jesus "wills" that none should perish, can only mean that His Atonement for for all as well. For, it is only possible for the Lord to desire that all should be saved, if indeed all could be saved. For this, there needs be that Christ' Atonement is not "limited". Do you see my point?

 

Where did I admit that? I can guarantee you I know more about the Calvinist position, and I know my own position on the atonement. I may not have made that clear (though I believe I have), but I certainly know what it is.

If you remember our past conversations, Limited atonement does not believe that Christ's death is "only for the elect." Here is a place where you can learn some things. Limited atonement teaches that Jesus died to save the elect. In other words, the atonement is applied to the elect. It is efficient only for the elect. Limited atonement also affirms that the atonement is sufficient for all. Jesus died for all men in the sense of sufficiency. Limited atonement does not affirm less about the atonement. It affirms more than you do.

No, that is not true.

AGain, not true. Bad logic. God desires that all men be perfectly holy. But it cannot be so because we are born into sin. God's desires is not always the same as reality, or as God's decree.

I see your point. It is misguided because it is based on a faulty understanding of limited atonement.

You have to learn what exactly you disagree with. I keep saying that but it is falling on deaf ears for some reason.

HEre is a link.
http://www.reformission.com/

Go to the audio section and listen John Piper's Evening Session: "The Whole Glory of Christ: Imputation and Impartation of His Righteousness" Part 2. It begins with a discussion of limited atonement. It is the first 10 minutes or so (I can't remember exactly), but it will help your understanding.

Get this point down: Christ's atonement is sufficient for all; efficient for the elect. That is limited atonement.

 

I also have to wonder why you don't deal with the passages I put forth that seem, at face value, to refute your point. Why do you keep pursuing arguments based on false understanding rather thand dealing with the Scripture?

 

1. Your quote SHOWS acceptance of arbitrary selection when YOU say that NOTHING about the person causes them to be chosen while another is skipped over.

Do you have 'another defintion' of arbitrary?

I never said that in SHOWING it - you would ALSO admit to it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Well then it would be so very simple to "SHOW" some salient point in the Calvinist future scenario that is not correctly based on Calvinism.

I have waited a few years for you to get around to actually doing that.

The "scenario" merely shows ONE person saved and ANOTHER lost. I can hardly believe that THIS is where you think that it does not fit Calvinism!!

You are slipping.

Is this your way of pointing out a detail in that scenario that does not fit Calvinism???

The scenario makes no such claim as you have stated above.

Again - you 'claim' the scenario is wrong but then fail to actually name a detail in the scenario that is out of sync with what Calvinism expects.

Try again.

Your point on Calvinism is that there is NOTHING about the one chosen vs the one left that causes them to be chosen. Absolutely NOTHING!

I think we know what the definition of "arbitrary" is by now.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob, I get the impression that Larry does not know the meaning of "arbitrary"

Calvinists have NEVER shown from Scripture, on what basis does God choose some above others. All they can come out with, is stuff that has more to do with mans theology, than the plain teachings of Scripture. If they would open their eyes and look at the OT, where Israel were God's "Elect People", but yet we know that people outside of Israel were also saved. Why can this not be true in NT times?

 

Basically I agree with the Romans 2 statement that God IS NO respecter of Persons. I agree with the succeeding cases in Romans 2 AND with the failing cases.

I agree with what Romans 2 says is the BASIS upon which the DIFFERENCE between the two is determined.

We note that IN the chapter Paul never makes your point that "NOTHING about the person" determines the difference.

If this is an invitation to expose your argument to full force of the Arminian statements Paul makes in Romans 2 - I am more than happy to oblige. I just can't believe you are going here.

You were better off sticking with the Calvinist future scenario and trying to find some point where it is not based on a valid principle in Calvinism.

(Please note - the REASON I quote your post in that future scenario is to SHOW That in showing ONE person lost and another saved IN the same family -- I AM using a valid principle from a Calvinist's POV)

In Christ,

Bob

 

You make a very good point here. The ONE Gospel (Gal 1:6-11) was working in the OT JUST as it does in the new. "The Gospel was preached to US JUST as it was to them" Heb 4:1

God "So loved the WORLD" even BEFORE the cross, even to the point of saving non-Hebrews.

The "difference" between Arminianism and Calvinism can be stated simply as this.

Arminians believe "God so Loved the World".

Calvinists do not.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Yes, that is correct. There is nothing about us that makes God choose us. Arbitrary means "Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle (www.dictionary.com). Calvinist does not teach that it is "chance, whim, or impulse" that God chooses people. The Bible teaches, to the contrary, that the reason is not within man, but within God. IT is God's reason to choose.

If God chose based on something in man, he would be respecting men, and that is a direct violation of what God has revealed about himself.

Your scenario is blasphemous becuase it attributes evil to the person of God. You should quit repeating it. If a person dies and goes to hell, it is for their own sins, and their own rejection.

 

We have all learned by now not to trust your impression. You should learn that as well. Trying to attack my intelligence is not really furthering your case. You need to actually make it from Scripture.

As I showed above, it is Bob that misdefined arbritrary. He thinks arbitrary means without reason in the thing chosen. That is not arbitrary.

Yes we have. 1 Cor 1 says it is to confound the wise and mighty. Eph 1 says it is to show forth his glory. We have given those reasons many times.

It is true in NT, when you speak of hte kind of election that God chose Israel with. But again, you don't know what you are talking about. Israel's election was election as a nation from the other nations of hte earth. The kind of election we are talking about is election to salvation. In teh OT, among the elected nation, there were some elected to salvation (Rom 9:6). There were also some outside the elected nation that were elected to salvation. The same is true in the NT. If you knew what we actually believed, and if you defined words properly, you would have known that.

 

"Arbitary, based on whim. based solely on personal wishes, feelings, or perceptions, rather than on objective facts, reasons, or principles." (Encarta English Dictionary, p.67)

Larry, you still have not addressed the main point here. What does God, according to Scripture, base His "election" on?

 

And I notice, Icthus, that you still haven't dealt with Scripture. Why?

 

IT is untrue for you to say that I haven't answered it. To quote myself, 1 Cor 1 says it is to confound the wise and mighty. Eph 1 says it is to show forth his glory. We have given those reasons many times. You can disagree, but you can't say I haven't addressed the main point here, as defined by you. I did address it. And I showed why your position is unbiblical.

 

No, this does NOT deal with the question. Based on what, NOT for what, does God save some, and pass by others? It has to be based on something. Why should God only save 10 people out of, say 100, and never save the 90? What is behind His decision? Please deal with this, and stop misusing Scripture.

 

Agreed this is the point of Calvinism for the "difference" between the saved and the lost... "nothing".

However in the Calvinist future scenario that I posted - I simply point out that there is "such a thing" as a parent that is saved and a child that is not -- for Calvinism.

The fact that the method is "arbitrary selection" or "innexplicable election" or "unconditional election" (take your pick) - only points to God's answer "SURE I COULD have IF I had CARED to". The REASON He did or did not "CARE TO" is "innexplicable" according to you and then "innexplicably results in glory to God".

Fine. I am just "pointing out that glory" in the scenario.

If you can find even ONE quote from it that does NOT reflect valid Calvinism - please point it out.

If not - THEN you are saying that Calvinism portrays God with unkind attributes. ISN't that what we have been saying all along???!

How in the world can you hope to set the rules such that ARminians can never point out how Calvinism portrays God WITH ACTUAL Calvinist principles IN the scenario that even you have not been able to refute??

As I said - I have been waiting foryears for you or any CAlvinist to point to a SINGLE principle (actually IN the scenario) that is NOT pure Calvinism.

You are still content to stay OUTSIDE of the scenario and talk about all the reasons WHY a parent might be chosen and a child not. But that does not change the fact that a PARENT IS chosen and a Child is not AND That the difference is NOT in the parent or child - but in what God CARES to do.

Saying that "God cares to do something but in an innexplicable way" changes nothing.

However I am happy to insert that line INTO the scenario if it would make you feel better.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I have answered this many times, and just gave two Scriptures completely in context to demonstrate. It is based on his own glory and wisdom. When God gives you an answer in Scripture, why are you continually looking for something else? Is God's answer not good enough for you?

 

Both Arminian and Calvinist positions agree that BOTH the parent AND the child are "sinners" in need of salvation in the SCENARIO.

You are simply circling back to avoid the point - but doing so only changes the subject slightly. The point remains. Particularly given that both Arminian and Calvinist positions agree that BOTH Parent and Child are sinners.

THE DIFFERENCE is not that one is a sinner and another not. The DIFFERENCE in the Calvinist POV is what God cared to do (I think they dress it up as "sovereignly willed to do"). But in the end the response to the parent is the same.

You keep arguing that the REASON WHY God "cared" for the parent but not the child is "innexplicable" but not arbitrary.

Fine - the response given to the parent is still the valid response of Calvinism that rejoices in the salvation of the parent and then just talks about sinners-needing-hell when it comes to the child.

In Christ,

Bob