Calvinism vs Arminianism: The Real Difference

Surely you don't think that for arminians this is any different. They also may have unsaved children. This scenario is not the difference.

No you're not. Your making stuff up.

All of it. The intent of it, the verbiage of it, all of it does not reflect biblical teaching of Calvinism.

Why do I need to refute this? It is the same whether you are Calvinist or not.

My feelings are irrelevant. If I lived by my feelings, I would hold your position. But my commitment to truth in Scripture demands that I not hold your position; it demands that I refute your position.

You need to get your feelings out of it.

 

That is a good point about the 10 vs 90. In Matt 7 we are told that the MANY go to destruction and the FEW go through the narrow gate. Calvinism paints God as "caring" for the FEW and not caring (in a saving kind of way) for the MANY.

By contrast the generous 50-50 scenario I gave for Calvinism (1 parent, 1 child) portrays God in an even kinder light for Calvinism than Matt 7 would permit.

 

And what does your scenario admit? A God who could do something but doesn't?

This whole line of reasoning from you is utter foolishness that is answered in Scripture. We have shown the answer, yet for some reason, you refuse to submit your mind and theology to what God has said to be true.

Answer us this: Is your God able to save everyone? If so, and he cares, why doesn't he do it?

 

You are correct IN BOTH the Arminian future scenario AND in the Calvinist future scenario I show in BOTH the Parent is saved and the child is lost. That "detail" is not the difference.

However when I posted this a few years ago - some Calvinist posters claimed that the children of saved parents should not be lost. I needed your quote for that scenario to show that such ideas are not fitting with Calvinism.

You are ducking the point again. SHOW that the difference IS NOT in God is NOT in who God chooses is NOT in Who He savingly cares for -- according to Calvinism -- and I will make the updates.

Instead of actually showing error IN the scenario - you simply complain that it exists.

But we are capable of READING Calvinism and seeing how it would work out "within reason" and this is certainly a valid scenario -- unless you can find even one correction to it.

No children in Calvinism?

No Parents?

No Heaven in Calvinism?

No Hell?

No Parents able to Talk to God in heaven in Calvinism?

No parents who might care about their chilrden in Calvinism?

How can ALL of it be in error?

Are you simply giving up??

Wonderful - then point out some "details" instead of sticking with general vagaries.

Actually you don't. These are details that are true and saying "all the details are wrong" simply does not help your argument at all.

My point is this IS a valid scenario for Calvinism for the DETAILS are in harmony with the principles that Calvinism promotes for HOW salvation works. You need not refute it at all.

I think the best you can do is admit that the details are accurate and then propose a counter scenario for how you think Arminians would fare even worse in that future scenario.

I am good with that. That is the purpose of this sectio of the board. Refute away.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I am happy to post the Arminian future scenario just as I did for Calvinism - where the Parent goes to heaven but the child does not -- and the Parent runs to God with the very same question as in the Calvinist future scenario.

I just wanted you to have the option of handing that to me first. Showing how you view the Arminian principles and what they would dictate in that same situation.

Fare is fare after all.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,

The whole scenario is wrong because it is based on a God that doesn't exist. How can you not understand that. You want details. Start with every single sentence. Those details are wrong. The God you describe does not exist in Calvinism. It exists only in your mind, undirected by the truth of Scripture.

 

Bob,

The whole scenario is wrong because it is based on a God that doesn't exist. How can you not understand that. You want details. Start with every single sentence. Those details are wrong. The God you describe does not exist in Calvinism. It exists only in your mind, undirected by the truth of Scripture.

You must either admit the same situation, or deny the omnipotence of God.

 

The whole point of this is to use your scripture POV and Plug it into this Calvinist future scenario to SEE how it pans out. And then compare that to the Arminian one.

You claim that just SEEING the Calvinist future scenario reveals such a negative view of God that it should not be posted.

I think that statement of yours speaks volumes.

If you can not actually show deviation IN THE DETAILS of that scenario from the Calvinist interpretation of scriptures -- then you have something to come to grips with.

In BOTH Calvinism and Arminianism God is "strong enough" to zap the brains of all created beings at make them do whatever He wills such that they have no free will at all.

He is ABLE to - the question is - is this how He describes what He actually CHOOSES to do in scripture? And in that we have the DIFFERENCE between Calvinism and Arminianism.

The closer you get to interpreting scripture as "YES that is EXACTLY what God CHOOSES to do - no CHOICE for HIs creation ALL choice for God" the better HE fits in the future Calvinist scenario.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I give you details in the scenario THEN I point them out line by line.

And I ask that you be specific in stead of dealing in vagaries since "obviously" the details above DO FIT in Calvinism!

The only thing the scenario says about God is that HE SAVES the ones HE CARES to save.

Is that what Calvinism denies??!!

If so - please elaborate -- be specific.

The other thing the scenario highlights is the JOY Calvinism expresses over the saved while not thinking about the lost except to say (as you just said in a recent post) that lost people are sinners and deserve hell.

IS THAT what does not map to Calvinism correctly?

If so - show it - and be specific.

(That will be hard since you just posted in favor of it).

In Christ,

Bob

 

If that is your intent, then use our POV. Don't make it up.

Actualy my claim is that it should not even be thought, much less posted.

I do too, which is why I made it. To allow such comments about the character of God to go unaddressed would be a sign of lack of love for God and his character.

If you were using the Calvinist interpretation, we might have a start, but you aren't. And the whole thing is wrong, from details right on down. I already said that.

So you have a God who is able to keep someone out of hell (just like the Calvinists) and chooses not to (just like the Calvinists), and yet our God is uncaring and unloving, and yours is not? Surely you don't intend us to take that seriously. You must not have thought through that before you said it. I find it hard to believe that you can't see the inconsistency in that statement you made.

In SCripture, all mankind if willingly and freely sinning against God, and is deserving of hell. For God to let them go there is not uncaring; He simply lets them do what they want to do of their own free will. For some, because of reasons in Himself, God chooses to show his mercy and save them.

YOu see, you have a fundamental misunderstanding driven by your own unwillingness to let Scripture speak for God. You come up with a scenario to try to paint God into a corner. In the end, your view of God is no different except that your God is not in control

In the end, you will continue down this path until you decide to submit your theology to Scripture.

[ April 25, 2005, 03:55 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

This is EXACTLY what my future scenario for Calvinism shows. This is WHY you have yet to find ONE SINGLE DETAIL that is in error OTHER than when you put all the Calvinist DETAILS together -- you don't like what you see.

That speaks volumes (as I said).

I will be adding your quote above to the scenario.

 

Here is a quote showing the fact of arbitrary selection accepted by Calvinists today.
Establishing the fact that “yes” you can have a parent saved and their child “lost”.

Establishing the all deserve hell but is it not great that some are saved (saved for some unknown reason not related to any attribute in the individual)
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/35/1406/5.html#000069

Calvinist overjoyed at this “inexplicable choice of one and not the other” idea..

 

So Bob, you admit that Scripture shows your "future scenario for Calvinism"? I object to that, but how can you agree to it?

This has gone from the ridiculous to the sublime. This is utter foolishness. It is utter rejection of Scriptural teaching concerning salvation and teh character of God.

I don't like what I see in your scenario becuase I like God's word, and your scenario is contradictory to it.

 

So when we see the child suffering and review what a "great thing it is" that the parent is not - we are happy indeed for the parent that they do not have to suffer what their child suffers.

And as for the answer to their question?

 

I simply agree that this is exaclty how Calvinists interpret scripture. So it is the Calvinist view that is presented in the Calvinist future scenario - as we must expect.

Wonderful now all you have to do is actually NAME something that does not agree with the Calvinist view of scripture that is actually IN the scenario.


This should be easy - if it is "there".

 

Bob, you are being dishonest. The quote does not show the acceptance of arbitrary selection. You were told that you misused and you did it again. That is dishonest and unethical.

And you too admit that you can have a child lsot and a parent saved. You yourself said that was not the difference.

 

I have already named it: All of it. Why do you keep asking? It was an easy question to answer.

 

Details.

#1. The quote does not say a parent saved vs a child lost" -- "is the difference".

#2. Every Arminian that has posted on the Calvinist arbitrary-selection idea of "NO DIFFERENCE between the lost and the saved" has declared that this shows unconditional-election to be in fact arbitrary-selection. I am also Arminian. If the Arminian view is not allowed - just say so.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Because when I LISTED the points LINE BY LINE - we found ALL of them to ACCURATELY reflect Calvinism AND EVEN to include some ideas that are ALSO in Arminianism.

So your "ALL DETAILS IN ERROR" post is just a way of giving up stated in the form of a vagary.

I have asked that you try to deal with the details instead of contradicting yourself.

You have pointed out SOME DETAILS that are admitted to by BOTH Calvinist and Arminian groups - so saying that ALL of the details are in error is just silly.

 

Bob, yesterday at 2:51 you said: You are correct IN BOTH the Arminian future scenario AND in the Calvinist future scenario I show in BOTH the Parent is saved and the child is lost. That "detail" is not the difference. I pointed out that your harping on a parent being saved and a child being lost is not the difference between arminianism and Calvinism. I pointed out that the complaint you make against Calvinism is a complaint you have to make against your own position.

And every arminian has been wrong. Your view is allowed to be sure. But that does not make it right. Everytime you say that Calvinists believe in arbitrary election, you are being dishonest. Calvinists believe that God has a reason for his election. That, by definition, is not arbitrary. You messed up the definition of arbitrary, and resulted in a wrong conclusion. The solution is just quit saying that we believe in arbitrary selection. There are enough differences without you making them up.

As for your scenario, every detail is wrong because it stems from an unbiblical view of God, and a wrong view of Calvinism. There is no other way to put that, and the fact that you don't see that is your issue, not mine. I don't contradict myself, and I will not start now. Your scenario simply doesn't represent what Calvinism believes.