Calvinism vs Arminianism: The Real Difference

That is true. "I keep saying that".

Agreed. On that one particular point we "hopefully" can say we agree.

The "detail" is that I am not complaining that in Calvinism it is possible for someone to be lost.

There is the "if I cared to" aspect -- to make it "Calvinism" that you are avoiding.

There is the "if I cared to" aspect that is the DIFFERENCE.

Instead of circling back to the thing WE BOTH agree with with (which includes almost everything in the POINT list of details in that scenario that you say is "all wrong") -- lets focus on just the differences.

Ok?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Your quote from the top of this page, in my post, indicate you are harping on the fact that a parent can be saved and a child lost as the result of "arbitrary election." That is why I have pointed out that you are in the same boat.

The "if I cared to" aspect is the same for you, assuming you do not deny God's ability. If a parent allowed his child to play in teh freeway, you would immediately say that the parent doesn't care about the child. If God allows someone to go to hell, while having the power to prevent it, you can (with your logic) label him as uncaring. The point is that your system is fraught with the same problem you object to in Calvinism. The difference is that with Calvinism, God is in control and has a purpose, and with arminianism, God is not in control.

The "love," "care," kind of arguments are weak. They assume something about God that isn't true. That is why your scenario is completely wrong. You started from a wrong view of God.

 

Pastor Larry - you are Cavlinist (or had you noticed?) That means by definition that you believe every Arminian is wrong.

I am Arminian (as we have established) and that means I think all the Calvinists are wrong.

This is not the "new" or "interesting" part of our discussion and it does not PROVE anything.

I am simply paraphrasing "unconditional election" the way an Arminian would see "NO DIFFERENCE between the saved and the lost" -- i.e. "Arbitrary selection".

I don't claim that Calvinists use the Arminian paraphrse for their own idea of "unconditional election" -- I would never do that.

The scenario ONLY says "SURE IF I had CARED to".

Calvinism (as the many quotes I just gave from this very board) REJOICES in the fact that God CARES to save SOME and then NOTES the fact that ALL SINNERS DESERVE hell when speaking of the lost.

The scenario is in perfect agreement with that fact.

THE FACT that "I notice" that this can easily be seen as "arbitrary selection" is not something that the SCENARIO characters actually state.

The "reader will notice" that attribute without the characters in the scenario ever saying it.

Just as you have done.

Your argument is in effect that God "has an innexplicable reason for selecting BETWEEN the lost and the saved but it is NOT due any difference AT ALL between a lost person and an elect person".

As much as that satisfies a Calvinist who does not allow him/her self to think about that very long - I have a suprise for you - It looks EXACTLY like arbitrary selection to an Arminian especially when we SEE in the Calvinist scenario how the events play out in PERFECT harmony with Calvinist principles.

If the "solution" is -- "Arminians must start thinking like Calvinists" We can not carry the point forward very far.

If the solution is to ISOLATE that part of the scenario that IS the actual story - from my setup of the scenario -- then fine I will certainly do that.

Here we go "again".

After admitting that BOTH Arminian and Calvinism will have situations where a parent is saved and a child is lost you go back and say of THAT SCENARIO "every detail is wrong"?

How do you expect to be taken seriously with that?

I have not doubt at all that COULD you actually point to a detail IN THE SCENARIO that is incorrect - you would have done so long ago.

I have already pointed out that there IS heaven and there IS hell "in that scenario".

I have already pointed out that there are the saved and there are the lost "in that scenario".

I have already pointed out that the SAVED CARE for their loved ones (this may be where you differ with the detail - please explain).

So If I say "the sky is blue" but I do so as an Arminian THEN THE SKY IS NOT BLUE????

As I pointed out the "detail" include the fact of heaven and hell and the fact that there are saved parents and lost children.

How in the world can you keep saying "well those details are wrong because you have an Arminian POV"???

How can you expect that to be taken seriously???

Wonderful - is "now the time" that you actually point to a detail that is out of harmony with Calvinism that IS IN the scenario?

Or are we still stuck waiting for you to actually do - after more claims that you certainly could do it?

That line of response is wearing thin.

Fine and wonderful for that means it will be oh so easy for you to actually take specific salient points IN THE SCENARIO and "say"

"Bob here is a basic point that the scenario relies upon that can not be proven from Calvinist positions posted here".

And then that is where you actually "give one".

See?

In Christ,

Bob

 

#1. Arminians never claim that the reason one is saved and one is lost - is due to "arbitrary selection". WE think there are differences in the saved and the lost.

#2. But stepping back from that -- the mere fact that there ARE saved and lost people - would be common to both. IT is when we get to WHY they are lost or saved - that we see the DIFFERENCE between Calvinism and Arminianism. (But of course you already knew that - you are just stalling)

May I respectfully suggest that you place this in an "Arminian future scenario" as I have done - to fully expose the flaws in the Arminian POV USING Arminian principles?

Your example above is certainly a reasonable one.

Just put it in the context of the Arminian parent whose child is lost -- I hand you the hammer and say "swing away".

But to say that in the Arminian system "God only cares for some" is not a quote you actually find coming out of the Arminian mouth on this board - "is it"??

Do Arminians portray God as ONLY caring for the elect in that "Salvific" kind of way??

No.

Do Arminians ever portray God as NOT POWERFUL enough to zap everyone into being robots??

No.

Use the actual points that Arminians DO claim and then SHOW how cominging them in a FUTURE ARMINIAN SCENARIO exposes the flaws of Arminianism.

This should be easy.

That is a matter of philosphy. In the CAlvinist system was "God in control" when Lucifer sinned?

In Calvinism was "God in absolute control when Adam sinned"?

IF so - then "total depravity" was not driving them to sin.

So what does Calvinism say "MADE THEM SIN"??

God?.

I point out that very thing in the scenario by saying "THEN comes the answer that Calvinism so loves to hear" followed by the REJOICING of the Cavlinist over the SAVED! (And then followed by a host of quotes FROM THIS very BOARD in support of that)

In Christ,

Bob

 

In an effort to accomodate Pastor Larry - I am revising the scenario to isolate that section that is just where the actors are responding to each other and to exclude from that part any reference to "arbitrary selection".

The inner quotes contain “The scenario”. Everything else is my commentary. (Of course the entire thing is my own test scenario for Calvinism)

<You see the problem when the Calvinist model is not “allowed the luxury" of disregarding the fate of the lost - as in the case above?>

God who arbitrarily selects out the FEW of Matt 7 and loves THEM alone - and then represents that to Calvinists as "So Loving the World". Oh the pure joy that thought must cause the Calvinist mind.
</font>[/QUOTE]

 

As for that unjust mercy being "Calvinist bliss" while the only thought for the lost is "all sinners deserve hell" we have these posts --


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..

 

This type of logic and understanding is typical of your posts, and shows why you are incorrect. I am a Calvinist. That doesn't mean that I believe every arminian is wrong. Arminians are right on many things. But that is irrelevant. The statement under question here is a statement that was demosntrably wrong in content. It was not a disagreement about interpretation. You said Calvinists believe in arbitrary election. That is wrong. You say "it looks like arbitrary election." I say you need to change your POV. You are looking wrongly at it. You say Arminians never claim that the reason one is saved and one is lost - is due to "arbitrary selection". WE think there are differences in the saved and the lost. Calvinists do not claim that the reason is due to arbitrary selection. We have that in common. You just won't accept it.

The reason why I won't do an arminian POV is because I am not arminian. I won't pretend to present your position. I do care when you misrepresent my position and make God out to be something he is not. That is unacceptable. It was unacceptable the first time you did it, and it still is.

You citation of my last post sums up the issue: God has told us what is worthy rejoicing about--the salvation of hte few.

However, even in that your words show a major error. God has not chosen anyone for hell. Man chose that by his sin.

Your whole scenario is based on bad thinking, and explaining that bad thinking in five posts does not make it good thinking.

In the end, your tactics are not something that I will be involved in. You can't misrepresent others and expect a conversation about it.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pastor Larry - you are Cavlinist (or had you noticed?) That means by definition that you believe every Arminian is wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have to admit - this pretty typical of your posts as well.

I did not say that Calvinists (or even you) believe Arminians are wrong on every point of Christian doctrine (obviously).

I said that your statement

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pastor Larry
And every arminian has been wrong.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

is saying something that adds nothing to the dialoge - just as my saying "every Calvinist is wrong" about some point - would not add anything.

This is the obvious part.

That is very instructive. You spend a lot of time on these area of the board telling Arminians just exactly where you think they are wrong -- I ask you to "Show your work" by showing an Arminian scenario that is "accurate" and yet "exposes what you see as the flaw" in Arminianism -- just as I did.

You claim you can not.

I am starting to believe you. Though I am surprised that this is the case.

Indeed so your argument that we have the SAME problem is totally false.

And as my repeated statements "show" -- simply calling it "unconditional election" changes nothing once you admit that "there is NO difference at all" between those who are elect and those who are not.

The bottom line is that REGARDLESS of whether you like the various names or labels put to it - the FACT remains that Calvinists DO have the "problem" of the DIFFERENCE being ONLY those whom God selects vs those whom HE does NOT select -- and Arminians don't.

This is so obvious every Arminian (and hopefully most Calvinists) can see it.

They give it "a different name" -- that much we agree to. But Arminians DO NOT appeal to the Calvinist (unconditional election) principle for explaining the DIFFERENCE between those saved and those lost and HENCE they are NOT Calvinists! So it is impossible to say that they BOTH use the same thing to explain the difference. They do not.

This point could not be any more obvious.

I don't understand why you would even think of taking the discussion in this direction. No Arminian would claim this (and I doubt any Calvinist would claim it either)

In Christ,

Bob