Calvinism vs Arminianism? Why either/or? Why not both?

[Reynolds]

Uh, no, that's wrong.

Wrong again.

Thanks for finally admitting Classical Arminianism is correct.

 

[TCassidy]

Thanks for finally admitting Classical Arminianism is correct.

I don't believe it is. And it is very rare. Most "Arminians" are actually Semi-Pelagian. True Arminians are 4 point Calvinists.

 

[TCassidy]

I reject them BOTH as false doctrines.

Both of which you obviously don't understand. Neither of your descriptions are correct.

 

[Iconoclast]

You know, for somebody who is a "retired pastor and seminary professor", i am absolutely shocked you never heard of Pelagianism? I am not saying I agree with it. I am proving you seem ignorant on the other options that are out there. Karl Barth has some pretty interesting positions as well. Not to mention Supralapsarianism, Infralapsarianism, or Sublapsarianism. So much for your "only two options" claim.

Don't get me wrong. I assume you are extremely intelligent and knowledgeable on reformed Calvinist theology. But if you are honestly telling me that there is absolutely only two options, it tells me that you are extremely narrow minded and uniformed.

The other options as you call them are failed theologies

 

[Iconoclast]

So I guess Amyraldism otherwise known as "4 point Calvinism" is a made up fairy tail? See, I can agree in Calvinism AND I can disagree [emoji6]. I never said that I completely disagreed with Calvin. I am just not so arrogant to say that he is absolutely right about everything. Do you worship scripture as the infallible word of God? Or do you worship the institutes as the infallible word of Calvin? For the record, I assume the former.

With one example I just proved your statement " You either believe T.U.L.I.P or you dont" to be false. Some people choose to believe in T.U.I.P. and it's a completely valid option to have.



Yes I have. I don't see the point.



Yeah. And Martin Luther was a Catholic monk. So what?

Every real believer is a Calvinist, or what is called a 5 pointer. Those like you mention...are confused on one or two points.
Most who say they are non cals are confused mostly on the L, some on the I. We are all learning..

 

[Reynolds]

I don't believe it is. And it is very rare. Most "Arminians" are actually Semi-Pelagian. True Arminians are 4 point Calvinists.

I don't know about 4 points. I don't see Classical Arminianism fully harmonizing with Calvinism on any points. Very, Very close on 3. Close on 1. Classical Arminianism not having a definite position on 1.

 

[Iconoclast]

The reason why they won't admit that it's a false dilemma is because they believe that their Theology of Salvation (Soteriology) is 100% correct. They believe everything else is wrong

We are all learning...some resist emotionally for awhile.We call them non cals. As bible believers and in prayer they believe just the same as we do.

 

[Iconoclast]

Dude...
Quit while you're behind...
T.Cassidy will absolutely CRUSH you on this...

Those terms you threw out????

Yeah, he knows them....You are out of your league son.
Completely out of your league...
I don't have the verbal skills to describe how COMPLETELY out of your league you are....

As much as I disagree with T.C....
He knows what the difference between "Infralapsarianism" "Supralapsarianism" and "Amyraldianism" is.....

He's gonna make you look pretty stupid pretty quick.
And Karl Barth (which I've absolutely no doubt he's familiar with)......(I've heard him comment on him intelligently) is irrelevant.

Thank you for being objective HOS....hope you are safe...

 

[delizzle]

How do you know he's not?

Tuché [emoji52]

 

[Iconoclast]

Not necessarily. Is it not possible for God to have His predestined elect and still allow everyone else free will to accept or reject. In other words, just because some have the golden ticket, is it possible for the opportunity to be available for everyone else?

There is more to Calvin than T.U.L.I.P.

Hos tried to warn you, free will is your golden calf, study more, then return.
There are many non cal sites, start there...quote them if you must...we will be here to help

 

[delizzle]

Do you know the story of how God fed the Children of Israel in the desert? When He gave the manna from Heaven. . .

Did God gather the manna for them? Did they have to chew the manna? Why didn't God put it directly into their stomachs? I mean, while He was doing miracles anyway, why not?

God uses "means" to accomplish His will. He uses the "foolishness of preaching", for instance. . .

However, He talked directly to Abraham. He could do that same for anyone else.

 

[BobRyan]

So my question is this, is it possible that both Calvin AND Arminius are right? Could they both be wrong in some areas? If so, where? Third and most importantly, is this argument worth fighting over when we should be spending that vocal energy actually sharing the Gospel?

1. Certainly there can be some element of truth in both ...
2. And certainly one of them is wrong -- if not both.
3. As for the Gospel... there are forms of Calvinism that can NOT preach the 2 Cor 5 Gospel appeal "We BEG you on behalf of Christ be reconciled to God" because they know full well that is an appeal to free will. Arbitrary selection is a very clouded "gospel"

 

[BobRyan]

Hos tried to warn you, free will is your golden calf,

false accusation and emotionalism

I prefer the Bible

"We BEG you on behalf of Christ be reconciled to God" 2 Cor 5
"He came to His OWN and His OWN received Him not" John 1:11
"I will draw ALL MANKIND unto Me" John 12:32

Less Calvinism... more Bible please.

 

[delizzle]

We are all learning...some resist emotionally for awhile.We call them non cals. As bible believers and in prayer they believe just the same as we do.

Oh brother. [emoji19] hehe

 

[Iconoclast]

false accusation and emotionalism

I prefer the Bible

"We BEG you on behalf of Christ be reconciled to God" 2 Cor 5
"He came to His OWN and His OWN received Him not" John 1:11
"I will draw ALL MANKIND unto Me" John 12:32

Less Calvinism... more Bible please.

You actually prefer out of context verses and a works based gospel in the Church you attend.

 

[BobRyan]

Hos tried to warn you, free will is your golden calf,

false accusation and emotionalism

I prefer the Bible

"We BEG you on behalf of Christ be reconciled to God" 2 Cor 5
"He came to His OWN and His OWN received Him not" John 1:11
"I will draw ALL MANKIND unto Me" John 12:32

Less Calvinism... more Bible please.

We are all learning...some resist emotionally for awhile.We call them non cals. As bible believers and in prayer they believe just the same as we do.

The much-expected appeal to emotionalism

You actually prefer out of context verses and a works based gospel in the Church you attend.

your false accusations merely "quote you" and then add slurs against my church for good emotional measure.

Start by posting facts.

Here's one for you --

When reason vacates in regard to a given subject, the only weapons of argument left are in the hands of emotion. The simplest emotional weapons to wield are name-calling ,disparaging remarks, vitriol and acrimony for those deemed adversaries. All such ad hominem tactics provide nothing of persuasive substance, except to those whose reason has also been vacated on that same subject.

 

[Iconoclast]

false accusation and emotionalism

I prefer the Bible

"We BEG you on behalf of Christ be reconciled to God" 2 Cor 5
"He came to His OWN and His OWN received Him not" John 1:11
"I will draw ALL MANKIND unto Me" John 12:32

Less Calvinism... more Bible please.



The much-expected appeal to emotionalism



your false accusations merely "quote you" and then add slurs against my church for good emotional measure.

Start by posting facts.

Bob...just read the posts of the objectors...decide for yourself. Your "church" is mentioned in a few books on my shelf....
https://www.amazon.com/Four-Major-Cults-Christian-Seventh-day/dp/0802804454

 

[delizzle]

Hos tried to warn you, free will is your golden calf, study more, then return.
There are many non cal sites, start there...quote them if you must...we will be here to help

Thank you.

 

[thatbrian]

However, He talked directly to Abraham. He could do that same for anyone else.

He could also make pigs fly. . .

He uses the proclamation of the gospel by men, and He tells us that which is why He gave the Great Commission, and why Paul asks:

[13] For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

[14] How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? [15] And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” (Romans 10:13–15 ESV)​

 

[thatbrian]

is this argument worth fighting over when we should be spending that vocal energy actually sharing the Gospel?

Truth is always worth fighting for.