Calvinism

[Reynolds]

Article 1
That God, by an eternal and unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John 3:36: “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him,” and according to other passages of Scripture also.

Article 2
That agreeably thereunto, Jesus Christ the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel of John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” And in the First Epistle of 1 John 2:2: “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”

Article 3
That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John 15:5, “Without me ye can do nothing.”

Article 4
That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of all good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without prevenient or assisting, awakening, following and cooperative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements, that can be conceived, must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. but respects the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible; inasmuch as it is written concerning many, that they have resisted the Holy Ghost. Acts 7, and elsewhere in many places.

Article 5
That those who are incorporated into Christ by true faith, and have thereby become partakers of his life-giving Spirit, have thereby full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to win the victory; it being well understood that it is ever through the assisting grace of the Holy Ghost; and that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit in all temptations, extends to them his hand, and if only they are ready for the conflict, and desire his help, and are not inactive, keeps them from falling, so that they, by no craft or power of Satan, can be misled nor plucked out of Christ’s hands, according to the Word of Christ, John 10:28: “Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” But whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginning of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was delivered them, of losing a good conscience, of becoming devoid of grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scripture, before we ourselves can teach it with the full persuasion of our mind.

The last sentence of "article 5" is key.
A true Classical Arminian only uses 4 articles.

 

[rsr]

Arminianism really only has 4 articles. On dealing with eternal security, Classical Arminianism leaves that up to the individual. It does not attempt to refute nor agree with "p".

Classical Arminians agree with total depravity (total inability) and both Arminius and the Remonstrants declined to take a position on the perseverance of the saints. Other Arminians, such as the Wesleys and their followers, allowed for Christians falling into apostasy, "making shipwreck of their faith" and thus forfeiting their inheritance in Christ.

 

[JonC]

I was trying to find a Reformation Arminianism site to link.

If anyone is interested, Grace, Faith' Free Will by Robert Picirilli offers an excellent view of the position.

 

[atpollard]

Taking TOTAL DEPRAVITY (INABILITY) off the table as a point of Classic Arminian and Calvinist agreement and PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS off the table as a point left open ended in Classic Arminianism, that just leaves ...

Unconditional vs Conditional Election

Limited vs Unlimited Atonement (Article 2)

Irresistible vs Resistible Grace

... to be discussed according to the 5 Articles.

 

[atpollard]

Article 3
That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John 15:5, “Without me ye can do nothing.”

Just to state the obvious, Article 3 completely agrees with the Calvinist doctrine of Total Inability.

 

[JonC]

Just to state the obvious, Article 3 completely agrees with the Calvinist doctrine of Total Inability.

Arminianism was originally very close to Calvinism, so close that it was considered a different view within orthodox Calvinism during James Arminius' lifetime.

The initial issue was predestination and the order of predestination in Salvation. This was something that even Calvin wrestled with (it was Beza who placed divine sovereignty where it now stands within Reformed Theology). Arminius was Beza's student (one of his top students).

Reformation Arminianism does not deny that men (apart from the workings of the Holy Spirit) can seek God or be saved.

It is a very interesting topic, but just as Calvinism today is not historic Calvinism (at least outside of Presbyterian churches) Arminianism today is not typically Reformation Arminianism. Most of the time it is either associated with Wesleyan Arminianism (even outside of Methodist circles) or Free-Will Baptist Theology. The term itself, just like "Calvinism", has changed over time.

 

[atpollard]

"through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his son Jesus"

Sounds to me like it's saying the Holy Ghost enables one to believe. I mean it's not wishy-washy at all. I don't see any wiggle room for the belief of man to open the door to the Holy Ghost

I apologize for not reading your signature line (I generally ignore them) and reading your post through my own Calvinist colored lenses.

To address your statement directly:

"may" is the term commonly employed when a choice is involved (as in "you may apply for a parking permit at the main office") so "through the grace of the Holy Ghost, may believe on this his son Jesus" would be the wording indicating that the Holy Spirit offered the person a choice to believe or not to believe.

"shall" is the term used when one has no choice (as in "you shall appear before the court on June 15th") so "through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his son Jesus" indicates that belief is not an option.

Later articles argue that grace may be resisted, but 'shall believe' does not mean "enable", it means "compels". The fact that you read 'shall' as 'may' illustrates the "wishy-washy" nature of the wording.

 

[Van]

Two points of Arminianism ring true, Christ died for all mankind, and not a pre-selected subset. God chooses for salvation individuals who believe in Christ.

And Calvinism has only one point that rings true, once saved, always saved.

Both viewpoints deny the unregenerate can understand and respond to the milk of the gospel. They add in enablement through either irresistible grace or prevenient grace.

Both viewpoints accept that we were chosen individually for salvation before the foundation of the world, and ignore all the verses that teach we are chosen for salvation during our lifetime. 2 Thessalonians 2:13 teaches we are chosen through faith in the truth, and we must be alive and exposed to the gospel to put our faith in Christ. James 2:5 teaches God chooses those rich in faith and also love God, conditions that exist during our lifetime. The only way to resolve this difficulty is to accept Ephesians 1:4 refers to a corporate and not individual election.

But it is impossible to resolve this problem because none of the advocates actually developed through study these viewpoints, they just accept the viewpoints developed about 400 years ago.

 

[Reformed1689]

Arminianism really only has 4 articles. On dealing with eternal security, Classical Arminianism leaves that up to the individual. It does not attempt to refute nor agree with "p".

The P was in response to the Remonstrant (Arminianism).

 

[atpollard]

But it is impossible to resolve this problem because none of the advocates actually developed through study these viewpoints, they just accept the viewpoints developed about 400 years ago.

Your conclusion, in my opinion, does a disservice to those who hold both opposing viewpoints. It seems more than a bit arrogant to assume that you are the only one who has actually "studied" scripture to arrive at their position and everyone else has failed to grasp your obvious right answer because they are all blinded by 400 year old doctrines.

As a point of fact, I was raised atheist, heard the Gospel and learned to read the bible under Wesleyan Arminianism (Church of God) and reached 4 of the 5 points of Calvinism from reading scripture before I ever heard the term "Calvinist" or "Arminian". I had never given any thought one way or another to who Christ died for (Limited vs Universal Atonement) ... it was enough to know that Jesus had died for me.

God chooses for salvation individuals who believe in Christ.

Romans 9 disagrees with you.

2 Thessalonians 2:13 teaches we are chosen through faith in the truth, and we must be alive and exposed to the gospel to put our faith in Christ. James 2:5 teaches God chooses those rich in faith and also love God, conditions that exist during our lifetime

... or these verses speak of HOW God saves rather than WHEN God first loved, as in:

[Rom 8:28-30 NASB] 28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to [His] purpose. 29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined [to become] conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.
​

The only way to resolve this difficulty is to accept Ephesians 1:4 refers to a corporate and not individual election.

Redefining what contradictory verses "really mean" is what you complain the Calvinists and Arminians do.
That is ONE WAY to resolve the difficulty, but not the "only way".

 

[MB]

Article 1
That God, by an eternal and unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John 3:36: “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him,” and according to other passages of Scripture also.

. I don't believe man has fallen. Because the Bible says we are not held responsible for the sins of our fathers. I believe man was created with the propensity to sin no doubt because if he had been created with out that propensity to sin he would not have sinned. I also disagree with the idea of perseverance. I am kept, preserved, by God Him Self. For ever is, well,,, forever. It just keeps going on and on there is no end to it. It's that word persevere. It implies work. Romans 4:5 says I'm counted for righteousness with out works.
I also disagree with the leaving of unbelievers in there sins. Preaching the gospel to the unbelievers we are commanded to do. And if we have preached the gospel to them, then they have no excuse.
MB

 

[atpollard]

Article 4
That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of all good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without prevenient or assisting, awakening, following and cooperative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements, that can be conceived, must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ.

Up to this point, THIS Particular Baptist has no issues with Article 4.

but respects the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible; inasmuch as it is written concerning many, that they have resisted the Holy Ghost. Acts 7, and elsewhere in many places.

... HERE is where the controversy comes into play. I find it interesting that they referenced an entire chapter as proof of men resisting the Holy Spirit, so I went looking at Acts 7 to try and see what they saw. I hope they were not equating the description of the Old Covenant with the New Covenant. That would be a bit of an apples to oranges comparison since "the covenant of which [Jesus] is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises" [Heb 8:6] However, I did find this interesting paragraph ...

51 "You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did. 52 "Which one of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? They killed those who had previously announced the coming of the Righteous One, whose betrayers and murderers you have now become; 53 you who received the law as ordained by angels, and [yet] did not keep it." [Acts 7:51-53] ​

So in what way were they "resisting the Holy Spirit"?
In what way does the Holy Spirit work that can be resisted?
Is there a working of the Holy Spirit that cannot be resisted?
How does Acts 7:51 harmonize and interlock with these equally true scriptures ...

44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day." [John 6:44]

26 "But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. 27 "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. 29 "My Father, who has given [them] to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch [them] out of the Father's hand. 30 "I and the Father are one." [John 10:26-30]

28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to [His] purpose. 29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined [to become] conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. [Romans 8:28-30] ​

 

[InTheLight]

I apologize for not reading your signature line (I generally ignore them) and reading your post through my own Calvinist colored lenses.

To address your statement directly:

"may" is the term commonly employed when a choice is involved

"shall" is the term used when one has no choice

Later articles argue that grace may be resisted, but 'shall believe' does not mean "enable", it means "compels".

Variation on #1: "That word doesn't mean what you think it means."

The fact that you read 'shall' as 'may' illustrates the "wishy-washy" nature of the wording.

We got another mind reader.

 

[atpollard]

Variation on #1: "That word doesn't mean what you think it means."

Dude, this is English not Greek. It is a simple matter to look up the meaning of a word ...

shall
verb
\ shəl, ˈshal \

past should\ shəd , ˈshu̇d \; present singular and plural shall

Definition of shall

auxiliary verb


1a —used to express what is inevitable or seems likely to happen in the future: we shall have to be ready/we shall see
b —used to express simple futurity: when shall we expect you
2 —used to express determination: they shall not pass
3a —used to express a command or exhortation: you shall go
b —used in laws, regulations, or directives to express what is mandatory: it shall be unlawful to carry firearms
4 archaic
a : will have to : must
b : will be able to : can

may
auxiliary verb
\ ˈmā \
past might\ ˈmīt \; present singular and plural may
Definition of may

1a archaic : have the ability to
b : have permission to: you may go now —used nearly interchangeably with can
c —used to indicate possibility or probability: you may be right —sometimes used interchangeably with can —sometimes used where might would be expected
2 —used in auxiliary function to express a wish or desire especially in prayer, imprecation, or benediction: may the best man win
3 —used in auxiliary function expressing purpose or expectation: I laugh that I may not weep or contingency: she'll do her duty come what may or concession: he may be slow but he is thorough or choice: the angler may catch them with a dip net
4 : shall, must —used in law where the sense, purpose, or policy requires this interpretation

Thus "SHALL" as used in the quote you referenced means MUST and not HAS THE ABILITY/PERMISSION TO ("MAY"). I made a simple statement of fact. Sometimes, it would appear, that word really doesn't mean what you think it does ... even in English.

We got another mind reader.

Not a mind reader, just a reader.

The quote said ...

"through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his son Jesus"

You claimed it meant ...

Sounds to me like it's saying the Holy Ghost enables one to believe. I mean it's not wishy-washy at all. I don't see any wiggle room for the belief of man to open the door to the Holy Ghost

Your choice of "enables" in YOUR statement of what it "Sounds to [you] like it's saying" more closely matched the definition of "MAY" (presented above) than the definition of "SHALL" (the word that was actually used in the quote. Thus your statement of interpretation did, in fact, prove the very point that you were denying. The language was "wishy-washy".

... and before you challenge me on the definition of "enable":

enable
verb
en·able | \ i-ˈnā-bəl \
enabled; enabling\ i-ˈnā-b(ə-)liŋ \
Definition of enable
transitive verb

1a : to provide with the means or opportunity: training that enables people to earn a living
b : to make possible, practical, or easy: a deal that would enable passage of a new law
c : to cause to operate: software that enables the keyboard
2 : to give legal power, capacity, or sanction to: a law enabling admission of a state

 

[JonC]

Dude, this is English not Greek. It is a simple matter to look up the meaning of a word ...

shall
verb
\ shəl, ˈshal \

past should\ shəd , ˈshu̇d \; present singular and plural shall

Definition of shall

auxiliary verb


1a —used to express what is inevitable or seems likely to happen in the future: we shall have to be ready/we shall see

b —used to express simple futurity: when shall we expect you

2 —used to express determination: they shall not pass

3a —used to express a command or exhortation: you shall go

b —used in laws, regulations, or directives to express what is mandatory: it shall be unlawful to carry firearms

4 archaic

a : will have to : must

b : will be able to : can

may
auxiliary verb
\ ˈmā \
past might\ ˈmīt \; present singular and plural may
Definition of may

1a archaic : have the ability to
b : have permission to: you may go now —used nearly interchangeably with can
c —used to indicate possibility or probability: you may be right —sometimes used interchangeably with can —sometimes used where might would be expected
2 —used in auxiliary function to express a wish or desire especially in prayer, imprecation, or benediction: may the best man win
3 —used in auxiliary function expressing purpose or expectation: I laugh that I may not weep or contingency: she'll do her duty come what may or concession: he may be slow but he is thorough or choice: the angler may catch them with a dip net
4 : shall, must —used in law where the sense, purpose, or policy requires this interpretation

Thus "SHALL" as used in the quote you referenced means MUST and not HAS THE ABILITY/PERMISSION TO ("MAY"). I made a simple statement of fact. Sometimes, it would appear, that word really doesn't mean what you think it does ... even in English.


Not a mind reader, just a reader.

The quote said ...


You claimed it meant ...


Your choice of "enables" in YOUR statement of what it "Sounds to [you] like it's saying" more closely matched the definition of "MAY" (presented above) than the definition of "SHALL" (the word that was actually used in the quote. Thus your statement of interpretation did, in fact, prove the very point that you were denying. The language was "wishy-washy".

... and before you challenge me on the definition of "enable":

enable
verb
en·able | \ i-ˈnā-bəl \
enabled; enabling\ i-ˈnā-b(ə-)liŋ \
Definition of enable
transitive verb

1a : to provide with the means or opportunity: training that enables people to earn a living
b : to make possible, practical, or easy: a deal that would enable passage of a new law
c : to cause to operate: software that enables the keyboard
2 : to give legal power, capacity, or sanction to: a law enabling admission of a state

Shall....like I am a shall o the man I once wuz?

 

[InTheLight]

Dude, this is English not Greek. It is a simple matter to look up the meaning of a word ...

Shall I look up the word?

Is the use of the word "shall" in that sentence an inevitable outcome? Or am I asking for you for your assent? To enable me?

Anyway you might want to look at definition 4b for "shall" in your post.

4 archaic
a : will have to : must
b : will be able to : can

And consider the Five Points were written in 1610.

 

[InTheLight]

I did, that is why I included all of the definitions rather than just cherry picking the definition that suited my purposes. Do you see anything in the quoted Articles that would lead you to believe that it was employing "Archaic" grammar and meanings, or does the grammar indicate a modern sentence structure, spelling and vocabulary? (I looked at that, too, before deciding on the most appropriate meaning of the word in this context.)

I see the word, "hath", in the first sentence of Article 1. I also see the phrase, "sinful race of men" rather than the word "people" or the words "men and women", so yes, I do see archaic words and phrases.

Is the english used in 1610, when the five points was written, considered archaic? I say it is.

 

[InTheLight]

Well, well, well. I'm seeing this phenomena described by Iconoclast whereby posts disappear. I quoted atpollard in my post (above) and now I see that his post has been removed. It's still preserved in my response to him, but his original post has been removed from the board. Hmmm...

 

[atpollard]

I see the word, "hath", in the first sentence of Article 1, so yes, I do see archaic words.

I saw that in Article 1 after posting and I deleted the post (while you were typing your response) ... point acknowledged.

Anyway you might want to look at definition 4b for "shall" in your post.

4 archaic
a : will have to : must
b : will be able to : can

And consider the Five Points were written in 1610.

Accepting the Archaic meaning is the correct one, does a phrase that means either "must believe" or "can believe" with no indication which is the intended meaning not qualify as "wishy-washy". I say it means the Holy Ghost makes it so we MUST BELIEVE and you say the Holy Ghost "enables" us to believe and the text as written say we are both reading it correctly.

That's Political-speek ... "We believe in Jobs and the Future!" ... everyone gets to hear whatever they want to hear.

 

[Reformed1689]

Well, well, well. I'm seeing this phenomena described by Iconoclast whereby posts disappear. I quoted atpollard in my post (above) and now I see that his post has been removed. It's still preserved in my response to him, but his original post has been removed from the board. Hmmm...

#6