Calvinism's fatal flaw

You hoped that your thread would apply, but unfortuately it doesn't. Calvinists believe as do Arminians that God loves all of his creation. And believe me, Calvinism puts much more emphasis on Christ's work in regard to their salvation than does Arminianism. To assert that Calvinists don't believe and teach about JESUS and God's LOVE is a misrepresentation of their system of belief and has absolutly nothing to do with this discussion. Though I disagree with some of the Calvinistic presumptions, I regard most Calvinists as well meaning, educated, Christians who not only believe in JESUS but rely on God's grace for the purpose of displaying God's LOVE to the world.

With Respect,
Bro. Bill

 

I'm still waiting for a response to my last several posts. I understand that many of you are busy, as am I, answering other posts; however, I can assure you no other Arminians on this board are going to present you with any arguements as original as the one that has been presented in this post. They are all trying to reinterpret passages to mean something they obviously don't. I agree with most of your interpretations, but I disagree as to how you choose to apply them. Please respond to the arguements presented in my last 3 or 4 posts on the previous page when you get a chance.

Thank you,
Bro. Bill

 

Should I assume that since these next two verses were directed to the apostles that they are not applicable to other believers....?

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

Matt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, now you're catching on. This was addressed to the first apostles in regard to their commission, which continues through us today. We follow their examples as our firstfruits much like Christ was their example to follow. But your assertion that this text was meant for the apostles is correct, does that mean that it is not "applicable" to us as well. I don't think so. How will they know unless someone tells them?

I assume that the arguement your trying to make is this: If I believe the scriptures that have to do with Sovereign Election are only applicable to the apostles then I must also believe other scriptures are only applicable to them. Is that true?

Yes and no. Yes, the passages that have the "firstfruits" of salvation in view as it's audience should be interpreted with that in mind. If Jesus gives them a particular gifting such as, "you will perform many greater miracles in my name." Or if he says to them, "You did not choose me but I chose you." Or if he gives them specific instructions concerning their mission. We should understand that Jesus may not be directing his statements to all future believers.

No, we shouldn't ignore Christ's teaching and instructions to his disciples because he teaches some very applicable principles for everyday life, both then and now. These principles transcend time and are very practical to the apostle and to the modern day believer. For example, Jesus instucts his followers to love their enemies and do good to those who hate them. This principle works as well now as it did then, it is a timeless truth that is most definiately applicable to our lives.

Someone may ask, "Then why do you think the passages concerning divine election are not applicable to us?" Because, as I stated in a previous post, the unique divine method by which the apostles were chosen by the Father and given to the Son is what sets them apart as being authorative in their God ordained mission to usher in the New Covenant of Grace which is applied to all who believe. I believe that can be clearly deduced from the text when your view is not clouded by assumptions that are brought to the text.

Admittedly, when I first began to study this I was a staunch 5 point Calvinist, highly educated in greek and very set in my system of belief. I debate TULIP with the best of them, converting many wayward Arminians who were trying to explain away very clear passages of divine election. It was only when I forced myself to defend this view scripturally that I saw it from a different perspective. Slowly, over many years, I became less sceptical of this viewpoint, but my destain for Arminianism was very difficult to overcome. My pride would not allow me to admit that I might be bringing false assumptions to the text, a practice that I was taught by both Arminians and Calvinists all my life.

The truth about scripture that I had to grasp is simply this: It aint always about me! Or, It aint always addressing my question! I had to come to terms with the fact that most of the scriptures were not written with me as the subject for consideration, I'm not always the center of attention. God and His plan of redemption is the central theme. The NT is informing us as to how God ushered in that plan of redemption and it never claims to be a modern day systematic theology book.

You may not believe me concerning this view of scripture, that's ok. But notice how the Calvinists on this board have not really come up with any good arguements that fully refute mine. That's unusual for Calvinists, don't you think? Why am I not getting hammered like the rest of the Arminians on this board? Maybe, just maybe, I'm right.

Or, maybe you all are just getting warmed up.

Bro. Bill

 

Brother Ray, I don't want to get into an arguement with you about who is "more educated" or who has spent more time in your so called "theological mill." The fact is, if either one of us was as smart as we think we are we would be out publishing our own commentaries or travelling around the world speaking in conferences about our beliefs instead of typing them on a internet message board, so let's stop kidding ourselves.

That said, let's discuss the issues instead discussing our level of education. How do you know how old I am, or how much education I have received? You don't, and you never will because I don't want to be guilty of belittling someone else's arguement because their level of education may not be as high as mine. So, let's move on.

Have you read through the arguements I have presented on this posts? What are your thoughts?

Bro. Bill

 

Your presimse is disregarding the Apostolic usage of "we"

Romans 8.22-23: "For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of the body."

Your question is: "What is the 'firstfruits of the Spirit?'

Your answer says that this firstfruits is a kind of special position the apostles were elected to and none since those in that office.

Yet in context of this scripture Paul does not make your distinction.</font>[/QUOTE]Are you saying that because Paul doesn't spell out what "firstfruits of the Spirit" are in this particular text that he must be referring to all of us? Dallas are you a "firstfruit"?

Your arguement about "we" sounds like Bill Clinton's response to the defination of "is". Paul is talking to firstfriuts and he says, "we". Who else would he be considering? Do you really believe that he was expecting his letter to the Romans to be canonized as scripture for all humanity to adopt as a doctrinal manuscript? Even if he did, don't you think he would expect his readers to understand that he was addressing a particular audience during a very special time in human history?

What is your defination of "firstfruits" if it is not a special position reserved for those who were first to know Christ and experience the indwelling of the Holy Spirit?

No, I never said that. Prayer is spoken of in reference to those who come to believe through the message of the apostles. You might want to read my previous post concerning this same arguement. Someone quotes the great commission in Matthew's gospel and I answer that arguement sufficently there.

I'm not sure I followed your arguement concerning John's epistle, but I think your trying to make the same arguement as you did above which is answered in a previous post as well.

How does people's overly literal interpretation of the scripture relate to my arguements?

And your wrong. when you say, "the interpretation of scripture is not left to you, nor to me, but rather it is left to scripture alone." Yes, scripture should assist us in interpreting other scripture, I think that is the point you're trying to make. But, it is still left to you and me to actually do the interpretation. Otherwise, we wouldn't be on this board all debating our differences of interpretation. This is why we have hermeneutics to assist us in proper biblical interpretation. Most Calvinists and Arminians alike fail to apply the most basic hermeneutical principle: KNOW THE AUDIENCE!

You're correct; anyone can make the scripture say whatever they want it to say. Like you; who is trying to make the scripture apply to all believers when all believers are not in focus of the passage. You are the ones trying to make scripture apply to people it is not addressing, not me. The burden is on you.

With Respect,
Bro. Bill

 

I won't speak for others, but I am not motivated to refute your opinions because that's all you've offered so far. I have seen you provide scriptures you interpret to be meant for so-and-so vs. so-and so. But I have yet to see you provide a single scripture that even infers that God made or planned a change in strategy. That's even weaker than the Arminian approach, which at least presents inference for its views -- unsupportable inference, perhaps, but inference even Calvinists can see. When you present a verse like, "In these days God chose apostles, but in the latter days it will be up to man to choose..." and then perhaps your view will be worth more than a shrug. </font>[/QUOTE]You never addressed my scripturally based arguement addressed to you posted February 04, 2003 06:21 PM.

Don't you see, that I'm Arminian when it comes to our salvation? So, you've just admitted that Calvinists can even see Arminian's inference in the scripture. It's that inference, of man's responsiblity, man's choice, man's faith in God that also supports my view, I have not expounded on it, because I was not addressing those issues that I'm sure you have heard before. I was addressing Calvinism's error in hermeneutics, which has gone unrefuted to this point.

In other words, I'm an "Arminian" who, to this point, has refuted your application of key Calvinistic support texts, which no one has really addressed.

The reason you "shrug" at such arguements is because you say I have yet to produce a passage that clearly lays out my claim that God saves people in different ways. My previous post does address this scripturally and you have ignored it.

Were you saved in the same manner as Paul?
Moses? Abraham? Jacob? Peter? Thomas?

Your answer is obviouly, yes, I was (But you might say the circumstances or experiences were different with me as it was with all of these men, Right? Ok, I'll admit the circumstances surrounding each of these men's salvation was very different, as your's was different)

But, there is one thing that is the same with all of these men. They were divinly selected for a unique purpose in salvation history. They were given unique gifts, abilities and missions to accomplish within God's divine plan. I guess you would say that you are as uniquely called out as were these divinely inspired men? You would say that you too were set apart from birth, like Paul, David or Jeremiah. How prideful to make that assumption, God doesn't treat all his people alike (which Calvinism has proven many times over). So, to insist that God saves you like he saved the Prophets and the apostles is a burden that you must prove, not a burden that I must disprove.

npetreley, you think you don't have to prove this burden because you've always believed it your way and you have many other's who believe like you. But, imagine if you grew up reading the Bible from my perspective and you joined a message board with dozens of people who agreed with this perpective as well. Then one person came on the board and said, "We are saved just like Paul was, by a divine sovereign call." Imagine the response, this idea would be new to everyone on the board, some might even ask, "What's this new doctrine called?" or, "Where is your biblical support for that?" or, "Where does the Bible say we are saved in the same way the Apostles were saved?" The burden would be on the new guy to prove that the text concerning divine election is applicable to all believers.

Imagine that you are that new guy and you have to prove that the scriptures concerning divine election are applicable to all future believers. Imagine that everyone else disagreed with you and viewed the text as I do. How whould you prove them wrong? That's all I'm asking for here, a fair burden of proof for both sides, I've presented several posts that have yet gone unanswered. I await your response.

With Respect,
Bro. Bill

 

I agree, my analysis of scripture does seem strong, doesn't it. And it does seem right unto man, but to assert that this passage is in reference to my being right isn't good hermeneutics. Again, I hate to keep calling you on this but you must ask, "What was the author addressing?" Do you really believe from the context that he was addressing my hermeneutical system? That's a stretch most Arminians wouldn't even try to make.

Well, thank you. It does sound sweet doesn't it.

Yes, this letter was written to Timothy. Does that mean that the principles set forth for Timothy's life are not applicable to our lives? No. I've never claimed that. Scripture is very profitable to us for teaching and correction. That in no way addresses my points. The apostles were taught practical "how to live" principles throughout the scripture, do they apply to us. Of course, because we have to live life too. But, to assume that the method by which God appoints them must be the same method by which He appoints us is not acceptable, I don't see how the two are linked.

You would just love it if I would just admit I'm not a believer in "inerrancy" wouldn't you? Then you could just dismiss my arguements as the ramblings of a liberal who doesn't believe the bible. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I believe my high view of scripture is more supported than yours. Afterall, you apparently believe that you are on the same level as the apostles since you were divinely appointed just as they were. The Bible is the apostolic record of God's complete revelation in Christ. But your view reduces the apostles to being "appointed" or "saved" in the same manner as every other common believer. My view supports the Apostolic Authority and therefore supports their writings as being authorative as well. How does your view support Apostolic Authority since the apostles are apparently "called" in the same way you were? And why aren't you still writing the bible, since you were divinely elected and all. Like Paul, you apparently were "set aside from birth" so you too must have apostolic authority, right?

Do you just not agree with my point, or do you not understand my point. Can you be more specific as to which point I need to clarify. Thanks.

Perfect verse. Notice that Christ separates to two different kinds of sheep. Those who come in during the Apostolic age and those that come in later. It doesn't specify as to the manner in which the sheep will come in, but we know from other texts that it will be through faith which come from the hearing of the word. (Rom. 10)

Another great verse. Notice his prayer for the apostles earlier in this chapter is different than his prayer for those who believe through their message. He refers to them as "being given to Him by the father" he does not say that about us. He does pray for us to be one with Him and the Father, which is done through faith in the message of those who have gone before us. These passages only support my view that God treats future believers differently than the apostles.

Yes, the apostles were sovereignly elected to their respective offices which is what gives their offices unique authority. If we were all sovereingly elected as were the apostles, what uniqueness would their election hold and what authority could they claim?

How does this "tie God's hands." If it is the plan He has chosen, it is perfect, even if you perceive it as limiting his Sovereignty. Did Jesus limit his sovereignty? Yes. Did God limit himself in his revelation to Moses on the mountain? Yes. God has a history of self limiting his intervention in order to accomplish his purposes within the course of human history. Does he allow all things, yes. Does that mean that he necessarily controls all things. I don't think so, Your view of Sovereignty seems like it ties God's hands forcing him to control and thus take responsibility for all the actions of his creation. God allowed for man to respond to Him and thus man are held responsible for those actions. Calvinism, when taken to this extreme, trys to force God to be "in control" over things he has given over to the control of other beings. Who does the Bible say rules over this world? Hint, it's not God. (Eph. 6:12) How can God be Sovereign with others ruling this dark world, unless he himself gives that control over to another?

Ironic that you say this being a Calvinist. It sound's like your not willing to accept the fact that God elects some and not others either, especially when the one he may not be electing is you. Its tough when the arguement is turned on you isn't it?

With Respect,
Bro. Bill

 

I see no scripturally based argument in that post. I see you quote some scripture, and then go off on an imaginary tour of why it might have something to do with your hypothesis. It does not even imply that your hypothesis is true.

Your imagination may satisfy you, and that's fine. But I was quite clear in what I consider to be a scriptural argument for your hypothesis. When you provide one that comes within a few light years of that description, I'll respond. </font>[/QUOTE]So, that's how your going to handle this arguement? Ignore it. The longer I support this view the more convinced I am that it is true because of responses like this.

My arguement is based upon your falsely applied hermeneutic, therefore their can't be a burden placed upon me to find scripture that supports my hermeneutical principle. The Bible is not a Systematic Theology that instucts us how it should properly be interpreted.

Let me place the same burden on you; you find in scripture where it says that all verses dealing with divine election should be applied to all believers. Arminians have been refuting that premise for years (usually by trying to reinterpret the text instead of properly apply them, which is their error) But, the refutation is still there. You "recognize" their arguments as being worthy of your debate, but not mine? It makes no sense! I agree that God elects some and not others. And I agree with most of your interpretations, but somehow my arguements are "less scripturally" supported than the other Arminians on this board? Please explain?

Divine election is unique to certain individuals. Even Calvinists believe that and apparently find support for it in the text of scripture. Right?

Who are you to say who those individuals are? No one and neither am I, we are merely believers in their message. We would both agree that you have to let the scripture (an Apostolic record) tell you who the "elect" are. Look at the scriptures, do they tell you who the elect are? Yes, his first disciples are clearly in view when these matters are in question. You are the one with the burden to prove a link to all future believers. Where is your scripture!

With Respect, but great frustration,
Bro. Bill