• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Calvinist and Arminiam Debate

Calvinist vs Arminiam Debate

  • Should there be C/A Debates?

    Votes: 21 72.4%
  • Should we just pass the C/A Debate by?

    Votes: 8 27.6%

  • Total voters
    29

saturneptune

New Member
James,
Great post. Calvinist doctrine is absoulety 100% for missions. Matt 28:19 is quite clear. How any credible doctrine could exclude missions is beyond not Scriptural.

The question comes to mind, why would anyone send out missionaries for a purpose other than sharing the Gospel with the lost? If they already know the Gospel, what on earth are you doing when there are lost people next door? It is our job to share the Gospel, their reaction to it is a work of the Holy Spirit. And if as said above in another post, missionaries are sent out to tell the Gospel "already known to God" but maybe not them yet, it would be really interesting to know how one would know who is "already known to God" so no mistakes are made.

We wonder sometimes why there are so many denominations today from the one church that started in Acts. This is a great example. Lets make a church based on excluding Matt 28:19 and Matt 5:32. Or lets make one based on no musical instruments. Or baptism to be saved. On and on it goes.
 

Brother Bob

New Member
I had nothing to do with my salvation except obeying the Holy Spirit and getting to the altar
I guess it must not be known that the Arminiams believe we too must follow the Holy Spirit but we believe the Holy Spirit is striving with all to repent.
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
pinoybaptist said:
John, I suppose you were referring to me. Things I'd like to correct with you and with some, and I am not being confrontational here, just correcting.
I am not a Calvinist.
Thanks for your input and explanation.
That is why we are perceived as anti-missions, because we do not send out missionaries according to the purpose of missions as defined by missionary societies or other Baptist or Episcopalian or whatever churches, and that is to save souls in the eternal sense.
I did not come out here to save souls, but to be God's tool to save souls. And it is amazing that where there are missionaries who proclaim the Gospel, God elects souls--and the countries which do not have missionaries are still heathen!
We believe in evangelism, and we believe that God still separates and calls out men to do such in foreign lands, but the purpose is to preach a gospel as good news of a finished salvation done by a successful savior, to a people already known to God and separated for the purpose of starting a church in that locale, and if one is separated by God as preacher and called to do this, then one is to go immediately not waiting till he gets a diploma, not waiting till he gets a Ph.D., or a Th.D., not making the rounds of churches to get support and pledges of support, but immediately. Else the Bible is not true when it said, "my God shall supply all your need according to the riches of his glory by Christ Jesus".
So where are the Primitive Baptist missionaries in Japan? This is a serious question, I'm not mocking or anything. I've never met nor heard of a Primitive Baptist missionary.
As for you and me, John, I made a mistake on the fellowship forum, and it will not happen again.
I appreciate this. And I appreciate that you did stick around and fellowship for awhile on the missions/evangelism thread. You know where to find me anytime!:wavey:

If I am among those "Calvinists", or am the "Calvinist" who have insulted your grandfather, pm me what I said, and I will be man enough to make a public admission and apology here on this board.
To my knowledge you have never insulted my grandfather, John R. Rice. If you did, you and me would find a dojo somewhere and do some kumite to work it out, you old karateka. :smilewinkgrin:
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jarthur001 said:
Hello John of Japan,

I’m not here to say my dog is better then your dog. I said I thought it was funny that in the c/a debates I have been in, for the most part both sides agree on missions, thought the Arminian starts out saying the Calvinist do not care for missions. And what makes this board strange is we have Arminian’s giving reasons not to go to the mission field. This I have never seen before till now. However, for the most part I would say Arminianism holds to missions but so do most Calvinist churches.
Thanks for the clarification.

As to the missions threads. I can only speak for myself, but it would be wrong for you to think I have never been on that thread. I go there weekly. It is not a debate thread, and some have tried to start debates there and was stopped from doing so. My post there are fewer, but this does not mean I do not agree with most of the post. Still, I have been there posting a few times. My post here on this thread was addressing the c/a debates as the OP had asked. In the c/a debates is where you find Arminian saying there is no need to go.
I'm glad to know this. I'll keep an eye out for you on the missions/evangelism forum. You know where to find me!

You have shared you grandfathers story. You have no idea about my family, but please let me share. My father planted 3 churches. Each church was a heavy mission minded. They never grow too much in size, for the young would leave to go to the field. One of those churches we were told by a few Baptist board, was in the top 5 churches in mission giving in the nation. This church was about 230-250 in size. But there was good reason for this. We had 3 pastors and none of them took money from the church. The church building was paid for and given to the church. We just paid the power bill and the rest went to missions. The church and many of its members would get audited every other year, for the giving was much higher then national levels. My dad was called in to the IRS many times to prove he gave that much. He preached in the church, held Bible studies each day to around 20 men at lunch, were he worked. He also had services at nursing homes each week.

Ever church I have been a member to, was big on missions. I went to a church for 25 years that had a Christian school of 250 kids and membership around 800. The giving to missions was higher then local giving. The church I go to now ordained 8 new young men in the last 12 mouths. Half will be pastors and the others are evangelists or missionaries. There were 2 other young men that were ordained this year they grow up in the church, but they had their ordination at other churches. The church I now go to also supports nearly 30 missionaries. This is a small 300-400 member church. Again they keep leaving to “go tell” the good news. My pastor’s calling is to raise young men to Go OUT!!

I would never be a member at church that had not a heart for missions. My girls go each summer to the field. Sometimes it is in the states, other times it is across the sea. Sometimes it is for 2 weeks and other times it was almost 3 months. 40% of the kids that grow up with my girls are now on the mission field.

Now, you may have a bigger better dog to show then I and that would be good. Its not to say I have a better record then you. I know I could do more myself. I have been, and my heart burns now to go. Maybe someday I will. But let it be known Calvinist are very mission-minded they only address it in other ways then you.
Wonderful story! Thanks for sharing it.

I don't see how anyone could claim to truly follow Jesus and be His disciple, Calvinist or Arminian or whatever in between, without obeying His commands to the "11 disciples" (Matthew's Great Commission), "the eleven" (Mark), the eleven and those who were gathered with them (therefore, the church in Luke), "the disciples" (John) and the apostles (Acts).
 

pinoybaptist

Active Member
Site Supporter
JohnofJapan said:
............And it is amazing that where there are missionaries who proclaim the Gospel, God elects souls--and the countries which do not have missionaries are still heathen!

Well, no, it is not that God elects souls because there are missionaries in a given place. Whether or not there are missionaries in any given place at any given chronological period, God has elected certain souls unto salvation, and saved those souls in Christ, and will regenerate them by His Spirit with or without the gospel being preached to them.
Gospel instruction as to kingdom living here in time, though, as well as doctrines, is what preaching and teaching is all about and is what Paul meant, when he wrote Romans 10:14-15.

But, let's save discussing those if and when they open the C/A board again.

Until then, we can probably start a thread here or there in the debate forums.
 

2BHizown

New Member
God sent Paul into a place at one point with the statement, because "I have many people in that city", indicating the urgent need for evangelization of them. God knows them that are His and allows us to be HIs voice and share in passing on the good news to them!
 

bound

New Member
DeaconDean said:
I voted no. For one thing, the majority of Christians who hold to Arminianism are Methodists, based on the teachings of John Wesly. Although I understand that some Baptists hold to this doctrine. As one who is a Calvinist to some measure, I do not debate or force people to hold to my viewpoint. As a member for one year on the CF, with over 1500 posts, I get tired of showing people that I have nothing to do with my salvation as does Arminianism.

Grace and Peace DeaconDean and to everyone else,

If you don't mind allow me to address a few points to your post. I believe you and others have some preconienved assumptions about me and my points regardless if they are Classic Arminian or not.

As I have pointed out in my views on this whole matter I don't suggest that man saves himself (palgarianism). I've never said that; please read any of my posts and I'll be happy to stand on anything that I've said.

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: - Ephesians 2:8

I nor anyone who has argued suggest that we are saved by merit or through the Law but 'by Grace through Faith', period. My belief is that Calvinist Theology has a very different view of exactly what the second half of this two part recipe is. My guess is that we both would agree on what Grace is (i.e. God's unmerited favor) but I believe we each share a different view of exactly what 'faith' means in this verse and what role we play in it.

I can appreciate Calvinism for it's attempt to insure that salvation remain ultimately a work of God and not a work of man 'least any man should boast' but it is my belief that Calvinist reduction of the salvific work to remove 'wholly' man's response to Grace is in error. Good intention but ultimately the wrong outcome. By removing 'wholly' man's response to God's Grace Calvinism has removed man's responsibility for his condition (that being sinful).

The way I read the Bible it tells me that:

"And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:"-John 16:8

If Creation is ultimately all determined by God then who ultimately is He judging, Himself? If we make a dump-truck can we blame it for being a dump-truck? This is where I have trouble understanding Calvinist Theology.

From my perspective Calvinist's want salvation to be the sole act of God and yet demand that damnation be the fault of man who they argue is ultimately without self-determination of the fact. If as Calvinist's argue that God saves and damns without any participation by man He is arbitary and not the source of good at all unless you define good by God's whim and not by God's nature which is immutable and thus consistant.

I had nothing to do with my salvation except obeying the Holy Spirit and getting to the altar.

Are you suggesting that obeying is not a response? I and others have not suggested anything else but that man responses to Grace.

Yes I believe man is utterly depraved to such an extent that he in and of himself, could not come to God without the Holy Spirit.

And I and others wholly agree with you on this point.


I know that we are:

"But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day;" -Heb. 13:3

This does not exhort the body, this divides it.

Till all are one.

Doesn't a exhortation assume the ability to make a choice? What is the purpose if all is determined?

Great post and I look forward to your participation.

Peace and God Bless.
 

J.D.

Active Member
Site Supporter
I visited a Reformed Baptist Church yesterday. They support several missionaries and the pastor's son is leaving for Africa this morning. No shortage of missionary zeal there.

Debate is good. Without debate,we would not have the reformation. Ever heard of the "95 thesis" of Martin Luther? What was he doing? He was inviting debate. The "Diatribe" of Erasmus gave birth to "The Bondage of the Will" by Luther, one of the great works in church history. How about the Canons of Dordt? A product of debate. Bunyan's life was a life of debate against the edictorial Church of England.

I know some folks that refuse to get bogged down in debate but not because they are opposed to debating - they just have a other things to do that God has called them to.

I wonder the author that spoke against debating was really saying that we shouldn't waste our time debating with someone that has their mind made up. If that's the case, then I agree. I could name a number of people in my life (not even counting BB members) that I will not speak to about doctrine for that very reason. I'll be more than glad to if they have questions and display a willingness to think about what I'm saying, but if they just want to argue, forget it.

PUBLIC debate, such as internet forums like BB, is a different story. The endless merry-go-round between C and A may seem fruitless, but we look to present our arguments in a way that will hopefully convince someone that is looking on, that haven't closed their minds.

Debate also helps us individually to sharpen our language and biblical skills. And most importantly, it challenges us to think and re-think our positions, to be sure that we really believe what we say we believe, and that that belief is grounded in the truth of scripture.
 

DeaconDean

New Member
bound said:
If Creation is ultimately all determined by God then who ultimately is He judging, Himself? If we make a dump-truck can we blame it for being a dump-truck? This is where I have trouble understanding Calvinist Theology.

From my perspective Calvinist's want salvation to be the sole act of God and yet demand that damnation be the fault of man who they argue is ultimately without self-determination of the fact. If as Calvinist's argue that God saves and damns without any participation by man He is arbitary and not the source of good at all unless you define good by God's whim and not by God's nature which is immutable and thus consistant.


Doesn't a exhortation assume the ability to make a choice? What is the purpose if all is determined?

Great post and I look forward to your participation.

Peace and God Bless.

Let me give this quote:

""you [Arminians] ... say that the Augustinian tradition subordinates the love of God to the will of God ... But this is not what distinguishes the Augustinian tradition from the Arminian tradition. The distinction is between intensive and extensive love, between an intensive love that saves its loved ones, and an extensive love that loves everyone in general and saves no one in particular.

Or if you really wish to cast this in terms of willpower, it's the distinction between divine willpower and human willpower. Or, to put the two together, does God will the salvation of everyone with a weak-willed, ineffectual love, or does God love his loved ones with a resolute will that gets the job done?

The God of Calvin is the good shepherd, who names and numbers his sheep, who saves the lost sheep and fends off the wolf. The God of Wesley is the hireling, who knows not the flock by name and number, who lets the sheep go astray and be eaten by the wolf. Which is more loving, I ask?"
- Steve Hays

Charles Spurgeon said:

"What the Arminian wants to do is to arouse man's activity: what we want to do is to kill it once for all---to show him that he is lost and ruined, and that his activities are not now at all equal to the work of conversion; that he must look upward. They seek to make the man stand up: we seek to bring him down, and make him feel that there he lies in the hand of God, and that his business is to submit himself to God, and cry aloud, 'Lord, save, or we perish.' We hold that man is never so near grace as when he begins to feel he can do nothing at all. When he says, 'I can pray, I can believe, I can do this, and I can do the other,' marks of self-sufficiency and arrogance are on his brow."

Calvinism depends wholey on the working of God. While Arminianism preaches man working in co-operation with God. That is why I reject Arminianism.

Questions that must be answered biblically by all Arminians:
What makes you to differ from others? Grace or faith? If your neighbor was given the same grace as you prior to faith, why do you believe in Christ, while your unbelieving neighbor does not? How did your hostility to Christ turn to love for Him? Is this something you were innately gifted with (but not your neighbor?) Is it grace that makes you to differ from other men or your free will? If by grace then why don't all men have the same response? As a natural man were you more spiritually sensitive, wise or did you naturually generate affection for Christ? Did you disarm your own hostility to Christ? Was the humility itself needed to submit to the humbling terms of the gospel, from grace or from your autonomous free will? Does God love you because of your obedience to His command to believe? Does not that make the love of God conditional, in the Arminian scheme? Can you thank God for your faith? Or is this the one thing you can thank yourself for?

Everybody I talk to rejects the God of Calvin because they think all actions, even the sinfull ones are "predetermined" or "predestinated" by God. No man can act outside of what God has predestinated for them. They reject Calvinism because we preach "predestination" as stated in Eph. 1:5. Yes God did predestinate me to be one of His before the founding of the world. They reject Calvinism because they say it limits "free-will" which Arminianism stands for. I say, they are wrong. Predestination does not limit "free-will." What if one who is "predestinated" to be one of the "elect," lives a lifetime of sin. And upon his death bed he/she comes to the realization that they are going to die without Jesus and spend an eternity in hell. So they accept Jesus Christ as their personal Savior just before they die. Does that work against predestination and free-will? No it does not. Predestination simply says that we were chosen to be His before the world was founded, it never says when we are to come to Him. Predestination does not counter "free-will."

"Oh!" saith the Arminian, "men may be saved if they will." We reply, "My dear sir, we all believe that; but it is just the "if they will" that is the difficulty. We assert that no man will come to Christ unless he be drawn; nay, we do not assert it, but Christ himself declares it--"Ye will not come unto me that ye might have life;' and as long as that "ye will not come' stands on record in Holy Scripture, we shall not be brought to believe in any doctrine of the freedom of the human will." It is strange how people, when talking about free-will, talk of things which they do not at all understand. "Now," says one, "I believe men can be saved if they will." My dear sir, that is not the question at all. The question is, are men ever found naturally willing to submit to the humbling terms of the gospel of Christ? We declare, upon Scriptural authority, that the human will is so desperately set on mischief, so depraved, and so inclined to everything that is evil, and so disinclined to everything that is good, that without the powerful. supernatural, irresistible influence of the Holy Spirit, no human will ever be constrained towards Christ. You reply, that men sometimes are willing, without the help of the Holy Spirit. I answer--Did you ever meet with any person who was?... "

- C.H. Spurgeon (Human Inability)

I question whether we have preached the whole counsel of God, unless predestination with all its solemnity and sureness be continually declared.

- C.H. Spurgeon (Sermons, Vol. 6, p. 26)


That and so much more is why I reject Arminianism.

Till all are one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Brother Bob

New Member
Questions that must be answered biblically by all Arminians:
What makes you to differ from others? Grace or faith? If your neighbor was given the same grace as you prior to faith, why do you believe in Christ, while your unbelieving neighbor does not? How did your hostility to Christ turn to love for Him?
We are like Mary and chose the "good" part that shall never be taken away.
They reject Calvinism because they say it limits "free-will" which Arminianism stands for. I say, they are wrong. Predestination does not limit "free-will."
You say Predestination does not limit free-will. You believe that God changes your heart so you will believe but refuses to change the next man's heart so he can believe and this is all done before the foundation of the world. According to your belief it is not predestination that limits but God Himself and your God is not just, fair or Loves the whole world and all His creation. Free-will, as you call us, believe that God give us all a chance to be saved. No wonder the Calvinists numbers are dropping. You believe you are something special and above all the rest of God's creation when He created us all the same and gave us all the same choice to choose as Mary did, good over evil.
 

Marcia

Active Member
First time I've seen the answers to poll questions as questions! :rolleyes:

We used to have a C-A debate thread where all the C-A debates could rage away from us innocent people! I wish they would bring that thread back -- please! :praying: It would help to keep them out of our hair on other threads.
 

npetreley

New Member
I really wish we could put the whole Calvinism/mission/evangelism issue to rest once and for all. There may be some hyper-Calvinists out there who don't believe in evangelizing, but they're disobeying the commands in the Bible. I personally have never come across a reformed church (even reformed Presbyterian) that didn't have a great concern for evangelism and missions.



 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Marcia said:
First time I've seen the answers to poll questions as questions! :rolleyes:

We used to have a C-A debate thread where all the C-A debates could rage away from us innocent people! I wish they would bring that thread back -- please! :praying: It would help to keep them out of our hair on other threads.
You have my vote on this, Marcia!
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
npetreley said:
I really wish we could put the whole Calvinism/mission/evangelism issue to rest once and for all. There may be some hyper-Calvinists out there who don't believe in evangelizing, but they're disobeying the commands in the Bible. I personally have never come across a reformed church (even reformed Presbyterian) that didn't have a great concern for evangelism and missions.​
Npetreley, on the BB, some of the Calvinists attack any kind of evangelism that doesn't fit their own pattern, often using loaded terms such as "decisional regeneration" and "salvation by a prayer." (I know you don't do this.) I was once attacked this way, and it wasn't even a C/A thread. The attack was full of misconceptions about how I do evangelism, which could have been avoided if the poster had just asked instead of telling me what I do! This approach by BB Calvinists simply perpetuates the stereotype! :type:
 

PrmtvBptst1832

Active Member
Site Supporter
Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you to earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. -Jude 1:3.

If what we sometimes refer to as the "Doctrines of Grace" were delivered unto the saints, and I believe they were, then they should be contended for. Some doctrines cause contention and debate, but we should expect the truth to have that effect.
 
Top