Does it or did it make any difference to you?

[DaveXR650]

What are the flaws in Calvinism? How is Arminianism not flawed?

Calvinism:
1. It's so hard to understand and so variable in it's own self description that most people won't get it.
2. So many of the issues discussed involve analysis of God's mind which we probably should avoid.
3. For 1500 years after Christ was on earth, most theologians, church fathers and creeds either didn't think of or didn't go there with all the rationalism and theoretical stuff.
4. The Puritans, who I feel were the main group to actually do Calvinism did not preach the TULIP. Most Calvinistic posters on this site would go nuts if they actually read some the the sermons Puritans actually preached.
5. There is good evidence that Calvin was not a Calvinist in the modern sense.
I could go on. But on the other hand I think it's superior to Arminianism as a system. I like it and I like the people who did it and I love the Puritans.
I also want to say that you asked so I answered. I'm not going to hijack this thread which I think is an important one. If you want to start another thread I'm OK with that. I don't mean to be tough on you and I don't mean you in particular but you can see from some other threads that there are a group of militant Calvinists on this site that I think frankly treat people badly and that should not be.

 

[Reynolds]

I was an Arminian even though it never made sense. Free Will? What role does it play in your brand of Arminianism? It still ends up in supposed self-salvation.

How could you have been an Arminian when you don't know what they actually believe?
Show me in Remonstrance Arminian doctrine where they believe in "self salvation".

 

[Reformed1689]

It seems that the sourest of the sour are on the C side.

Oh come on now. It is about equal.

 

[George Antonios]

It seems my whole life there has been controversy between folks who would be persuaded to either a Calvinist or Arminian view.

I come to this forum to post a simple question.

When you became a child of the King, did it make any real difference at that specific time concerning the theological perspective or were you busy rejoicing over what God had done?

When I read Luke 15:

I say to you that in the same way there will be joy in heaven over one sinner repenting, rather than over ninety nine righteous ones who have no need of repentance.​

I don’t see rejoicing in winning a battle over theological differences that important to get heaven’s reaction.

Don’t take this to mean that theological discussions don’t need to occur, nor that separation from those not holding the Scriptures as the final authority in all matters concerning faith and practices should not occur.

What I am referring to is the distractions may actually be more useful to the antiChrist than to the Christ.

I read John’s final recording of the final statements of the Christ to believers:

10And he says to me, “Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book; for the time is near. 11The one being unrighteous, let him be unrighteous still; and he who is filthy, let him be filthy still; and he who is righteous, let him practice righteousness still; and he who is holy, let him be holy still.”

12“Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to each as is his work. 13I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.”

14Blessed are those washing their robes, that their right will be to the tree of life, and they shall enter into the city by the gates. 15Outside are the dogs, and the sorcerers, and the sexually immoral, and the murderers, and the idolaters, and everyone loving and practicing falsehood.

16“I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to all of you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright morning star.”

17And the Spirit and the bride say, “Come!”

And the hearing, let him say, “Come!”

And the thirsting let him come;

the desiring, let him take freely the water of life.​

Serve the Lord, the night time is near when no man can work.

You do realize that if Calvinism is true, your whole post is utterly irrelevant, right?

 

[George Antonios]

"you must choose to believe" = self-salvation.

A philosophical argument, not a scriptural one. Otherwise, prove with a verse that free will faith = self-salvation. Go ahead.

 

[1689Dave]

Calvinism:
1. It's so hard to understand and so variable in it's own self description that most people won't get it.
2. So many of the issues discussed involve analysis of God's mind which we probably should avoid.
3. For 1500 years after Christ was on earth, most theologians, church fathers and creeds either didn't think of or didn't go there with all the rationalism and theoretical stuff.
4. The Puritans, who I feel were the main group to actually do Calvinism did not preach the TULIP. Most Calvinistic posters on this site would go nuts if they actually read some the the sermons Puritans actually preached.
5. There is good evidence that Calvin was not a Calvinist in the modern sense.
I could go on. But on the other hand I think it's superior to Arminianism as a system. I like it and I like the people who did it and I love the Puritans.
I also want to say that you asked so I answered. I'm not going to hijack this thread which I think is an important one. If you want to start another thread I'm OK with that. I don't mean to be tough on you and I don't mean you in particular but you can see from some other threads that there are a group of militant Calvinists on this site that I think frankly treat people badly and that should not be.

Personally, I believe Calvin was wrong for the most part. Also Arminius. But I know from experience the first 3 points of the 5 points of Calvinism stated by the Synod of Dort are flawless.

 

[1689Dave]

How could you have been an Arminian when you don't know what they actually believe?
Show me in Remonstrance Arminian doctrine where they believe in "self salvation".

Free will = self-salvation. It turns the gospel into law. And grace into works. You must choose to save yourself through obedience. You cannot believe God saved you if you believe you can be lost. (The popular form of Arminianism).

 

[1689Dave]

How could you have been an Arminian when you don't know what they actually believe?
Show me in Remonstrance Arminian doctrine where they believe in "self salvation".

Five Points of Arminianism

Five Points of Arminianism

The five points of Arminianism (from Jacobus Arminius 1559-1609) are in contrast to the five points of Calvinism. The Arminian five points are

Human Free Will – This states that though man is fallen, he is not incapacitated by the sinful nature and can freely choose God. His will is not restricted and enslaved by his sinful nature.

Conditional Election – God chose people for salvation based on His foreknowledge where God looks into the future to see who would respond to the gospel message.

Universal Atonement – The position that Jesus bore the sin of everyone who ever lived.

Resistible Grace – The teaching that the grace of God can be resisted and finally beaten so as to reject salvation in Christ.

Fall from Grace – The Teaching that a person can fall from grace and lose his salvation.

how is this not salvation by works?

 

[Reynolds]

Five Points of Arminianism

Five Points of Arminianism

The five points of Arminianism (from Jacobus Arminius 1559-1609) are in contrast to the five points of Calvinism. The Arminian five points are

Human Free Will – This states that though man is fallen, he is not incapacitated by the sinful nature and can freely choose God. His will is not restricted and enslaved by his sinful nature.

Conditional Election – God chose people for salvation based on His foreknowledge where God looks into the future to see who would respond to the gospel message.

Universal Atonement – The position that Jesus bore the sin of everyone who ever lived.

Resistible Grace – The teaching that the grace of God can be resisted and finally beaten so as to reject salvation in Christ.

Fall from Grace – The Teaching that a person can fall from grace and lose his salvation.

how is this not salvation by works?

I don't know where you get your information, but that is not an accurate rendering of the 5 articles. It seems to be the modern Pentecostal form of Arminianism, but not at all true to the Classical, true doctrine.

Might want to read the articles and not an incorrect summary.

Arminianism is not works unless you believe Romans 10: 9-10 is a works based salvation. If you believe that it is, you are simply wrong.

 

[DaveXR650]

I think that a systematic theology is not necessary for an average believer. That's why we all know good Christians who would be considered ignorant of these debates. Jesus says "my sheep hear my voice" and "he that comes to me I will no wise cast out". The sheep don't have to know why they came, whether God had two wills, or what the true meaning of free will is, or whether they were born again before or after they believe, or whether they had been chosen from eternity. Upon hearing the word, usually by preaching, they realized their situation and came to Christ in faith. That better be how we all came.

 

[1689Dave]

I don't know where you get your information, but that is not an accurate rendering of the 5 articles. It seems to be the modern Pentecostal form of Arminianism, but not at all true to the Classical, true doctrine.

Might want to read the articles and not an incorrect summary.

Arminianism is not works unless you believe Romans 10: 9-10 is a works based salvation. If you believe that it is, you are simply wrong.

Please correct them with documentation. This is what many different Christian Theologians determine them to be. Do you have any accredited degrees in Theology? Any non-correspondence course training?

 

[1689Dave]

I don't know where you get your information, but that is not an accurate rendering of the 5 articles. It seems to be the modern Pentecostal form of Arminianism, but not at all true to the Classical, true doctrine.

Might want to read the articles and not an incorrect summary.

Arminianism is not works unless you believe Romans 10: 9-10 is a works based salvation. If you believe that it is, you are simply wrong.

Do you think any of the lost former Jews did not choose to believe in the idols they called by God's name?

 

[AustinC]

A philosophical argument, not a scriptural one. Otherwise, prove with a verse that free will faith = self-salvation. Go ahead.

Where is free will salvation in scripture again?

Calvinism:
1. It's so hard to understand and so variable in it's own self description that most people won't get it.
2. So many of the issues discussed involve analysis of God's mind which we probably should avoid.
3. For 1500 years after Christ was on earth, most theologians, church fathers and creeds either didn't think of or didn't go there with all the rationalism and theoretical stuff.
4. The Puritans, who I feel were the main group to actually do Calvinism did not preach the TULIP. Most Calvinistic posters on this site would go nuts if they actually read some the the sermons Puritans actually preached.
5. There is good evidence that Calvin was not a Calvinist in the modern sense.
I could go on. But on the other hand I think it's superior to Arminianism as a system. I like it and I like the people who did it and I love the Puritans.
I also want to say that you asked so I answered. I'm not going to hijack this thread which I think is an important one. If you want to start another thread I'm OK with that. I don't mean to be tough on you and I don't mean you in particular but you can see from some other threads that there are a group of militant Calvinists on this site that I think frankly treat people badly and that should not be.

I disagree with your first point.
TULIP is not difficult to understand. However, to see it in scripture means you are no longer an exclusive milk drinker. It means you have taken the time to observe many passages in both the Old and New Testament and you have observed the big picture of God's plan and purpose.

Often, new believers are pointed to favorite sentences (verses) by well meaning Christians, without looking at the bigger passage and context. They are pointed toward a man-centered view of the Bible. If they go no further and don't dig in to the whole of scripture, they will never see more. They will be stuck with pet verses they take out of context in ignorance. They will be like the people addressed in Hebrews.
Hebrews 5:11-14
There is much more we would like to say about this, but it is difficult to explain, especially since you are spiritually dull and don’t seem to listen. You have been believers so long now that you ought to be teaching others. Instead, you need someone to teach you again the basic things about God’s word. You are like babies who need milk and cannot eat solid food. For someone who lives on milk is still an infant and doesn’t know how to do what is right. Solid food is for those who are mature, who through training have the skill to recognize the difference between right and wrong.

 

[1689Dave]

I don't know where you get your information, but that is not an accurate rendering of the 5 articles. It seems to be the modern Pentecostal form of Arminianism, but not at all true to the Classical, true doctrine.

Might want to read the articles and not an incorrect summary.

Arminianism is not works unless you believe Romans 10: 9-10 is a works based salvation. If you believe that it is, you are simply wrong.

The "Five Points" of Arminianism Synod of Dort.

1. Free Will or Human Ability

Although human nature was seriously affected by the fall, man has not been left in a state of total spiritual helplessness. God graciously enables every sinner to repent and believe, but He does not interfere with man's freedom. Each sinner possesses a free will, and his eternal destiny depends on how he uses it. Man's freedom consists of his ability to choose good over evil in spiritual matters; his will is not enslaved to his sinful nature. The sinner has the power to either cooperate with God's Spirit and be regenerated or resist God's grace and perish. The lost sinner needs the Spirit's assistance, but he does not have to be regenerated by the Spirit before he can believe, for faith is man's act and precedes the new birth. Faith is the sinner's gift to God; it is man's contribution to salvation.


2. Conditional Election

God's choice of certain individuals unto salvation before the foundation of the world was based upon His foreseeing that they would respond to His call. He selected only those whom He knew would of themselves freely believe the gospel. Election therefore was determined by or conditioned upon what man would do. The faith which God foresaw and upon which He based His choice was not given to the sinner by God (it was not created by the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit) but resulted solely from man's will. It was left entirely up to man as to who would believe and therefore as to who would be elected unto salvation. God chose those whom He knew would, of their own free will, choose Christ. Thus the sinner's choice of Christ, not God's choice of the sinner, is the ultimate cause of salvation.


3. Universal Redemption or General Atonement

Christ's redeeming work made it possible for everyone to be saved but did not actually secure the salvation of anyone. Although Christ died for all men and for every man, only those who believe on Him are saved. His death enabled God to pardon sinners on the condition that they believe, but it did not actually put away anyone's sins. Christ's redemption becomes effective only if man chooses to accept it.


4. The Holy Spirit Can be Effectually Resisted

The Spirit calls inwardly all those who are called outwardly by the gospel invitation; He does all that He can to bring every sinner to salvation. But inasmuch as man is free, he can successfully resist the Spirit's call. The Spirit cannot regenerate the sinner until he believes; faith (which is man's contribution) precedes and makes possible the new birth. Thus, man's free will limits the Spirit in the application of Christ's saving work. The Holy Spirit can only draw to Christ those who allow Him to have His way with them. Until the sinner responds, the Spirit cannot give life. God's grace, therefore, is not invincible; it can be, and often is, resisted and thwarted by man.


5. Falling from Grace

Those who believe and are truly saved can lose their salvation by failing to keep up their faith, etc. All Arminians have not been agreed on this point; some have held that believers are eternally secure in Christ--that once a sinner is regenerated, he can never be lost.


REJECTED

by the Synod of Dort

This was the system of thought contained in the "Remonstrance" (though the "five points" were not originally arranged in this order). It was submitted by the Arminians to the Church of Holland in 1610 for adoption but was rejected by the Synod of Dort in 1619 on the ground that it was unscriptural.

Calvinism and Arminianism comparison

 

[DaveXR650]

I disagree with your first point.
TULIP is not difficult to understand. However, to see it in scripture means you are no longer an exclusive milk drinker.

It's perfectly OK and I'm glad you understand it. But seriously, after the threads on this forum and the heated debate that goes on and the talking right past each other - you really can't see my point?

Also, I strongly disagree when you equate moving on from the basics to going into the philosophical details of Calvinism.

 

[DaveXR650]

Free will = self-salvation. It turns the gospel into law. And grace into works. You must choose to save yourself through obedience. You cannot believe God saved you if you believe you can be lost.

Where is free will salvation in scripture again?

This is a perfect example of the difficulties of Calvinism. The average Baptist will say free will is that I heard the gospel, realized my situation before God and I chose on my own free will to come to Christ. Most of the Calvinists would jump on that immediately as a heresy. The problem is - that's exactly what Jonathan Edwards would say free will is - doing what you most wanted to do at that moment. But of course Edwards over the next 55 pages, using Latin, Greek and references to classic literature would explain how our will though free, is not autonomous, and it has been so damaged by the Fall that we will never come to Christ without an operation of the Holy Spirit on our will - or that we are given a new will. I agree with this, at least to the point I understand it but by golly, don't tell me this is not difficult and complicated.

Now Dave, what you said about the dangers of salvation by obedience was a concern the Reformers had about Arminianism . But the Calvinists got into a big argument also in that some of them believed that sanctification was so closely tied to justification that good works were totally necessary for salvation or at least assurance of salvation. Others insisted that saving faith itself had within it assurance of salvation. Once again there's a lot going on here so I might say it's complicated.

 

[1689Dave]

This is a perfect example of the difficulties of Calvinism. The average Baptist will say free will is that I heard the gospel, realized my situation before God and I chose on my own free will to come to Christ. Most of the Calvinists would jump on that immediately as a heresy. The problem is - that's exactly what Jonathan Edwards would say free will is - doing what you most wanted to do at that moment. But of course Edwards over the next 55 pages, using Latin, Greek and references to classic literature would explain how our will though free, is not autonomous, and it has been so damaged by the Fall that we will never come to Christ without an operation of the Holy Spirit on our will - or that we are given a new will. I agree with this, at least to the point I understand it but by golly, don't tell me this is not difficult and complicated.

Now Dave, what you said about the dangers of salvation by obedience was a concern the Reformers had about Arminianism . But the Calvinists got into a big argument also in that some of them believed that sanctification was so closely tied to justification that good works were totally necessary for salvation or at least assurance of salvation. Others insisted that saving faith itself had within it assurance of salvation. Once again there's a lot going on here so I might say it's complicated.

As I said, I think Calvin was mostly wrong, even in what we call the five points of Calvinism. But the Synod of Dort, correcting Calvin on the atonement, was right in the first three points.

 

[Reynolds]

Please correct them with documentation. This is what many different Christian Theologians determine them to be. Do you have any accredited degrees in Theology? Any non-correspondence course training?

Why don't you just look up the actual translated articles?
Why you go to a summation of them. You don't have a copy?

 

[Reynolds]

Five Points of Arminianism

Five Points of Arminianism

The five points of Arminianism (from Jacobus Arminius 1559-1609) are in contrast to the five points of Calvinism. The Arminian five points are

Human Free Will – This states that though man is fallen, he is not incapacitated by the sinful nature and can freely choose God. His will is not restricted and enslaved by his sinful nature.

Conditional Election – God chose people for salvation based on His foreknowledge where God looks into the future to see who would respond to the gospel message.

Universal Atonement – The position that Jesus bore the sin of everyone who ever lived.

Resistible Grace – The teaching that the grace of God can be resisted and finally beaten so as to reject salvation in Christ.

Fall from Grace – The Teaching that a person can fall from grace and lose his salvation.

how is this not salvation by works?

That is a modern summary of what he believes the articles say. Have you read the Articles?

 

[1689Dave]

Why don't you just look up the actual translated articles?
Why you go to a summation of them. You don't have a copy?

It's your dog in the fight, not mine. I already gave two different scholarly articles defining Arminianism. And I'd bet there are dozens more saying about the same thing. Free-will alone defeats your claims. It means people save themselves.