God does not require his people to choose between calvinism and arminianism

[Revmitchell]

I am convinced that John Calvin has caused great and unnecessary divisions among God’s people because of dogmatizing his philosophizing about God’s sovereignty and election. If men were left simply to believe the Bible’s own statements on these matters and if men were not forced to decide between the man-made theologies called “Calvinism” and “Arminianism,” the Christian world would be much better off and many artificial and unnecessary divisions would not have resulted.

The Bible says “prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:21). The Bible itself is the test of truth, not some man’s systematic theology. I have the right and responsibility to test every theology by the Bible, and I am free before the Lord to reject any part of it or all of it. I do not have to make a choice between human theologies. I can stand strictly and exclusively upon the Bible itself, the SOLE authority for faith and practice. Many Calvinists won’t allow that, though. James White, author of “The Truth about the King James Bible Controversy” and “The Potter’s Freedom” and several other books, wrote to me in about the year 1999 and challenged me to a public debate. He urged me to “defend Arminianism.” That is a strange notion, because I don’t follow Arminianism and I don’t care anything about Arminianism. I have studied the theology of James Arminius some and I find errors in it just as I have found errors in John Calvin’s theology. Though I do believe that Arminius was closer to the truth than Calvin, this does not mean that I have any intention to “defend Arminianism.” White has the idea that is so typical among Calvinists that if a man is not a Calvinist, he is surely an Arminian.

This idea actually began with Calvin. He treated those who disagreed with his position on election as enemies of God and the gospel and would not admit that men can reject Calvinism and still believe God’s Word! From the time that I was saved by God’s marvelous and free grace 32 years ago until this very day, I have wanted to understand the will of and to be a faithful servant of Jesus Christ through God’s preserved Word, the Scriptures. As best as I know how, I have made that my sole authority. I enjoy systematic theology; I have taught a course in Bible doctrine in a new Bible college that helped establish in South Asia and have published a book on Bible Doctrine or Theology, but I test all of the various theologies with the Scriptures alone, and I have never agreed completely with any man’s systematic theology.

I praise God that I am not under any divine obligation to follow either Calvinism or Arminianism.


http://www.wayoflife.org/index_files/0aa9ca178de0e532c4443d0bdfdec3e5-905.html

 

[CHS]

Agree with you

Amen brother, I have been delivered from the false teachings of Pentecostalism , although I do still have many friends from that denomination, but anyways my point is this,I thought the speaking in tongues issue was controversial up until a few months ago, until I finally realized why i believe is the truth, and a lot of the teachers that have helped me were reformed in their theology, I really like how seriously they take the scriptures, you mentioned James White, I like him also and many others and have been studying something that has probably been more controversial than tongues, the doctrine of election and predestination, wow! I didn't even know there was a debate on this but I studied it for 2 and 1/2 months everyday practically. I was almost convinced of the calvinism view but just couldn't give in 100 percent, I respect the reformed theologians but I believe they are wrong on their views of election and predestination.

 

[Thousand Hills]

Clarification For CHS

Amen brother, I have been delivered from the false teachings of Pentecostalism , although I do still have many friends from that denomination, but anyways my point is this,I thought the speaking in tongues issue was controversial up until a few months ago, until I finally realized why i believe is the truth, and a lot of the teachers that have helped me were reformed in their theology, I really like how seriously they take the scriptures, you mentioned James White, I like him also and many others and have been studying something that has probably been more controversial than tongues, the doctrine of election and predestination, wow! I didn't even know there was a debate on this but I studied it for 2 and 1/2 months everyday practically. I was almost convinced of the calvinism view but just couldn't give in 100 percent, I respect the reformed theologians but I believe they are wrong on their views of election and predestination.

CHS, welcome to BB!!

By the way, just wanted to point out the above post from Rev Mitchell is from an article, it has confused me several times the way he does this, but if you click on the link that is where he copied and pasted it from.

Rev, has been asked to explain his views on where he differs from Calvinism in the thread below, but he has not offered his scripturally based support yet.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=85091&page=4

 

[Revmitchell]

Anything to avoid dealing with the op

 

[Thomas Helwys]

I am convinced that John Calvin has caused great and unnecessary divisions among God’s people because of dogmatizing his philosophizing about God’s sovereignty and election. If men were left simply to believe the Bible’s own statements on these matters and if men were not forced to decide between the man-made theologies called “Calvinism” and “Arminianism,” the Christian world would be much better off and many artificial and unnecessary divisions would not have resulted.

The Bible says “prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:21). The Bible itself is the test of truth, not some man’s systematic theology. I have the right and responsibility to test every theology by the Bible, and I am free before the Lord to reject any part of it or all of it. I do not have to make a choice between human theologies. I can stand strictly and exclusively upon the Bible itself, the SOLE authority for faith and practice. Many Calvinists won’t allow that, though. James White, author of “The Truth about the King James Bible Controversy” and “The Potter’s Freedom” and several other books, wrote to me in about the year 1999 and challenged me to a public debate. He urged me to “defend Arminianism.” That is a strange notion, because I don’t follow Arminianism and I don’t care anything about Arminianism. I have studied the theology of James Arminius some and I find errors in it just as I have found errors in John Calvin’s theology. Though I do believe that Arminius was closer to the truth than Calvin, this does not mean that I have any intention to “defend Arminianism.” White has the idea that is so typical among Calvinists that if a man is not a Calvinist, he is surely an Arminian.

This idea actually began with Calvin. He treated those who disagreed with his position on election as enemies of God and the gospel and would not admit that men can reject Calvinism and still believe God’s Word! From the time that I was saved by God’s marvelous and free grace 32 years ago until this very day, I have wanted to understand the will of and to be a faithful servant of Jesus Christ through God’s preserved Word, the Scriptures. As best as I know how, I have made that my sole authority. I enjoy systematic theology; I have taught a course in Bible doctrine in a new Bible college that helped establish in South Asia and have published a book on Bible Doctrine or Theology, but I test all of the various theologies with the Scriptures alone, and I have never agreed completely with any man’s systematic theology.

I praise God that I am not under any divine obligation to follow either Calvinism or Arminianism.


http://www.wayoflife.org/index_files/0aa9ca178de0e532c4443d0bdfdec3e5-905.html

Very good!

 

[salzer mtn]

Rev Mitchell, I have a question. When you teach or preach on theology of Cals and Arminians do you just state the different views to the listeners and let it go at that ? Also when you preach to a congregation, how do you get around not leaning to one system or the other. When i listen to Arminian preach, they build their message around two facts, God loves the world and Christ died for the world. If a person preaches Christ and his finnished work he would have to take a stand on one of the two doctrines.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Rev Mitchell, I have a question. When you teach or preach on theology of Cals and Arminians do you just state the different views to the listeners and let it go at that ? Also when you preach to a congregation, how do you get around not leaning to one system or the other. When i listen to Arminian preach, they build their message around two facts, God loves the world and Christ died for the world. If a person preaches Christ and his finnished work he would have to take a stand on one of the two doctrines.

Salzer....great question.:thumbsup:

 

[Revmitchell]

Rev Mitchell, I have a question. When you teach or preach on theology of Cals and Arminians do you just state the different views to the listeners and let it go at that ? Also when you preach to a congregation, how do you get around not leaning to one system or the other. When i listen to Arminian preach, they build their message around two facts, God loves the world and Christ died for the world. If a person preaches Christ and his finnished work he would have to take a stand on one of the two doctrines.

One of what two doctrines?

These labels cals and arminians are most probably more on this board than anywhere else except maybe in cal churches. Hardly anyone else in the world functions in these systems. In the larger scheme of the church not many ever use such labels. And I do not preach systems.


But I believe you are trying to set up a fallacy here. You seem to believe if you can find a number of views that are found in one fo your systems then you have proven that I belong to one of them. It's a fallacy.

 

[Revmitchell]

I will allow for one more question on anything not related to the op and then I will stop answering them. This back and forth is not helpful.

 

[12strings]

I have studied the theology of James Arminius some and I find errors in it just as I have found errors in John Calvin’s theology...

...I praise God that I am not under any divine obligation to follow either Calvinism or Arminianism.

Would it be more accurate to say that we all agree & disagree with various parts of Calvin's & Arminius' Theology?

Reformed Baptists agree with calvin's soteriology but disagree with his polity and Baptism. Methodists agree with his polity & Baptism, but disagree with his soteriology. Most Baptists disagree with his views on election but agree with his views on eternal security.

I, and I think others, would be interested to hear your (Rev, not Bro. Cloud's) views as they relate to Election/predestination...

Specifically, would you say that Election in scripture is...

a. Simply something that must be balanced with Man's free will & responsibility, and we will not ever be able to reconcile them?

b. Based on God's foreknowledge of who will believe in him, so he elects those?

c. Something that is primarily corporate, such that God Elects the body of believers corporately in Christ, and predestines certain actions to do for those people (adoption, sanctification, glorification), but does not in any way predestine WHO will choose to be part of the elect?

d. Other...?

 

[Revmitchell]

Would it be more accurate to say that we all agree & disagree with various parts of Calvin's & Arminius' Theology?

Reformed Baptists agree with calvin's soteriology but disagree with his polity and Baptism. Methodists agree with his polity & Baptism, but disagree with his soteriology. Most Baptists disagree with his views on election but agree with his views on eternal security.

I, and I think others, would be interested to hear your (Rev, not Bro. Cloud's) views as they relate to Election/predestination...

Specifically, would you say that Election in scripture is...

a. Simply something that must be balanced with Man's free will & responsibility, and we will not ever be able to reconcile them?

b. Based on God's foreknowledge of who will believe in him, so he elects those?

c. Something that is primarily corporate, such that God Elects the body of believers corporately in Christ, and predestines certain actions to do for those people (adoption, sanctification, glorification), but does not in any way predestine WHO will choose to be part of the elect?

d. Other...?

The letter "A" is the one the best resembles my position. But I want to clarify my view on free will. Any thing we have that is good is because of God. For example, in this post if I have said anything that correctly reflects our Lord it is because of Him. I could not, either before or after salvation, do anything godly, correct, or good without Him.

Did I choose to respond to this thread or did God sovereignly have me respond to this thread?

If I got any of this wrong did God stop being sovereign in my life?

I John 4:19 tells us that we love God because He first loved us. When you combine that with other passages of scripture like Genesis and look at how God dealt with Adam and Eve, we see God is the initiator. When He dealt with Moses and Abraham and even Noah God was the initiator. None of them would have gone to God unless God first provided the means in their hearts to come to Him.

I am born again because God first created me, provided the means of salvation for me, and opened up my heart (convicted me) and made it possible to receive Him. (John 3:5-6; 1:12,-13; Ephesians 2:8-9; Romans 10:9-10)

I believe God is sovereign even when He gives us grace and ordains that we should choose Him or reject Him. (John 1:12-13) Because that is His design and purpose and unless He designed it that way it could never have occurred to begin with. I believe He could have designed it any way He wanted to. But as it currently stands this is His design and purpose.

Now having said that all of the above falls short of my view.

 

[12strings]

The letter "A" is the one the best resembles my position. But I want to clarify my view on free will. Any thing we have that is good is because of God. For example, in this post if I have said anything that correctly reflects our Lord it is because of Him. I could not, either before or after salvation, do anything godly, correct, or good without Him.

Did I choose to respond to this thread or did God sovereignly have me respond to this thread?

If I got any of this wrong did God stop being sovereign in my life?

I John 4:19 tells us that we love God because He first loved us. When you combine that with other passages of scripture like Genesis and look at how God dealt with Adam and Eve, we see God is the initiator. When He dealt with Moses and Abraham and even Noah God was the initiator. None of them would have gone to God unless God first provided the means in their hearts to come to Him.

I am born again because God first created me, provided the means of salvation for me, and opened up my heart (convicted me) and made it possible to receive Him. (John 3:5-6; 1:12,-13; Ephesians 2:8-9; Romans 10:9-10)

I believe God is sovereign even when He gives us grace and ordains that we should choose Him or reject Him. (John 1:12-13) Because that is His design and purpose and unless He designed it that way it could never have occurred to begin with. I believe He could have designed it any way He wanted to. But as it currently stands this is His design and purpose.

Now having said that all of the above falls short of my view.

So If someone asked you how you came to believe in Christ...would you say,

a. God chose me & gave me faith.

b. God draws everyone, and I responded in faith.

c. Both, and I don't know how it fits together.

 

[Revmitchell]

So If someone asked you how you came to believe in Christ...would you say,

a. God chose me & gave me faith.

b. God draws everyone, and I responded in faith.

c. Both, and I don't know how it fits together.

I do not try to put it in short sentences like that.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I do not try to put it in short sentences like that.

Feel free to embellish rather than deflect.

 

[salzer mtn]

The letter "A" is the one the best resembles my position. But I want to clarify my view on free will. Any thing we have that is good is because of God. For example, in this post if I have said anything that correctly reflects our Lord it is because of Him. I could not, either before or after salvation, do anything godly, correct, or good without Him.

Did I choose to respond to this thread or did God sovereignly have me respond to this thread?

If I got any of this wrong did God stop being sovereign in my life?

I John 4:19 tells us that we love God because He first loved us. When you combine that with other passages of scripture like Genesis and look at how God dealt with Adam and Eve, we see God is the initiator. When He dealt with Moses and Abraham and even Noah God was the initiator. None of them would have gone to God unless God first provided the means in their hearts to come to Him.

I am born again because God first created me, provided the means of salvation for me, and opened up my heart (convicted me) and made it possible to receive Him. (John 3:5-6; 1:12,-13; Ephesians 2:8-9; Romans 10:9-10)

I believe God is sovereign even when He gives us grace and ordains that we should choose Him or reject Him. (John 1:12-13) Because that is His design and purpose and unless He designed it that way it could never have occurred to begin with. I believe He could have designed it any way He wanted to. But as it currently stands this is His design and purpose.

Now having said that all of the above falls short of my view.

You may teach theology but there's nothing systematic about your theology.

 

[Yeshua1]

I am convinced that John Calvin has caused great and unnecessary divisions among God’s people because of dogmatizing his philosophizing about God’s sovereignty and election. If men were left simply to believe the Bible’s own statements on these matters and if men were not forced to decide between the man-made theologies called “Calvinism” and “Arminianism,” the Christian world would be much better off and many artificial and unnecessary divisions would not have resulted.

The Bible says “prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:21). The Bible itself is the test of truth, not some man’s systematic theology. I have the right and responsibility to test every theology by the Bible, and I am free before the Lord to reject any part of it or all of it. I do not have to make a choice between human theologies. I can stand strictly and exclusively upon the Bible itself, the SOLE authority for faith and practice. Many Calvinists won’t allow that, though. James White, author of “The Truth about the King James Bible Controversy” and “The Potter’s Freedom” and several other books, wrote to me in about the year 1999 and challenged me to a public debate. He urged me to “defend Arminianism.” That is a strange notion, because I don’t follow Arminianism and I don’t care anything about Arminianism. I have studied the theology of James Arminius some and I find errors in it just as I have found errors in John Calvin’s theology. Though I do believe that Arminius was closer to the truth than Calvin, this does not mean that I have any intention to “defend Arminianism.” White has the idea that is so typical among Calvinists that if a man is not a Calvinist, he is surely an Arminian.

This idea actually began with Calvin. He treated those who disagreed with his position on election as enemies of God and the gospel and would not admit that men can reject Calvinism and still believe God’s Word! From the time that I was saved by God’s marvelous and free grace 32 years ago until this very day, I have wanted to understand the will of and to be a faithful servant of Jesus Christ through God’s preserved Word, the Scriptures. As best as I know how, I have made that my sole authority. I enjoy systematic theology; I have taught a course in Bible doctrine in a new Bible college that helped establish in South Asia and have published a book on Bible Doctrine or Theology, but I test all of the various theologies with the Scriptures alone, and I have never agreed completely with any man’s systematic theology.

I praise God that I am not under any divine obligation to follow either Calvinism or Arminianism.


http://www.wayoflife.org/index_files/0aa9ca178de0e532c4443d0bdfdec3e5-905.html

John calvin, nor his teachings, are the root cause of division in the Body though...

That is due to our SIN, as we have allowed our particular viewpoints to get elevated to where the unity is broken...

calvin was a student of the Bible, you can disagree with his conclusions, but respect the amount of systematic teaching in it!

Would say also that we are ignorant many times of what calvin, and others BOTh cal/arm/non really taught and held as the truth of the bible...

So do appreciate your concern of people being divided along cal/arm lines, and God does NOT require us to do that, but he also sees NOTHING wrong with systematic study/views ogf His doctrines as in the scriptures either!

 

[Yeshua1]

Amen brother, I have been delivered from the false teachings of Pentecostalism , although I do still have many friends from that denomination, but anyways my point is this,I thought the speaking in tongues issue was controversial up until a few months ago, until I finally realized why i believe is the truth, and a lot of the teachers that have helped me were reformed in their theology, I really like how seriously they take the scriptures, you mentioned James White, I like him also and many others and have been studying something that has probably been more controversial than tongues, the doctrine of election and predestination, wow! I didn't even know there was a debate on this but I studied it for 2 and 1/2 months everyday practically. I was almost convinced of the calvinism view but just couldn't give in 100 percent, I respect the reformed theologians but I believe they are wrong on their views of election and predestination.

welcome to the Board! i was over 10 years an Elder in the assemblies of god, which group were you involved with/in?

 

[Revmitchell]

Feel free to embellish rather than deflect.

Again, another example of what I am talking about. You just cannot behave yourself.

 

[Revmitchell]

You may teach theology but there's nothing systematic about your theology.

OK? I already told you I do not follow someone else system. Neither do most people in the average church.

 

[Yeshua1]

OK? I already told you I do not follow someone else system. Neither do most people in the average church.

Does your church have a formal statement of beliefs? that is a form of 'systematic theology!"

Do you ever read and use any source besides the Bible to study from? that would be interacting with "mans theology!"

You sound like one of those "Super saints" that paul mocked by saying that he ondeed wished the Apsotles were 'super saints" , but instead they were just Apostles, who suffered for the lord!