Has anyone else ever just been unsure about Calvinism and Arminianism?

[glad4mercy]

But nowhere does that quote say that God is the author and originator of sin.

Who said it did? Certainly not me. In fact, I repeatedly stated that I do not believe Calvinism teaches that. Last time was post 95, go back and read it.

I havent misunderstood you, you have been misunderstanding me.

BTW, which quote were you referring to? Several were provided

 

[glad4mercy]

Does God decree that some Christians are non-Calvinist?
Or does God permit them to be non-Calvinists?

Either way, if Calvinism is true, why would God decree or allow it?

One thing I see is we learn more from people who are followers of Christ yet differ from us on certain points than we learn from people who think just like us.

I think the debate between Calvinists and non calvinists is healthy. It can prevent both sides from extremism, if it is done correctly and if we learn from each other.

 

[Iconoclast]

InTheLight,

Does God decree that some Christians are non-Calvinist?

The fall has done this.....

Or does God permit them to be non-Calvinists?

They are called babes in 1 cor3

Either way, if Calvinism is true, why would God decree or allow it?

Gods truth is unchanging.....men need to grow in grace.

 

[evenifigoalone]

It doesn't seem that I've ever fallen into either category.

 

[glad4mercy]

It doesn't seem that I've ever fallen into either category.

1. . Which comes first;

A. Faith
C. regeneration?

2. . Is our election based on:

A. God's Decree to save all who believe and His Foreknowledge of those who do believe
C. God's Decree to save is not based on anything whatsoever that we have done or will do.

3 Who did Jesus die for?

A. all men, but only those who believe are saved through His death.
C. only those who will be saved?

4. Can we resist/reject God's Grace

A. Yes
C. No

5. Can a true Christian fall from grace and be lost?

A. Yes
M.A. Undecided
C. NO

The answers are marked A for Arminian and C for Calvinist.

My view is.

a. There is a powerful, monergistic act of God that must occur before someone can exercise saving faith. I am not sure if this act of God should be defined as regeneration though. We receive the Holy Spirit (regeneration) after we believe.(Ephesians 1:13)

b. I believe that God election is not based on what we have done or will do, but election alone does not save. A person who is elected must hear the Gospel, repent, and believe. Therefore, Election is unconditional, but salvation is conditional (conditions of hearing, believing, and repenting)

c. Yet our faith and repentance does not save us. It is God's power alone that saves us. Salvation is a monergistic work of God (God alone saves.)

d. I believe that Christ died for all men (purchased the whole field) in order to redeem the church (the treasure hidden in the field.)

e. I believe God's Grace can be resisted in some cases, but sometimes is irresistable.

f. I believe that a person who abides in Christ is secure in Christ.

I believe that when Jesus died and rose, the prison doors flung wide open and God is inviting us all to come forth and be free, but some people prefer their cell and don't want to come out and be free.

 

[glad4mercy]

From Calvinism /Arminianism;Evil exists as a mystery, independent of God, who remains to a limited degree powerful and benevolent. This is the inconsistent argument of some (including Pelagians and Arminians),

This is a misrepresentation of the Arminian position. No Arminian would say God is benevolent to a limited degree and most would not say His power is limited (except for open theists, which is a departure from Classical Arminianism, and I would say a perversion of it. (IMHO)

SO the former statement "limited in benevolence" is not held and the latter "limited in power" would be a tenet of EXTREME Arminianism. TO say such would be akin to taking a position of hypercalvinism and applying it to Calvinism.

Here is a link to an article that shows how Arminians normally address the issue of evll (at least all the Arminians that I've ever known and I've known and read a lot coming from an Arminian background and being educated as an Arminian). Here is the link

http://evangelicalarminians.org/dallas-willard-god-and-the-problem-of-evil/

This is what I mean. Most Calvinists do not really understand what Arminians hold and most Arminians don't understand what Calvinists hold. If we would take the time to understand one another's postions, we might get somewhere. I really take the time to try to understand Calvinism by reading Calvinistic books, listening to Calvinistic sermons, etc. What I thought of Calvinism twenty years ago was a caricature of Calvinism. Now I understand it much better, the only thing I was confused about was the precise definition of the term "ordain", and that has been clarified to me here.

 

[glad4mercy]

Now here is a question for Arminians. IF we define "pre-ordain" as "to decide something beforehand", and knowing that

a. God is OMNISCIENT and knows both everything that will happen as well as what potentially could happen,

b. He is also OMNIPOTENT, meaning He can RESTRAIN evil freely as HE WILLS, and He can also PERMIT evil when He wills,

c. God is IMMUTABLE,

can we say that before the Creation of the earth, God DECREED what HE WOULD DO including

a. what evil He would restrain,
b. what evil He would allow,
c. what He would accomplish through it,
d. what great works He would perform
e. what great events He would bring about throught willing vessels

And in this sense, is it not true that God has decreed all things?

Of course, we need to be reasonable about this. It is not a silly thing like saying God preordained what tie I would wear today or what kind of cereal I had for breakfast, or that my every sinful deed is immutably certain. I don't think this what Calvinists mean. I think we are misunderstanding them to some degree, just as they misunderstand us to some degree.

God decreed what evil He would restrain and what evil He would allow. And God decreed the actions He would take in response to the evil that He would allow and bring about the results that fit His Purpose. And God also decreed and brought to pass all of His Good Pleasure. So in this sense we can say that God PREORDAINED whatsoever comes to pass. God predetermined these things by predetermining the LIMITS He would place on evil, and of course we know that every good gift comes down from the Father of Lights.

I do believe that the world would be much worse and man would be much more sinful if not for the RESTRAINING HAND OF GOD. I believe the horror of hell is that the restraining hand of God will be completely withdrawn and every type of evil (which is the absence of God's Light) will be infiitely unrstrained.

So if we define "ordain" in this way, (decide) we can agree with the first premise of the Westminster Confession "God has ordained whatsoever comes to pass" and that removes the "author of evil" objection and retains creaturely freedom. For God knows infallibly the hearts of man and He knows infallibly every circumstance, and He is powerful enough (OMNIPOTENT) to EMPOWER, CAUSE ,TO ALLOW OR TO RESTRAIN AS HE SEES FIT.

Discuss.

I am open to critique, correction and criticism on what I just typed from both sides.

 

[TCassidy]

Most Calvinists do not really understand what Arminians hold and most Arminians don't understand what Calvinists hold.

Well, you're half right. I would be willing to wager, were I a wagering man, that more Calvinists have read the Remonstrance than the other way around.

 

[glad4mercy]

Well, you're half right. I would be willing to wager, were I a wagering man, that more Calvinists have read the Remonstrance than the other way around.

The way some people describe Arminianism makes me wonder how that could be.

Do you think Arminius would say that God's power and benevolence is to a "limited degree" like the post earlier? I don't think he would have.

BTW, do you have any objections to what I said in my last post. I think it's pretty much in line with your definition of "ordain" meaning allow or permit. Where do you agree and where do you differ from my last post?

Oh, and I'm sure if you consider only Evangelical/Classical Arninians, probaby the majority have read Calvinistic works as well as Augustine and Luther on top of it.

I personally read more Calvinistic works than I read Arminian works. I went to a Arminian College and we had at least one FIVE POINT CALVINISTS TEACHING THERE. Because the groups that I have been associated with are very open to fairly and honestly looking at both sides. That may not be true of all Arminians, but we should avoid hasty generalizations, friend.

Note that I am willing to admit that both sides have elements that do not understand each other and misrepresent each other. I am being entirely open and you are being entirely defensive.

 

[glad4mercy]

Well, you're half right. I would be willing to wager, were I a wagering man, that more Calvinists have read the Remonstrance than the other way around.

In addition to my last reply to this, I think I understand your position better than you understand mine. You thought I was saying that Calvinism makes God the author of sin, and I never said that. I only repeated the PART of the Westminster confession that states "God has ordained whatsoever comes to pass." And I explained why I am in general agreement with that statement in post 107.

If you think that I misinterpreted that statement, tell me where. I am open to instruction on this matter. I am ALWAYS open to someone teaching me something I may not know or I may be in error on.

 

[TCassidy]

You thought I was saying that Calvinism makes God the author of sin

No, I wasn't.

I never said that

I know that.

If you think that I misinterpreted that statement

I don't. It would seem to me that the lack of understanding is on your part, not mine.

 

[glad4mercy]

No, I wasn't.

I know that.

I don't. I would seem to me that the lack of understanding is on your part, not mine.

So are we in agreement on the question of what God's pre-ordaining all things means, then?

(see post 107)

PS- your answer to my initial question was very helpful. Thank you.

I will admit that in my early days, I was not even willing to listen to Calvinism. I was a hard core, extreme arminian. A few Calvinists were very influential to me one of my professors in college, a couple friends,, reading Augustine and Luther (who I realize were not Calviniists), Spurgeoun, Edwards, then more recent people like Sproul and James White who I really like a lot.. I have not accepted Calvinism en toto, but I have found my studies of what is called "reformed theology" to be edifying and to have a "balancing effect" on me.

I truly believe that the truth is somewhere "between" arminianism and Calvinism. I think both systems went too far in opposite directions.

JMHO

One thing I do know is that God was found by me when I wasnt looking for Him and He revealed Himself to me when I was not asking for Him (no one truly seeks God unless God is drawing them somehow) and He has changed my heart forever...He touched my heart when I was entirely dead, and I know that I love Him because He first loved me, and it HIS POWER that keeps me from falling Apart from Him, I can do nothing. I know that no one can be converted apart from the quickening of the Holy Spirit whose power accompanies the Gospel making it effectual. No one can come unless the Father draws them. (I know MANY Arminians that will say the same. In fact, everything I said is true arminianism)

I think these are the essentials of soteriology.

I know all this both by scripture and experience (lots of getting "humbled down")

 

[glad4mercy]

Upon further reflection, I have detected one possible flaw in my argument in post 107; It does not account for sins of omission. For example, if I fail to tell my neighbor about Jesus. God does not coerce me by force to tell my neighbor about Jesus, but at the same time I don't think it can be said that it is God's will that I don't (permissive or otherwise) other than the fact that He SOVERIEGNLY chooses to allow me to obey or disobey His EXPLICIT DECREE to my own shame.

But I know if I am one of God's elect He surely wants me to tell my neighbor about Jesus and He gives me GRACE to do so. So if I do not tell my neighbor about Jesus, I have resisted God's empowering Grace and I have resisted, quenched, and grieved the Holy Spirit.

On the other hand, if I don't care enough about Christ's command and our neighbor to tell him or her about Jesus, maybe it's evidence that I am not really what I claim to be.

On the other hand again, if I am not one of the elect, how can I grieve the Holy Spirit who has sealed me? If am not elect, I have not been sealed with the Holy Spirit

I do care, and I am also capable of quenching the Holy Spirit, so I must dilligently abide in Christ inlove's . If I don't do this, I miss the whole point

Just some musings.

 

[Van]

Hi Glad4Mercy, I see you have been chased by those who say God predestines all things, yet God is not the author of sin. They have no answer, just you do not understand if you do not accept two mutually exclusive premises. Calvinism teaches that God knowing the future with exhaustive certainty requires that all things are predestined. So it is a mystery as to why Go0 is not the author of sin.

I see where God is Sovereign has been repeated and repeated, but never defined. The only way to define it is to say God causes or allows all things. Thus He is not the author of sin. But if He allows things, He did not predestine them.

I see where God planting the tree in the garden was mentioned. But before creation God chose His Lamb, so from before creation God's plan was to redeem. As Pink put it, God "arranged" for the fall. But Adam was not compelled by predestination to eat the apple.

 

[glad4mercy]

Hi Glad4Mercy, I see you have been chased by those who say God predestines all things, yet God is not the author of sin. They have no answer, just you do not understand if you do not accept two mutually exclusive premises. Calvinism teaches that God knowing the future with exhaustive certainty requires that all things are predestined. So it is a mystery as to why Go0 is not the author of sin.

I see where God is Sovereign has been repeated and repeated, but never defined. The only way to define it is to say God causes or allows all things. Thus He is not the author of sin. But if He allows things, He did not predestine them.

I see where God planting the tree in the garden was mentioned. But before creation God chose His Lamb, so from before creation God's plan was to redeem. As Pink put it, God "arranged" for the fall. But Adam was not compelled by predestination to eat the apple.

Well, it's been more by my initiation than theirs. I do think that the Cavinists I have spoken to have said that God permits evil, not causes it. So that means that He determined beforehand to allow (not cause it) it and then use it to fulfill His own purpose. That is the way I understand it.

SO in this way, God pre-ordains all things without being the author of sin and evil. Some things He preordains to bring to pass through CAUSATION (Good things) and other things He preordains them by determining to ALLOW and CONTROL THEM.

I can go along with this premise, because I recognize that God is both Omniscient and Omnipotent. So He knows our hearts before we are born, and He can foresee what we would by nature do, and He is able (in His Omnipotence), to cause, restrain, permit, raise up, and cast down as He sees fit.

In this way, we are still acting freely, but He is still in control.

When God's prescriptive will is disobeyed, He did not cause it. He allowed it but did not cause it. But He determined BEFOREHAND everything whatsoever He would cause or allow to come to pass, as well as all of His deeds, including ALL of His redemptive acts

In this way, He foreknew us before the foundation of the earth, but I do not think He unconditionally disallows anyone. Men perish due to unbelief and rejection of the Gospel and God's command to repent

 

[JonC]

One thing I see is we learn more from people who are followers of Christ yet differ from us on certain points than we learn from people who think just like us.

I think the debate between Calvinists and non calvinists is healthy. It can prevent both sides from extremism, if it is done correctly and if we learn from each other.

I agree. Spurgeon once called this a "healthy irritation".

 

[Van]

Hi Glad4Mercy, we agree on some of your points.
1) God causes or allows whatsoever comes to pass.
2) God allows us to make autonomous choices within His established boundaries thus we make plans but He controls our steps.
3) God has not predestined some for salvation and the rest for eternal punishment.

However we need to be careful when we speak of "evil." God does not cause "evil" in His eyes. But He causes what we might consider evil. For example a tornado strikes our house resulting in the death of our child. With that caveat, we agree God does not cause evil. The harsh environment serves the purpose of leading us to seek God as a refuge.

In the area where we both are probably "unsure" is the "mystery" of how God knows the future, yet that future is not predestined. Thus all Calvinists and Arminians should be "unsure" because both doctrines rest on accepting mutually exclusive premises which they wrap together under their separate shrouds of "mystery."

 

[Yeshua1]

In addition to my last reply to this, I think I understand your position better than you understand mine. You thought I was saying that Calvinism makes God the author of sin, and I never said that. I only repeated the PART of the Westminster confession that states "God has ordained whatsoever comes to pass." And I explained why I am in general agreement with that statement in post 107.

If you think that I misinterpreted that statement, tell me where. I am open to instruction on this matter. I am ALWAYS open to someone teaching me something I may not know or I may be in error on.

MOST who claim to be Arminion though would not exactly fall into that category, as most of them would hold to eternal security, and many would hold that God first has to send the sinner "saving grace" pn order to have them accept jesus and get saved!

 

[glad4mercy]

Hi Glad4Mercy, we agree on some of your points.
1) God causes or allows whatsoever comes to pass.
2) God allows us to make autonomous choices within His established boundaries thus we make plans but He controls our steps.
3) God has not predestined some for salvation and the rest for eternal punishment.

However we need to be careful when we speak of "evil." God does not cause "evil" in His eyes. But He causes what we might consider evil. For example a tornado strikes our house resulting in the death of our child. With that caveat, we agree God does not cause evil. The harsh environment serves the purpose of leading us to seek God as a refuge.

In the area where we both are probably "unsure" is the "mystery" of how God knows the future, yet that future is not predestined. Thus all Calvinists and Arminians should be "unsure" because both doctrines rest on accepting mutually exclusive premises which they wrap together under their separate shrouds of "mystery."

I heartily agree with 1-3 of the first paragraph

I heartily agree with paragraph 2, except God does not necessarily cause the tornado, but allows it. Tornados are the result of living in a fallen Kosmos.

Whether or not I agree with pargaraph 3 is contingent on the sense in which you are using the word "predestine". If by predestination you mean decreeing and causing something, then I agree, God's foreknowledge of events is not the causation of all events. But if by predestination you mean to determine in advance in the sense of what God will BOTH cause and permit, then I think that all events are predestined. Predestined in the sense that God determines before to either cause or allow/permit whatsoever comes to pass.

From God's perspective, the future is determined because His Omniscience is infallible. What He knows is certain to happen. From our perspective, the future is contingent upon our choices. SO one perspective looks at events from an eternal perspective and the other from a temporal perspective. They are both correct in their respective realms.

 

[glad4mercy]

MOST who claim to be Arminion though would not exactly fall into that category, as most of them would hold to eternal security, and many would hold that God first has to send the sinner "saving grace" pn order to have them accept jesus and get saved!

Actually most arminans do not believe in eternal security. As to myself, I believe what the Bible says, which is "we are secure IN CHRIST. We are kept by the power of God through faith.

I believe in prevenient grace but slightly differently from some Arminians. Some Arminians believe that anyone can come to Jesus at any time. I believe that anyone can come to Jesus as they are drawn to Jesus by the Father through the Holy Spirit. But this drawing, convicting ministry does not happen at all times to all men. It happens to men at times appointed by God, and it happens when men hear the Gospel and are convincted/pricked in heart for sin and Jesus Christ is SET BEFORE THEM through the joint ministry of the Gospel and of the Holy Spirit. . Then Grace is either received or resisted.

I believe in monergistic salvation, but I do not believe in irresistable salvation. For the work of salvation is God's alone, but we can reject it or receive it. Receiving salvation does not equall synergism, for there is no intrinsic saving power in receiving, the intrinsic saving power is in the one who is trusted for salvation.

The monergist/synergist debate is largely based on imprecise terms, IMO