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

[Van]

Hi Glad4Mercy, I think you embrace the Arminian "mystery" solution to the problem of two mutually exclusive premises. God's knowledge of the future predestines that future, but we think we can make choices that would alter our future. When only one option is actually possible, that "choice" redefines the word choice to mean non-choice. Not how scripture reads - God sets before us the choice of life or death.

As far as the "Fall" being the "cause" of our harsh environment, God is the cause of the consequences of Adam's sin. His curse. But in His eyes, the result is necessary for His good purpose.

Isaiah 45:7
The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the Lord who does all these.

 

[glad4mercy]

Hi Glad4Mercy, I think you embrace the Arminian "mystery" solution to the problem of two mutually exclusive premises. God's knowledge of the future predestines that future, but we think we can make choices that would alter our future. When only one option is actually possible, that "choice" redefines the word choice to mean non-choice. Not how scripture reads - God sets before us the choice of life or death.

As far as the "Fall" being the "cause" of our harsh environment, God is the cause of the consequences of Adam's sin. His curse. But in His eyes, the result is necessary for His good purpose.

Isaiah 45:7
The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the Lord who does all these.

I am in general agreement with this post. Good post

The only thinng I might not agree with is the term "mutually exclusive" premises. They only appear to be so from our temporal perspective. Would you agree?

 

[Van]

Yes, I agree, they are mutually exclusive from our perspective. Thanks for the enlightening discussion, Van

 

[glad4mercy]

Yes, I agree, they are mutually exclusive from our perspective. Thanks for the enlightening discussion, Van

IN a sense, because we exist in time. God is Omnipresent, so I believe He exists outside of time and therefore "known unto God are all His works from the foundation of the world" (Acts 15:18)

Thank you as well for your excellent imput.

With all this said, I still cannot go along with all five points of TULIP...so I cannot say I am a Calvinist. But I do not think I am fully Arminian either. I am a Calminian or an Arminist (joking)

Blessings to you, and thanks again for the discussion.

 

[TCassidy]

With all this said, I still cannot go along with all five points of TULIP.

Which do you disagree with and why?

 

[glad4mercy]

Which do you disagree with and why?

Rather than argue against Calvinism, I will give a positive response of what I see in scriptures.

a. There is a powerful, monergistic act of God that must occur before someone can exercise saving faith (John 6:44, Romans 10:20). 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 (Romans 9:10-13), but election alone does not save (Romans 10:14-15). A person who is elected must hear the Gospel (Romans 10:14), repent, and believe . Therefore, salvation is conditional (conditions of hearing, believing, and repenting)

c. Yet our faith and repentance is not what saves us. It is God's power alone that saves us. Salvation is a monergistic work of God (God alone saves.) (Ephesians 2:1-10)

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.) Matthew 13:44-46)

e. I believe God's Grace can be resisted in some cases (Luke 7:30)

f. I believe that a person who abides in Christ is secure in Christ. ( 1 John 2:24)

 

[TCassidy]

Rather than argue against Calvinism, I will give a positive response of what I see in scriptures.

So, you make an unsupported statement then refuse to defend it?

 

[glad4mercy]

So, you make an unsupported statement then refuse to defend it?

First of all, I said "I do not accept all of TULIP". That is not making an unsupported statement. That is merely stating my position. I did not say TULIP was wrong or unbiblical, I said I am unconvinced.

Secondly, I positively affirmed what I held to be true which is better than arguing against something I am merely "unconvinced" of.

Thirdly, the answer was clearly stated in my response.

So I will tell you which parts of TULIP I disagree with, even though I have already indicated it in my last response.

a. I partially agree with Total Depravity. The part I disagree with is "regeneration before faith" because Ephesians 1:13 says that faith precedes the sealing with the Holy Spirit. So do you believe that a person is regenerated first . believes second, then sealed with the Holy Spirit third? I don't see any reason why we wouldnt be sealed with the Holy Spirit the moment we are regenerated. And if that were the case, then we would be sealed before we believed, but the scripture doesnt teach that.

I do believe regeneration is a monergistic act of God though, as I stated in my last post and other posts earlier. Our faith is not what saves is. It is the WORK/POWER of God alone that saves, hence MONERGISTIC.

One hears the Gospel and if they believe by the Grace of God, they are monergistically regenerated. Regeneration is an act of God alone.

b. I partially agree with unconditional election. The part I agree with is that election precedes any work or faith that we ever do. But there are THREE conditions that need to be fulfilled in salvation. Hearing, believing, and repenting (leading to REGENERATION)

So even if election is unconditional which I still find debatable, salvation is not. Salvation is contingent on hearing, repenting, and believing. These are conditions that need to be met. Alone they cannot save us, only the power of God can save us, but it is THROUGH these means.

c. I do not believe in Limited atonement because the scriptures say Jesus died for the World, not the Elect. I believe that Jesus died for the world to redeem the church. He bought the field for the treasure hidden in the field.

d. I do not believe in irresistable grace, because the scriptures say and I gave a verse to show why already. (Luke 7:30)

e. Perserverance of the saints. There are two types of faith. Aorist faith and continuing faith. Those who continue in the faith will perservere. We are kept by the power of God through faiith.

Note: I do believe that faith is a gift of God, but like any gift it can be rejected.

 

[Van]

IN a sense, because we exist in time. God is Omnipresent, so I believe He exists outside of time and therefore "known unto God are all His works from the foundation of the world" (Acts 15:18)

Thank you as well for your excellent imput.

With all this said, I still cannot go along with all five points of TULIP...so I cannot say I am a Calvinist. But I do not think I am fully Arminian either. I am a Calminian or an Arminist (joking)

Blessings to you, and thanks again for the discussion.

I am not a 5 point Calvinist either. I am a one point Calvinist (OSAS) and a two point Arminian, Christ died as a ransom for all mankind, and our election for salvation is conditional, based on faith in the truth, 2 Thessalonians 2:13.

Both Calvinism and Arminianism assert that Ephesians 1:4 refers to the election of individuals, but I think that election refers to a corporate election, God chose Christ to be His Redeemer, and therefore everyone who would be redeemed were chosen corporately in Him. That allows our individual election to be through faith in the truth during our physical lifetime.

 

[rsr]

There really is no such thing as a one-point Calvinist or a two-point Arminian. Aside from total depravity (this is true of classical Arminianism and Wesleyan Arminianism) and the need for a work of grace for conversion, the two systems disagree. You may accept one point of Calvinism or two points of Arminianism, but that doesn't make you a one-point of two-point of either.

Classical Arminianism is a variety of Reformed theology. The two share a great deal of common ground, but they disagree on basic points that cannot be reconciled.You might want to read Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities by Arminian Roger E. Olson for an orthodox explanation of the similarities and differences.

 

[glad4mercy]

I am not a 5 point Calvinist either. I am a one point Calvinist (OSAS) and a two point Arminian, Christ died as a ransom for all mankind, and our election for salvation is conditional, based on faith in the truth, 2 Thessalonians 2:13.

Both Calvinism and Arminianism assert that Ephesians 1:4 refers to the election of individuals, but I think that election refers to a corporate election, God chose Christ to be His Redeemer, and therefore everyone who would be redeemed were chosen corporately in Him. That allows our individual election to be through faith in the truth during our physical lifetime.

I am not sure about the OSAS thing. I do believe that if we are truly elect, we will perservere.

You did not mention that resistable vs irresistable grace. If you believe in resistable grace, that will make you a three point arminian, if you believe in irresistable grace, you are a two point Calvinist.

Also, there is the third point of Arminianism, which is a modified form of "Total Depravity"

Article three of the remonstrance That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John 15:5, “Without me ye can do nothing.” [4]

I fully agree with article three.

What I see in scriptures is that there is a monergistic work of God that leads to faith and follows faith. I believe that REGENERATION/New Birth follows faith, and what precedes faith is not named in the Bible (other than "revealed, made known, and drawn), but it is referred to in Romans 10:20; John 6:44, and John 6:65)

God draws
We receive Christ by faith
God regenerates.

The following is for Calvinists who think Arminianism is a synergistic system, which I disagree with.

The act of receiving the gift of faith and receiving Christ is not in itself an energy or power or even a work that saves us, therefore it does not fall under the category of "ergon" (the second part of monergism and synergism), so the fact that we receive the gift of faith (and faith is a gift that is received or rejected), and receive Christ (conditions of salvation) does not mean "synergism", for the WORK and ENERGY of salvation is of GOD ALONE. (Monergism- ONE DOES THE WORK OF SAVING OR SALVATION)

I do not agree with people (both Calvinists and Arminianism) who call Arminianism "synergistic". It is a misuse of the word, an imprecise term, etc...imho.

 

[rsr]

That is the original Arminian understanding, both classical and Wesleyan.

Arminius: "In this state, the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace. For Christ has said, ‘Without me ye can do nothing.’ St. Augustine, after having diligently meditated upon each word in this passage, speaks thus: ‘Christ does not say, without me ye can do but Little; neither does He say, without me ye can do any Arduous Thing, nor without me ye can do it with difficulty. But he says, without me ye can do Nothing! Nor does he say, without me ye cannot complete any thing; but without me ye can do Nothing.’ That this may be made more manifestly to appear, we will separately consider the mind, the affections or will, and the capability, as contra-distinguished from them, as well as the life itself of an unregenerate man.”

John Wesley (Sermon 44): "Hence we may, Secondly, learn, that all who deny this, call it original sin, or by any other title, are but Heathens still, in the fundamental point which differences Heathenism from Christianity. They may, indeed, allow, that men have many vices; that some are born with us; and that, consequently, we are not born altogether so wise or so virtuous as we should be; there being few that will roundly affirm, "We are born with as much propensity to good as to evil, and that every man is, by nature, as virtuous and wise as Adam was at his creation." But here is the shibboleth: Is man by nature filled with all manner of evil? Is he void of all good? Is he wholly fallen? Is his soul totally corrupted? Or, to come back to the text, is "every imagination of the thoughts of his heart only evil continually?" Allow this, and you are so far a Christian. Deny it, and you are but an Heathen still."

Thus Wesley propounded "prevenient grace," which allowed the totally depraved human to believe, but not "irrestible grace." In either case, it was the grace of God that allows us to believe despite our fallen nature.

 

[glad4mercy]

That is the original Arminian understanding, both classical and Wesleyan.

Arminius: "In this state, the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace. For Christ has said, ‘Without me ye can do nothing.’ St. Augustine, after having diligently meditated upon each word in this passage, speaks thus: ‘Christ does not say, without me ye can do but Little; neither does He say, without me ye can do any Arduous Thing, nor without me ye can do it with difficulty. But he says, without me ye can do Nothing! Nor does he say, without me ye cannot complete any thing; but without me ye can do Nothing.’ That this may be made more manifestly to appear, we will separately consider the mind, the affections or will, and the capability, as contra-distinguished from them, as well as the life itself of an unregenerate man.”

John Wesley (Sermon 44): "Hence we may, Secondly, learn, that all who deny this, call it original sin, or by any other title, are but Heathens still, in the fundamental point which differences Heathenism from Christianity. They may, indeed, allow, that men have many vices; that some are born with us; and that, consequently, we are not born altogether so wise or so virtuous as we should be; there being few that will roundly affirm, "We are born with as much propensity to good as to evil, and that every man is, by nature, as virtuous and wise as Adam was at his creation." But here is the shibboleth: Is man by nature filled with all manner of evil? Is he void of all good? Is he wholly fallen? Is his soul totally corrupted? Or, to come back to the text, is "every imagination of the thoughts of his heart only evil continually?" Allow this, and you are so far a Christian. Deny it, and you are but an Heathen still."

Thus Wesley propounded "prevenient grace," which allowed the totally depraved human to believe, but not "irrestible grace." In either case, it was the grace of God that allows us to believe despite our fallen nature.

AMEN. I completely agree with both of these statements. This shows the WIDE GULF between true Arminianism and the errors of Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism. It really is untrue when people accuse Arminians of being Pelagians and semi Pelagians. And these two quotes demonstrate it.

 

[glad4mercy]

There really is no such thing as a one-point Calvinist or a two-point Arminian. Aside from total depravity (this is true of classical Arminianism and Wesleyan Arminianism) and the need for a work of grace for conversion, the two systems disagree. You may accept one point of Calvinism or two points of Arminianism, but that doesn't make you a one-point of two-point of either.

Classical Arminianism is a variety of Reformed theology. The two share a great deal of common ground, but they disagree on basic points that cannot be reconciled.You might want to read Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities by Arminian Roger E. Olson for an orthodox explanation of the similarities and differences.

I agree, but I think that Arminians have a slightly different view of Total depravity from Calvinists. Wouldnt an Arminian say that even though God's grace PRECEDES faith, yet faith precedes regeneration.

My understanding (I may be wrong) is a Calvinist holds regeneration before/ leads to faith, while an Arminian holds to faith before leads to regeneration (albeit, there is prevenient grace that precedes the faith)

 

[rsr]

Well, there are different types of Arminians, just as there are different types of Calvinists. Some do deny total depravity (although Arminians don't like to use the term because of its association with TULIP). Call it total inability if you want.

As to the order, I will quote Wesley's Sermon 45:

"If any doctrines within the whole compass of Christianity may be properly termed fundamental, they are doubtless these two — the doctrine of justification, and that of the new birth: The former relating to that great work which God does for us, in forgiving our sins; the latter, to the great work which God does in us, in renewing our fallen nature. In order of time, neither of these is before the other: in the moment we are justified by the grace of God, through the redemption that is in Jesus, we are also "born of the Spirit;" but in order of thinking, as it is termed,justification precedes the new birth. We first conceive his wrath to be turned away, and then his Spirit to work in our hearts."

 

[TCassidy]

I partially agree with Total Depravity. The part I disagree with is "regeneration before faith" because Ephesians 1:13 says that faith precedes the sealing with the Holy Spirit. So do you believe that a person is regenerated first . believes second, then sealed with the Holy Spirit third? I don't see any reason why we wouldnt be sealed with the Holy Spirit the moment we are regenerated. And if that were the case, then we would be sealed before we believed, but the scripture doesnt teach that.

So you fail to understand that the Ordo Salutis is logical and not chronological, so on the basis of your failure to understand you disagree with salvation by grace?

I partially agree with unconditional election. The part I agree with is that election precedes any work or faith that we ever do. But there are THREE conditions that need to be fulfilled in salvation. Hearing, believing, and repenting (leading to REGENERATION)

So, you fail to understand that believing and repenting are the result of regeneration and not the cause of it so you reject the gospel of grace? You deny "the natural man receives not the things of the spirit of God?" "There is none that seeks after God?"

I do not believe in Limited atonement because the scriptures say Jesus died for the World, not the Elect. I believe that Jesus died for the world to redeem the church. He bought the field for the treasure hidden in the field.

So you believe the entire world will be saved? Including Satan and all his demons?

I do not believe in irresistable grace, because the scriptures say and I gave a verse to show why already.

So you believe that when God decrees something to come to pass, you, or the person in question, is more powerful than God and can defeat God's eternal decree?

 

[glad4mercy]

So you fail to understand that the Ordo Salutis is logical and not chronological, so on the basis of your failure to understand you disagree with salvation by grace?

So, you fail to understand that believing and repenting are the result of regeneration and not the cause of it so you reject the gospel of grace? You deny "the natural man receives not the things of the spirit of God?" "There is none that seeks after God?"

So you believe the entire world will be saved? Including Satan and all his demons?

So you believe that when God decrees something to come to pass, you, or the person in question, is more powerful than God and can defeat God's eternal decree?

I have not MISREPRESENTED Calvinism and your views, so I would appreciate it if you would refrain from misrepresenting my views.

One of three things just happened (or did not happen)

a. You either did not read my posts.
b. You did not read my posts with understanding
c. You deliberately misrepresented my positon.

I believe you are an honest man and have an adequete reading comprehension, so I beg you....Please read my posts before you reply instead of just skinming and partially reading them.

a. Ord Salutis not chronological?- Tis true that we are elected in eternity, but we are saved in time. Therefore THERE IS A CHRONOLOGAL ORDER in salvation. (Chronos means TIME, right?) Did you call on Jesus Christ after God opened your heart only in a logical sense or did t happen in time and in a chronological sense as well?

b. If you think I don't believe in salvation by Grace, then YOU HAVENT been reading my posts. DID I not say that regeneration is a MONERGISTIC act of God, or did you miss that part?

c. If believing is a result of regeneration, then that would mean that being sealed by the Holy Spirit is seperate from regeneration. This is because PAUL, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit wrote "AFTER you were believed, you were sealed wth the Holy Spirit. SO according to the Holy Spirit, we are sealed AFTER we believe.

SO do you think we are sealed AFTER believing in a logical sense only, or does it also happen in time/chronologically? Are you going to tell me that he is speaking of a wholly logical order there, and is not referring to chronology, even though he spoke of things that happened to believers IN TIME.

Were you sealed by the Holy Spirit after you believed in a logical sense only, or did these take place in time and CHRONOLOGY? DId you believe after you heard in a logical sense only, or in a Chronological sense also. Your logical order of order salutis is a red herring.

d. The fact that you ask me if I am an universalist shows that you HAVE NOT READ MY POSTS. I said grace can be resisted. If grace can be resisted, then obviously not everyone is going to be saved'

e. God decreed to save ALL WHO BELIEVE (upon hearing the Gospel and being convicted and illuminated by the ministry of the Holy Spirit). God has decreed to save all who call on Him. God has decreed that all who hear and see the Son (God's Spirit setting Christ before the hearer) and believe on Him are regenerated by a Monergistic act of God. God has also decreed that those who do not believe will be condemned. These decrees infalliby come to pass, so God's decree is NEVER abrogated.

Did you become a child of God after God regenerated you in time, or in a logical sense only? No, you were once not a child, now you are.

f. The natural man does not receive the things of God, but the Holy Spirit opens hearts as the Gospel is preached.

 

[TCassidy]

Ord Salutis not chronological?- Tis true that we are elected in eternity, but we are saved in time. Therefore THERE IS A CHRONOLOGAL ORDER in salvation. (Chronos means TIME, right?) Did you call on Jesus Christ after God opened your heart in time or only in a logical sense?

Again you demonstrate a failure to understand the Ordo Salutis.

If you think I don't believe in salvation by Grace, then YOU HAVENT been reading my posts. DID I not say that regeneration is a MONERGISTIC act of God, or did you miss that part?

Which, of course, does not address my concern.

If believing is a result of regeneration, then that would mean that being sealed by the Holy Spirit is seperate from regeneration.

Again a failure to understand the Ordo Salutis.

The fact that you ask me if I am an universalist shows that you HAVE NOT READ MY POSTS.

It shows that your position is illogical and unbiblical.

God decreed to save ALL WHO BELIEVE upon being drawn by the Gospel and the ministry of the Holy Spirit.

So you do believe in Limited Atonement! Now we are getting somewhere!

 

[glad4mercy]

Again you demonstrate a failure to understand the Ordo Salutis.


Which, of course, does not address my concern.
Again a failure to understand the Ordo Salutis.

It shows that your position is illogical and unbiblical.

So you do believe in Limited Atonement! Now we are getting somewhere!

a. The ordo salutis has nothing to do with what I said regarding Ephesians 1:13. It is a red herring.
b. You can claim what I say illogical, but then you are making an assertion without support. So what you said earlier is an instance of "pot calling kettle black"
c. Nope, I do not believe in limited atonement, because the Bible does NOT TEACH IT. Give me one clear scripture that teaches limited atonement.

SO why dont we take one point at a time.

a. Are we sealed with the Holy Spirit before or after we believe?
b. Is it possible to be regenerate without being sealed by the Holy Spirit?

Simple yes or no questions

Time to get ready for work, talk more later.

 

[Van]

Hi Glad4Mercy,

You said, "You did not mention that resistible vs irresistible grace. If you believe in resistible grace, that will make you a three point Arminian, if you believe in irresistible grace, you are a two point Calvinist."

Irresistible Grace is a necessary corollary of Total Spiritual Inability. The Calvinist view is that the Fall resulted in mankind being conceived in a state where they are unable to seek God or respond appropriately to the gospel. To overcome this supposed spiritual condition, each person must be altered by irresistible grace and compelled to "willingly" believe.

However, scripture teaches we are conceived with "limited" spiritual ability, we can, in the fallen state, understand spiritual milk, but are unable to understand spiritual meat.

Therefore, according to my understanding, we can respond to God's revelatory grace, such as the 2,3 and 4th soils of Matthew 13. The first soil was not conceived unable to respond due to the Fall, but became unable through the practice of sin. God's revelatory grace is resistible, we can leave it, or take it to varying degrees.

But to your point, I believe the fallen choose life or death, and thus I believe we are not compelled to life or to death. Since I believe in Limited Spiritual Ability, from conception, I see no need for the Arminian Prevenient Grace. So by my count I am back to a 2 pointer.