Is there a difference...

Wes,

Some of the other gentlemen do not like Biblicism; they favor Calvin's notes on what he thought was in the Bible. We are not semi-Pelagians we believe that the Lord asks us to cooperate with His gift of salvation. He asks us to believe; what is their problem? [John 3:16]

 

Can you cite what the 5 points of Arminius may be?

Remember, I've never ready any of the writings of Arminius, so you'll have to explain those points from Arminius point of view.

 

Long story short... this is how the '5' points of Calvinism came into being... BECAUSE of Arminius....

The whole reformed (Protestent)church believed in what we now know as TULIP.... BEFORE CALVIN... but can only be found in some treaties and councils, statements of faith... Arminius came along and (He was an Augustinian monk) ha! ironic.... and started the remenstraunts.... it was the opposite of what the church believed... They had a council (Dort) and came up with a faith that they felt was the official statement of the church... They took it from Calvin... it was five points that they took from him that refuted the soon to be heretic Arminius and those five points where now the famous Tulip. Calvin had nothing to do with it...

 

You just did what you accuse me of doing! You didn't answer me, but instead went off on a history binge. What specifically are the five points of Arminius?

 

Ray! How on earth can you say you are not semi-Pelagians and then say that all you do is believe the Lord asks you to cooperate with Him over your salvation? That is semi-Pelagianism and the faith of Rome. Salvation is not by works but it is by grace.

Then let us stick to scripture instead of taking cheap shots that will bring dishonour on our Father. We are supposed to love one another. Love corrects it does not snipe.

Since you say this then I must believe you believe this to be true. You must say it because of evidence that you have concerning Calvinists. What is the evidence for your charge that we follow a man's opinions?
You cannot benefit from this falsehood you publish concerning the Priesthood of God. We serve the Lord and stand in His presence at all times. There is no obstacle between me and God. Watch your tongue. Nothing misses His gaze.

johnp.

 

And just for the record...Norman Geisler is not a Calvinist. He claims to be a "moderate" Calvinist, but how can one who agrees with four of the five points of Arminianism claim to be a moderate Calvinist? Would that not make him a moderate Arminian? After all, he only disagrees with one of their points.

 

Wes,

Sorry about my 'quick' history lesson without verses from Arminius (not fair to you).. I was in a hurry, had to take the family out... I'll get those to you today...(have to go out right now also.)

Primitive... who said that Norm was? ... I didn't see anybody on this string that said he was?... And no, he sure isn't a Calvinist! Die hard (border line open theist) semi pelegian.

 

Wes, this is a real basic, brief history of The five points of Arminius. It was taken from an Arminian Church from which I used to be an assisting pastor at named Calvary Chapel.. this was done by the Sr. Pastor Chuck Smith... I have the actual articles of the remonstrants also from 1610 also... There is no scripture though, because they didn't give any! I also have the articles of the Council of Dort that was the response to the Remonstrants (followers of Arminius). Here it is...

Although trained in the reformed tradition, Arminius had serious doubts about the doctrine of "sovereign grace" as taught by the followers of John Calvin. He was a pastor of the Reformed congregation in Amsterdam (1588), but during his fifteen years of ministry there, he began to question many of the conclusions of Calvinism. He left the pastorate and became professor of theology at the University of Leyden. It was his series of lectures on election and predestination that led to a violent and tragic controversy. After his death in 1609, his followers developed the Remonstrance of 1610 which outlined the "Five Points of Arminianism." This document was a protest against the doctrines of the Calvinists, and was submitted to the State of Holland. In 1618, a National Synod of the Church was convened in Dort to examine the teachings or Arminius in the light of Scripture. After 154 sessions, lasting seven months, the Five Points of Arminianism were DECLARED TO BE HERETICAL. After the synod, many of the disciples of Arminius, such as Hugo Grotius, were imprisoned or banished. When John Wesley took up some of the teachings of Arminianism, the movement began to grow, and it affected the Methodist tradition as well as the beliefs of most Pentecostal and Charismatic churches.



Section 1
Arminianism


The "Five Points of Arminianism" included the following:

1. FREE WILL
Arminius believed that the fall of man was not total, maintaining that there was enough good left in man for him to will to accept Jesus Christ unto salvation.

2. CONDITIONAL ELECTION
Arminius believed that election was based on the foreknowledge of God as to who would believe. Man's "act of faith" was seen as the "condition" or his being elected to eternal life, since God foresaw him exercising his "free will" in response to Jesus Christ.

3. UNIVERSAL ATONEMENT
Arminius held that redemption was based on the fact that God loves everybody, that Christ died for everyone, and that the Father is not willing that any should perish. The death of Christ provided the grounds for God to save all men, but each must exercise his own "free will" in order to be saved.

4. OBSTRUCTABLE GRACE
Arminius believed that since God wanted all men to be saved, He sent the Holy Spirit to "woo" all men to Christ, but since man has absolute "free will," he is able to resist God's will for his life. He believed that God's will to save all men can be frustrated by the finite will of man. He also taught that man exercises his own will first, and then is born again.

5. FALLING FROM GRACE
If man cannot be saved by God unless it is man's will to be saved, then man cannot continue in salvation unless he continues to will to be saved.



Section 2
Calvinism


Interestingly, John Calvin, the French reformer, did not formulate what today we know as the Five Points of Calvinism. This came out of the Canons of the Council of Dort (1618), and subsequent statements among the many Reformed Confessions have expanded upon these matters. Calvinism has been known for outstanding scholars, theologians, preachers, and reformers, men such as John Owen, George Whitefield, William Wilberforce, Abraham Kuyper, Charles Hodge, B.B. Warfield, J. Gresham Machen, and Charles Haddon Spurgeon.

Those in the reformed tradition who answered the teachings of Arminius chose the word "TULIP" as an acrostic to summarize their answer to the Five Points of Arminianism":

1. "T" = TOTAL DEPRAVITY - The Calvinists believed that man is in absolute bondage to sin and Satan, unable to exercise his own will to trust in Jesus Christ without the help of God.

2. "U" = UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION - The Calvinists believed that foreknowledge is based upon the plan and purpose of God, and that election is not based upon the decision of man, but the "free will" of the Creator alone.

3. "L" = LIMITED ATONEMENT - The Calvinists believed that Jesus Christ died to save those who were given to Him by the Father in eternity past. In their view, all for whom Jesus died (the elect) will be saved, and all for whom He did not die (the non elect) will be lost.

4. "I" = IRRESISTIBLE GRACE - The Calvinists believed that the Lord possesses irresistible grace that cannot be obstructed. They taught that the free will of man is so far removed from salvation, that the elect are regenerated (made spiritually alive) by God even before expressing faith in Jesus Christ for salvation. If a totally depraved person wasn't made alive by the Holy Spirit, such a calling on God would be impossible.

5. "P" = PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS - The Calvinists believed that salvation is entirely the work of the Lord, and that man has absolutely nothing to do with the process. The saints will persevere because God will see to it that He will finish the work He has begun

 

whatever said, "That sounds like a Norm Geisler type "Calvinist" to me." I know that was a joke, but I thought I would ad something to it.

 

Thanks rc,
Let me chew on these for a bit.

 

Wes,
There is a web page that has the whole "5 articles" it's pretty long, so that's why I put down what I did... I forot where it is, but I'll look for it.. I think Ray asked me for this a month or so ago also, so I'll find it. I will just post the link..

Also.. and I think MORE interesting is how this whole arguement began... ALL from just a little prayer ! Can you believe that! 1700 years of argueing because of a prayer! (A little teaser)..

 

Here's the link...
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Creeds/ArminianArticles.htm

 

Well, that seems comfortable with me! Perhaps I am Arminian leaning, but not Arminian following!

I am Jesus following!

 

That's cool... Reading the history behind it is what made me cautious behind what I thought was "just another theology" and being condemned a heretic didn't make me feel that good either. The reason behind it was, it was considered heresy because BEFORE it, it wasn't taught, which means the teachers before never taught it, which means those whom they learned from (the apostles) didn't teach it either... The history of TULIP goes back to Clement who was the student of John HIMSELF !! So...

 

Well Clement and I have the same tutor. How 'bout that?

 

Then you should believe what the tuor tought.
John taught Clement and what the early church believed because what was taught by John... man is evil and the elect where predestined for salvation.

Or be a heretic and believe man isn't evil and can choose God from a wicked heart.

 

rc
I do!

Evil is what makes man sin, IT is spirit and therefore has in influence on the spirit of man!

It was evil that seduced Eve to eat of the fruit of the tree of Knowledge of Good and evil. Eve was not evil, she was neutral, as was Adam. But they succumbed to the seduction of evil, and DISOBEYED God's command to NOT EAT of that tree. Eating that fruit did not make either Adam or Eve evil, but as the name of the tree implies, they received the KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil. Henseforth all men are NOT evil, but they do possess the knowledge of good and evil received from their parents genetics. All men are susceptable to sin!

The same evil that seduced Eve then Adam continues to seduce man today. You are not evil, but you believe evil things and you do evil things, because you believe them.

It is only when you believe in God and receive His promises that you behave according to your new belief. It is with the 'spirit' of God, that is, your belief in him due to hearing His word in Your spirit, that you have the power to do what God commands which is "be holy as I am holy", to "repent from sinning", to "live righteously" which is pleasing unto God.

All of the human species is the same! There are none that we are able to discern who are pre-determined to have Faith in God. There are many who are, because of their environment, the 'hard ground'. That is, there hearts have been conditioned by their environment to resist "hearing God's word". There are those who because of their environment, are the 'weedy ground' that chokes out the growth of faith. There are those who because of their environment, 'receive the truth', cause it to sprout, only to let it die because of lack of nourishment. Then there are those who 'receive the seed', nourish it, water it, and it grows strong and healty to produce an hundred fold more seeds of faith for other ground.

NO! Man is not evil, man just does evil things.

 

Genesis 8:21 for the intention of man's heart is evil from his youth.

Wes... A tree has to bear the fruit of it's kind... An good tree bears good fruit and and evil tree bears evil fruit... and evil tree CAN NOT bear good fruit!

Bad analogies again and no scripture... don't you get tired of protecting the worshipped will of man?

 

Hi RC;
You should know better;

The Bible doesn't say the "Intentions" it says "Imagination" This could never be interpreted as intentions again you choose from multiple choice definitions. Imagination simply means conceive. Even Hebrew and Aramaic could only have had one meaning for a word since neither had a dictionary.
May Christ Shine His Light On Us All;
Mike

 

ILL... sorry buddy, but the "Torah" wasn't in King James English. Also KJ english isn't even well understood by today's English... In 15th century English the "imaginatioin" meant purpose.. what is being purposed from the heart... The word in the Hebrew "which is what was used for Torah NOT english is PURPOSED, WILL or better INTENTION and LITERALLY.. "evil that flows from the beginning of the heart"...

Take a linguistics class...