Is there a retitle suggestion for Calvinism and Arminianism

[glfredrick]

This statement is a reflection of the false perception many (if not most) Calvinists have regarding the non-Calvinistic view of Election. We gladly affirm that God's election is by HIS Grace and according to his sovereign will. To suggest otherwise is misrepresentative to say the least.

Man's will (whether determined or free) has little to do with God's Elective purposes as revealed in scripture.

Are you lumping yourself in with Jerry, Benjamin, Winman, and a few others who actually hold Pelagian positions? I thought you were intentionally Arminian and understood the difference (and in fact, I think you are and you do).

 

[Skandelon]

How is the bold part not by looking ahead to see who will believe? I'm seeing you are saying he will elect to save anyone that believes. How does He know who the ones that believe are?

The bold part that states, "hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his son Jesus" is just a long way of saying, "whosoever will believe...." It is not talking about God foreseeing any particular individual and then choosing to elect that individual.

His foreknowledge of who does and doesn't believe is not what Paul is addressing in passages such as Eph. 1. He is addressing God's plan to save (adopt/sanctify) whoever believes, whether of Israel or not. The mistake in interpretation comes when one tries to apply his words to particular individuals, as if Paul is saying God has preselected to adopt you, jbh, a particular person, to the neglect of someone else; versus him saying that God has always planned to save whosoever believes, even Gentiles who believe. In other words, this isn't a new plan of God to save Gentiles. He has ALWAYS planned on adopting whosoever believes in him. He is saying that God has predetermined to adopt us (those with faith in Christ). He does not mean that God has predetermined for YOU, jbh, to believe and thus be adopted, to the neglect of those people not preselected. See the difference? I'm not asking you to agree, just to acknowledge the difference.

 

[Skandelon]

Are you lumping yourself in with Jerry, Benjamin, Winman, and a few others who actually hold Pelagian positions? I thought you were intentionally Arminian and understood the difference (and in fact, I think you are and you do).

Pelagians, to my understanding, deny the doctrine of Original Sin; meaning they do not believe men are born in need of a savior. They believe men are born innocent and only become in need of a savior after they commit a willful act of rebellion (sin). Is that what Jerry, Ben and Winman have argued? I don't read all the post so I honestly don't know.

I suspect, as often is the case, that you have lumped and labeled these individuals with a heretical title so as to more easily dismiss them and their actual words.

 

[Van]

reply to Agedman,

Doesn't matter. Was this the tread to discuss his point? NO!

This is simply a deflection, for this comment also does not address the topic of the OP and is therefore pointless.

"arcane and obscure terminology" was used when?

My post addressed the meaning of "ordained!" So yet another question as a deflection rather than an effort to engage in discussion.

Calvinism didn't make God into a monster. It is those who don't particularly like the Calvinistic thinking that would picture God in that light - typical Calvinists have held God as completely sovereign.

And I explained how Calvinism presents God as a monster, punishing people when they are unable to choose otherwise.
Then you introduce yet another arcane term, sovereign which Calvinism defines as exhaustive determinism, where every choice is really a non-choice because the outcome is predetermined.

I would like for you to point to a thread where the statement you made is proven. If anything, the Calvinistic discussions have never been avoided on this board, and the Scriptures are daily searched for the truth.

This thread in the post mentioned. Your whole post is an effort to run away from a discussion of Calvinism and find fault with those holding opposing views.

Respect for the truth? Was Benjamin's size 7 attitude demonstrating respect for the truth? He finally claims that the post was made in an attempt to humor, but the immediate following posts of his display what is seemingly anger and hurt when the post is rejected. A true humorists looks for the results of humor from the audience. When they find none, they have failed as a humorist.

Yet another example of discussion an opponents behavior rather the Calvinism.

"Run away" ???
"weasel word" ???

You have offered no defense of Calvinism, hence you are running away from that discussion, and you have used the term "sovereign" which is code for exhaustive determinism, but did not define it as such, hence a weasel word.

The proof that there is no "run away" or use of "weasel word(s)" is in the abundance of threads and posts on the topic that daily occur on the BB.

There has been not actual discussion only deflection. Let me ask you a simple question, does God predestine everything. Just give a yes or no answer. If you fail this test, please have the integrity to admit you run away from a discussion of Calvinism.

Those who don't want a God who plans, builds, forms, the believer to be considered predestined to His own purposes may of their own devices believe whatever they desire.

God plans and builds and forms believers, but not in the way Calvinism claims. So yet another deflection, trying to turn the discussion toward the behavior of opponents.

Those who do not want a God that is totally and purposely engaged in their life may proclaim their own self exhaustive deterministic beliefs of free will, free choice, and freedom to accept or reject.

Yet another strawman, God is engaged purposely in the lives of believers, He has begun a good and work and will continue. Please provide a reference to a post where anyone said or suggested they believed in "their own self exhaustive deterministic beliefs of free will, free choice, and freedom to accept or reject." I have posted that I believe the Bible teaches "limited free will" where God allows us to make choices within the purview He allows. He sets the choice of life or death before us and allows us to make that choice and did not predetermine what choice we will make.

You can do better than claim Calvinistic thinking allows for God to be the "author of sin."

Yet another attack on your opponent rather than an explanation of which Calvinism does not make God the author of sin. If everything is predestined, i.e. ordained, God is the author of sin. He isn't but that is what Calvinism requires by logical necessity, but denies by offering up absurdity.

God is a creator. That is one of his characteristics. As such God made (created) everything. However, He did not "author" everything. God made Satan, but did not "author" the iniquity found in him. God made Adam, but did not author the rejection Adam chose.

This line of argument is not only silly, but demeans the very character of God.

Yes Calvinism, is silly and demeans the very character of God.

I responded in like manner to Benjamin to show the rudeness of his post. When it was obvious he did not comprehend the effort, I backed off and made attempts to persuade him differently.

Addressing behavior rather than position is the hallmark of Calvinism's defense. In other words, a joke.

There was no "sticking to their doctrines" and no "nullifying the Bible."

Calvinism denies God sets the choice of life or death before us, and the meaning of choice is the ability to pick differing outcomes. Calvinism nullifies this passage by saying the meaning of choice includes "non-choice" or the picking of the only option available. Fiddlesticks.

Start a thread that works for the unity of the believers. We have no problem with sharing God's word.

I have been starting threads for years with no takers, only those who say the verses do not mean what they say. Consider 2 Thessalonians 2:13 where God chooses individuals for salvation based on faith in the truth. Clearly our individual election for salvation is conditional and occurs during our lifetime.

 

[Tom Butler]

I have been thinking about that.

The problem being everyone would think I had some kind of disease, fungus, or something.

Monergistic coupled with DoG would be a bit redundant, wouldn't it?

"Independent Monergist" - well at least it would be attention getting.

"The Monergist Baptist Church" - the world would soon degrade the name to the Orneriest Baptist Church or Odor-iest Baptist Church.

But it is worth consideration.

That it is. Looks as if we combine our efforts and come up with a workable short-cut name, we'll get all the credit. We've had 34 more posts and nobody else has offered any suggestions but us. Can you imagine the public glory and honor we'll have if we come up with something that catches on?

 

[agedman]

Consider 2 Thessalonians 2:13 where God chooses individuals for salvation based on faith in the truth. Clearly our individual election for salvation is conditional and occurs during our lifetime.

Perhaps, you see what I don't in the passage.

2 Thessalonians:

But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Where unto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

I see eternal praise to God that the folks were saved.

I see that they were beloved (much or dearly loved) of (by) the Lord.

I see that God from the start chose them to (for the purpose of) salvation.

I see God doing this through sanctification (being set apart) by the Spirit (Holy Spirit) and the belief (credence, reliability, veracity) of the truth.

I see God called by the Apostles gospel (message)

I see the results being that the Thessalonians obtained (perseverance in) the glory (honor, praise) of Jesus Christ.

And I see a statement by Paul that because all that was accomplished that the Thessalonians were to stand firmly secure in what they have been taught.

I don't see anything that would not allow God's start to have been in agreement with "chosen us in him before the foundations of the world."

What I wonder is if you really don't see that the choosing took place by God and that it was from eternity (john 1)

I also wonder if you see anywhere in this passage in choice by the Thessalonians in whether they were part of the choosing process or not.

 

[Iconoclast]

Perhaps, you see what I don't in the passage.

2 Thessalonians:

But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Where unto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

I see eternal praise to God that the folks were saved.

I see that they were beloved (much or dearly loved) of (by) the Lord.

I see that God from the start chose them to (for the purpose of) salvation.

I see God doing this through sanctification (being set apart) by the Spirit (Holy Spirit) and the belief (credence, reliability, veracity) of the truth.

I see God called by the Apostles gospel (message)

I see the results being that the Thessalonians obtained (perseverance in) the glory (honor, praise) of Jesus Christ.

And I see a statement by Paul that because all that was accomplished that the Thessalonians were to stand firmly secure in what they have been taught.

I don't see anything that would not allow God's start to have been in agreement with "chosen us in him before the foundations of the world."

What I wonder is if you really don't see that the choosing took place by God and that it was from eternity (john 1)

I also wonder if you see anywhere in this passage in choice by the Thessalonians in whether they were part of the choosing process or not.

Only Van knows what this passage means...the historic church thought it meant what you do...but Van alone "sees"it

 

[Iconoclast]

It humbles us, it is all in Gods Word, and to Him be ALL Glory.

:applause::applause::thumbsup::type:

 

[jbh28]

The bold part that states, "hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his son Jesus" is just a long way of saying, "whosoever will believe...." It is not talking about God foreseeing any particular individual and then choosing to elect that individual.

It states "hath determined... those who... shall believe on this his son Jesus" when you look at it closely. It was determined out of a fallen, sinful race of men, but he determined to save, according to this, those who come to Christ. Here, we have God choosing those who believe. And how does God know who believes?

His foreknowledge of who does and doesn't believe is not what Paul is addressing in passages such as Eph. 1. He is addressing God's plan to save (adopt/sanctify) whoever believes, whether of Israel or not. The mistake in interpretation comes when one tries to apply his words to particular individuals, as if Paul is saying God has preselected to adopt you, jbh, a particular person, to the neglect of someone else; versus him saying that God has always planned to save whosoever believes, even Gentiles who believe. In other words, this isn't a new plan of God to save Gentiles. He has ALWAYS planned on adopting whosoever believes in him. He is saying that God has predetermined to adopt us (those with faith in Christ). He does not mean that God has predetermined for YOU, jbh, to believe and thus be adopted, to the neglect of those people not preselected. See the difference? I'm not asking you to agree, just to acknowledge the difference.

I see the difference, but I don't believe that's not what is being spoken of here in the article I quoted. Neither is it what Paul is saying. It's individuals that is being spoken of in Ephesians 1. Individuals are saved. Individuals are elected. Individuals are adopted. Individuals are regenerated. What you are advocating isn't people being elected, but God electing a plan and not individuals. individuals are elect. They are called the elect. If individuals were not chosen, they couldn't be called the elect.

So still with Arminianism, you have God choosing to save those who believe. So who are the elect of God, those who believe. How does God know who these believers are when he chooses them?

I see where you are coming from, but indiviuals are being spoken of as being elect. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Benjamin]

We've had 34 more posts and nobody else has offered any suggestions but us.

You tryin to say my suggestions ain't ligitimate Butler?

 

[Tom Butler]

You tryin to say my suggestions ain't ligitimate Butler?

Your suggestion came in posts #3, #15, and later repeated in #55

How about being called the Holders of the "Doctrines of Deterministic Pre-selected Grace" ?

I give you credit for proposing your idea early on. I was mainly commenting on the fact that after Greektim gave his suggestion in #34, nobody proposed anything, and the discussion left the OP.

You did repeat your idea in #55 and agedman threw in a re-phrasing of it, and that was it. I may have overlooked something, but I don't remember anything else new since #34. That's 96 posts without reference to the OP.

I mean, it's no big deal, chasing rabbits is done all the time here on the BB. I was hoping for something snappy and easily remembered. I just wish we'd gotten more proposals.

 

[Benjamin]

I was hoping for something snappy and easily remembered.

Oh...well...fine then, thanks a lot

 

[Winman]

How about calling the Reformed/Calvinists the Stepford believers?

The younger folks may not understand this, but back in the '70s there was a famous movie called The Stepford Wives. It was about a small New England town called Stepford where the men used surgery to hardwire all their wifes into being perfect, submissive wives.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXHkOlDTYx4

Watch till the end, you will get the idea.

I guess a good name for the Arminians would be from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest where Jack Nicholson would not submit to authority until he received shock therapy at the end. Then he became a Stepford believer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCUmINGae44

 

[agedman]

Pelagians, to my understanding, deny the doctrine of Original Sin; meaning they do not believe men are born in need of a savior. They believe men are born innocent and only become in need of a savior after they commit a willful act of rebellion (sin). Is that what Jerry, Ben and Winman have argued? I don't read all the post so I honestly don't know.

I suspect, as often is the case, that you have lumped and labeled these individuals with a heretical title so as to more easily dismiss them and their actual words.

This is what I was attempting to get at with the OP.

Both the Arminian and Calvin thinkers face the same problem.

The identification of a system of thinking with folks to which:

1) Most common believers know virtually nothing about other than biased spouting from agenda driven "leaders," yet these same common believer - folks sit as decision makers on pulpit and other extremely important committees.
2) The total teachings and views of either Calvin or Arminius (the Latin name for Professor Harmensen) are not completely held and agreeable with either side.
3) There is (as the Dordrecht found) a totally dependable, Scripturally based doctrinally sound system of theology that are not based upon any personage but the truth.
4) That the God in Heaven would not leave such matters incomprehensible.
5) That Satan will create as much confusion and deception as possible to hide and besmear.
​

Some (ex.John R. Rice) held a modified Calvinistic view and called the TULIP holders as extreme-Calvinists.

Some (as I perceive you might be) do not hold to full extreme of the Pelagian view (which many original supporters of Arminius did hold) in which the Dordrecht soundly refuted.

I was looking for some term that would be soundly ground in the Doctrines of God's Plan of Salvation by Grace, and did not carry the baggage of either.

Unfortunately, no simple term has yet to be discerned.

But there is hope.

 

[glfredrick]

Right. God Elective purpose involves his choice of Israel to bring the messiah and the message of redemption to the rest of the world. So, he elected Israel and certain individuals within Israel for a noble purpose regarding the redemption of mankind. Within Israel he chose some to be prophets or apostles, while others he chose to remain in their rebellion and be hardened to the truth of Christ so that they would crucify Him. That is all apart of God's elective purpose in choosing Israel. He also chose to ingraft the Gentiles through faith in Christ. Thus, whosoever believes will be saved. Again, that is His elective purpose. He has predetermined what will become of anyone who believes. He will seal them by his Spirit, adopt them as his son and conform them into the image of Christ. That is His elective purpose.

All of these things are consistent and do not change regardless of my independent will. I don't believe scripture was intending to suggest that God looks down the corridors of time to see if I would believe in him and then chooses to elect me to salvation. Instead, scripture is teaching that God has elected (1) to bring His Messiah and His gospel truth through Israel and (2) to save whosoever (Jew or Gentile) believes in that gospel appeal.

You neglect both the Noahic and Abrahamic Covenants where God said that He would be a blessing to all the world... The Apostles of Christ at the Jerusalem Council returned to the Noahic Covenant when they had to figure out how to handle God's actions among Gentiles.

Your position is deficient in covering the whole counsel of the Word of God, and because of that, your definition of "elect" or "election" is also deficicent.

 

[glfredrick]

Pelagians, to my understanding, deny the doctrine of Original Sin; meaning they do not believe men are born in need of a savior. They believe men are born innocent and only become in need of a savior after they commit a willful act of rebellion (sin). Is that what Jerry, Ben and Winman have argued? I don't read all the post so I honestly don't know.

I suspect, as often is the case, that you have lumped and labeled these individuals with a heretical title so as to more easily dismiss them and their actual words.

And this is EXACTLY what the persons above have been arguing in multiple threads, starting with the belief that one might perfectly keep the Law and therefore be righteous and followed by an outright -- forcefully argued -- denial of original sin.

They are indeed Pelagian in their doctrine and I doubt that you wish to unite your own beliefs with theirs, unless of course you harbor similar doctrines. Then, by all means fess up and join the pack.

And, further, I have not simply dumped a perjorative onto these men. Several have also argued FOR their Pelagian beliefs, defending Pelagius against Augustine. I'm not that shallow, and I actually take no pleasure in discovering heretical belief among those who claim to be believers in Christ.

I have dismissed none of their words, but they argue words that are taken out of context from Scripture to prove their heretical point(s). I cannot argue against that. I can only state what Scripture does say in context and let God be the judge.

So, where do you stand?

 

[agedman]

I have liked the term fundamental baptist bible believer for years.

Then along came the sorry "fundamentalist" of all religions (especially the IFB-ers) and perverted the term (or maybe the media did) into an autocratic system of extreme prejudice against anybody who doesn't think and believe like me.

I started to consider myself a "biblicist" but found that term was far too broad and inclusive of folks that I held in doctrinal error.

Calvinist have the problem of Calvin - the historical Calvin was a man who most of us wouldn't particularly get along with, yet the systematic theology has few weaknesses.

Arminianist have a problem of Jocobe Arminian - a student of Calvin and died before he could coalesce his stand leaving it up to the Remonstrants to do. I doubt the modern folks would get along well with this group either.

Point being that the titles come with presupposed baggage.

Does anyone know of other terms that would hold to a solidly fundamental, historically Baptist (1689 - modified by Spurgeon) statement of faith, in which a person could easily be identified?

What do the forum folks think of the term: Spurgeonian?

Would that sound to "fishy?"

 

[preacher4truth]

And this is EXACTLY what the persons above have been arguing in multiple threads, starting with the belief that one might perfectly keep the Law and therefore be righteous and followed by an outright -- forcefully argued -- denial of original sin.

They are indeed Pelagian in their doctrine and I doubt that you wish to unite your own beliefs with theirs, unless of course you harbor similar doctrines. Then, by all means fess up and join the pack.

And, further, I have not simply dumped a perjorative onto these men. Several have also argued FOR their Pelagian beliefs, defending Pelagius against Augustine. I'm not that shallow, and I actually take no pleasure in discovering heretical belief among those who claim to be believers in Christ.

I have dismissed none of their words, but they argue words that are taken out of context from Scripture to prove their heretical point(s). I cannot argue against that. I can only state what Scripture does say in context and let God be the judge.

So, where do you stand?

What they've taught and what you've said they've taught is completely accurate and is in no way pejorative in nature.

Even a cursory examination of what they've said would reveal this, and in so doing the suggestion that the fault lies in what you've said would have been avoided altogether.

 

[Van]

Reply to Agedman

Perhaps, you see what I don't in the passage.

2 Thessalonians:

But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Where unto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

I see eternal praise to God that the folks were saved.

I see that they were beloved (much or dearly loved) of (by) the Lord.

I see that God from the start chose them to (for the purpose of) salvation.

I see God doing this through sanctification (being set apart) by the Spirit (Holy Spirit) and the belief (credence, reliability, veracity) of the truth.

I see God called by the Apostles gospel (message)

I see the results being that the Thessalonians obtained (perseverance in) the glory (honor, praise) of Jesus Christ.

And I see a statement by Paul that because all that was accomplished that the Thessalonians were to stand firmly secure in what they have been taught.

I don't see anything that would not allow God's start to have been in agreement with "chosen us in him before the foundations of the world."

What I wonder is if you really don't see that the choosing took place by God and that it was from eternity (john 1)

I also wonder if you see anywhere in this passage in choice by the Thessalonians in whether they were part of the choosing process or not.

First, let me start by thanking you for actually attempting to discuss bible study and theology.

Here is the NASB version of our verse:

13 But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.

Lets see if you see what I see: God has chosen you [the Thessalonians] from the beginning for salvation. So our first question in considering when God made the choice, is what does "from the beginning" refer to? Calvinism asserts this refers to the creation week, but even if that mistaken view is accepted, from identifies the action as since or after creation, not before. Whereas Ephesians 1:4 refers to before the foundation of the world, meaning before creation. So I see that the Calvinistic view does not fit the time line.

Next, God has chosen you how? Through sanctification and faith in the truth. Calvinism again, or at least some Calvinists, try to say that the through sanctification and through faith applies to "for salvation" rather than applying to "chose you." But that dog will not hunt. See 1 Peter 1:1 where again scripture says we were chosen by being set apart.

Next, lets discuss your view of "through faith in the truth."

Here is what you said: I see God doing this through sanctification (being set apart) by the Spirit (Holy Spirit) and the belief (credence, reliability, veracity) of the truth.

You say God doing "this." A tad unclear as to whether "this" refers to salvation, the Calvinistic view, or election for salvation. I assume you are saying God saving us through sanctification and belief of the truth. Which of course is not what the verse actually says.

Question: How can we have knowledge -faith - in the truth before the foundation of the world and before we have been created? Answer, we cannot. Therefore 2 Thessalonians 2:13 puts our individual election for salvation as occurring during our lifetime after we have believed in the name of Jesus.

 

[Jerome]

What do the forum folks think of the term: Spurgeonian?

Straight from the pages of his The Sword and the Trowel:

"There is no word in the world so hateful to our heart as that word Spurgeonism."

:tonofbricks: