-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Someone please explain the difference between Arminianism and Calvinism?
- Thread starter lgpruitt
- Start date
lgpruitt
You really ought to read the book I mentioned. Here is the format in which it is written.
Chapter 1-A classical Calvinist view
Horton goes into what this view is and why it is right.
Then there are the responses from the other view points and how they argue why classical calvinist is wrong
Chapter 2 Moderate Calvinist
does same thing as above
Chapter 3 Reformed Arminian
ditto
Chpapter 4 wesleyan arminian
ditto
It is a deep read, but one that is very beneficial to the one who really wants to know what one really believes and how the others argue against it. It is a very telling book.
Zondervan published it you should check it out
You really ought to read the book I mentioned. Here is the format in which it is written.
Chapter 1-A classical Calvinist view
Horton goes into what this view is and why it is right.
Then there are the responses from the other view points and how they argue why classical calvinist is wrong
Chapter 2 Moderate Calvinist
does same thing as above
Chapter 3 Reformed Arminian
ditto
Chpapter 4 wesleyan arminian
ditto
It is a deep read, but one that is very beneficial to the one who really wants to know what one really believes and how the others argue against it. It is a very telling book.
Zondervan published it you should check it out
igpruitt, methinks thou must analyze carefully these quotes........
The simple Truth is that Christ died for all who believe. Those who believe that, have their names written in the Lamb's Book of Life. Those who don't believe that, are those who "go to Hell." All men/women are without excuse. We all have the knowledge of God in our hearts. To follow up on that:
Romans 1:20, Romans 3:22-26, Romans 4:5, Romans 6:23, Romans 8:38-39, Romans 10:8-10, John 3:15-17, John 10:27-29 (His sheep are those who believe), John 10:38, 1 John 5:13;20, Hebrews 7:25, Hebrews 10:19-22 (Hebrews was written to Jews and Jewish Christians to underline God's promises), Ephesians 4:30, Revelation 22:17.
I don't deny for one minute that we ( all we) are hopelessly lost without Jesus. There is nothing we can do to pay the penalty for sin, or to earn God's pardon. It is only by the grace / mercy of God that we can be saved. We are lost down here on earth. God sent His son to find us. We place our faith, our hope, our trust in Him to lead us out of this place! When He approaches, and when He says "I am that I am," "I am HE," at that moment the Holy Spirit woos us, saying "It is He. Believe. This is that one who has come to find you, to offer you eternal life. Only believe."
The invitation is for everyone. It is from God Himself. Isaiah 55:1. Galatians 1:8-12.
Here, in a nutshell, we see the illogical reasoning of TULIP. They argue backwards.
The simple Truth is that Christ died for all who believe. Those who believe that, have their names written in the Lamb's Book of Life. Those who don't believe that, are those who "go to Hell." All men/women are without excuse. We all have the knowledge of God in our hearts. To follow up on that:
This is another illogical example. A Christian has been born again. Nothing can change that. There is never a reason for a Christian to say, "Oh, wow, I lost my salvation. I'll approach God about it, see what He can do." The concept of "repeated regeneration" is at best an oxymoron. Eternal security is based upon Christ's finished, perfect work on the cross, not upon the works or the merit of any individual. Don't let anyone throw "endurance 'til the end" at you. That does not refer to salvation in the church age, it refers to the Tribulation.
Romans 1:20, Romans 3:22-26, Romans 4:5, Romans 6:23, Romans 8:38-39, Romans 10:8-10, John 3:15-17, John 10:27-29 (His sheep are those who believe), John 10:38, 1 John 5:13;20, Hebrews 7:25, Hebrews 10:19-22 (Hebrews was written to Jews and Jewish Christians to underline God's promises), Ephesians 4:30, Revelation 22:17.
I don't deny for one minute that we ( all we) are hopelessly lost without Jesus. There is nothing we can do to pay the penalty for sin, or to earn God's pardon. It is only by the grace / mercy of God that we can be saved. We are lost down here on earth. God sent His son to find us. We place our faith, our hope, our trust in Him to lead us out of this place! When He approaches, and when He says "I am that I am," "I am HE," at that moment the Holy Spirit woos us, saying "It is He. Believe. This is that one who has come to find you, to offer you eternal life. Only believe."
The invitation is for everyone. It is from God Himself. Isaiah 55:1. Galatians 1:8-12.
I'm not sure where I fit in....help me here. I believe Christ died for all.... but that not all may choose to accept him. I believe if you are truly saved, that we will not fall from grace. We may backslide, but that as believers, we will see our sins, and once again come back to Christ. (somehow with some it takes longer than others) I believe that it is by Grace we are saved and that baptism is an act of obediance....that we are following Christ's example.
Can someone help me locate myself to this point? Or am I just a lost in my own thoughts?
Can someone help me locate myself to this point? Or am I just a lost in my own thoughts?
Well, thank you! I've been with God and in His grace, truly, since 1988. I was baptized in 1973...and had a believer's baptisim in 1998. God has led me....through thick and thin. I'm a sinner....but I strive through Him to "Sin-less".
I'm not sure how or what to label myself, other than baptist and a follower of Christ...a Christian. I'm trying to look deeper into my beliefs and Christianity.....at this website and discussions with other believers. I'm a Christian in search of answers....that truly only God may answer. But, I welcome anyone that can make me look deeper into myself and scripture.
I'm not sure how or what to label myself, other than baptist and a follower of Christ...a Christian. I'm trying to look deeper into my beliefs and Christianity.....at this website and discussions with other believers. I'm a Christian in search of answers....that truly only God may answer. But, I welcome anyone that can make me look deeper into myself and scripture.
lgpruitt,
To put it simply, you fall under Moderate Calvinism. Just because we might disagree with Eternal Security, you would be more than welcome to my church as well.
At my church we accecpt anyone who has confessed Jesus Christ as Lord through faith. You don't have to agree with every little other detail to be part of my church. Not sure if that is what Genesis meant or not.
-------------------------------------------
Genesis
I very well could have misread your comments, and if so I apologize ahead of time. Please do not get Reformed Ariminan and Wesleyan Arminian mixed up. Both are very different.
Reformed does not believe in repeated regeneration, and we do not believe a person can "lose" their salvation.
To put it simply, you fall under Moderate Calvinism. Just because we might disagree with Eternal Security, you would be more than welcome to my church as well.
At my church we accecpt anyone who has confessed Jesus Christ as Lord through faith. You don't have to agree with every little other detail to be part of my church. Not sure if that is what Genesis meant or not.
-------------------------------------------
Genesis
I very well could have misread your comments, and if so I apologize ahead of time. Please do not get Reformed Ariminan and Wesleyan Arminian mixed up. Both are very different.
Reformed does not believe in repeated regeneration, and we do not believe a person can "lose" their salvation.
lgpruitt, I wish I could explain something where it is the "same difference" as to the systems. Both are man-made, and both ultimately stand or fall on the issue of "perseverance", by their own definition. I believe it was webdog who classified himself as of "free grace" persuasion. As do I, although I would say that "free grace" is redundant. That is the Biblical position, IMO, as well.
What difference does it make, whether one's so-called lack of 'perseverance' shows that one who "claimed to 'have it', never really 'had it' in the first place", or that one who "claimed to 'have it' really did 'have it', but then subsequently 'lost it'"? (Of course, you must realize, the only standard to this is the non-objective one of the one making the judgment call, for the most part.) As I said before, "Same difference!"
Consider this: One individual referred to three times in Scripture as righteous, or just, (which happens to be more than any other individual) and the only one specifically identified as one of "the godly", is that great paragon of virtue, Lot!
Truly, God looks not as man looks!
In His grace,
Ed
[ April 22, 2006, 01:55 PM: Message edited by: EdSutton ]
What difference does it make, whether one's so-called lack of 'perseverance' shows that one who "claimed to 'have it', never really 'had it' in the first place", or that one who "claimed to 'have it' really did 'have it', but then subsequently 'lost it'"? (Of course, you must realize, the only standard to this is the non-objective one of the one making the judgment call, for the most part.) As I said before, "Same difference!"
Consider this: One individual referred to three times in Scripture as righteous, or just, (which happens to be more than any other individual) and the only one specifically identified as one of "the godly", is that great paragon of virtue,
Lot! Truly, God looks not as man looks!
In His grace,
Ed
[ April 22, 2006, 01:55 PM: Message edited by: EdSutton ]
epistemaniac
New Member
Lisa, you want to also keep in mind the different ways people toss around the term "illogical" to describe other's beliefs... for instance,
genesis12 said
What happens when someone says something is illogical and then does not seek to prove it, they are expecting you to take their word on it, and that is, it becomes an illogical appeal to authority. It looks like this:
An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:
Person A (genesis12) is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S (TULIP/Calvinism).
Person A makes claim C (reasoning backwards is illogical) about subject S (TULIP/Calvinists).
Therefore, C is true. (Calvinists reason backwards and this is illogical)
First, it has not been shown that Calvinists do in fact reason backwards, OR that reasoning in that way is illogical, in fact, it isn't really even shown what it is that is even meant by the phrase "reason backwards" means, its just an assertion and is not even defined.
There is nothing inherently illogical about arguing "backwards. The fact is, we often look at conclusions and then "reason backwards" to the premises (if this is what is meant by the phrase) in order to examine what premises must be in order to support a certain conclusion. For instance we might ask someone if they believe in the deity of Christ, they might say yes, and when we ask them to tell us why, they "reason backwards" so as to prove their conclusions. Of course one cannot assume their conclusion to be correct if it is not supported by the premises, its just that it is a common practice to look "back" from the conclusion to the premise.
Perhaps what is meant by “reasoning backwards” is that one might start out with a certain presupposition, and then reason backwards to look for evidence to support that presupposition. This is a valid criticism only if it is found out that the presupposition is discovered to not be supported by the evidence, in this case this has only been assumed... but the fact is, it is really very hard to develop a presupposition not based on any evidence whatsoever. We all have our presuppositions that we take may for granted to be true. They may be true, they may be false, but discovering what one's perhaps unconsciously held presuppositions are is reasoning backwards, and then one is to be about the business of identifying them (your presuppositions) and then seeking to find out if they are in fact supported by the evidence. This is the business that everyone who seeks to live an examined life is in. And of course, for the Christian, it is a matter of finding out if one's beliefs are supported by the Bible or not.
Speaking of this, one of the best things you can do is to look at the phrase "free will" and then ask yourself what it is that makes your belief in free will to be what it is”. Often people carry around a definition of "free will" that is merely philosophical and not based on what the Bible teaches about God's sovereignty and man's nature since the effect of the fall.
blessings,
Ken
genesis12 said
This is, in and of itself, illogical, or at the very least, is not sound reasoning. Note: if someone claims something is illogical, nothing actually is illogical unless they prove it.
What happens when someone says something is illogical and then does not seek to prove it, they are expecting you to take their word on it, and that is, it becomes an illogical appeal to authority. It looks like this:
An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:
Person A (genesis12) is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S (TULIP/Calvinism).
Person A makes claim C (reasoning backwards is illogical) about subject S (TULIP/Calvinists).
Therefore, C is true. (Calvinists reason backwards and this is illogical)
First, it has not been shown that Calvinists do in fact reason backwards, OR that reasoning in that way is illogical, in fact, it isn't really even shown what it is that is even meant by the phrase "reason backwards" means, its just an assertion and is not even defined.
There is nothing inherently illogical about arguing "backwards. The fact is, we often look at conclusions and then "reason backwards" to the premises (if this is what is meant by the phrase) in order to examine what premises must be in order to support a certain conclusion. For instance we might ask someone if they believe in the deity of Christ, they might say yes, and when we ask them to tell us why, they "reason backwards" so as to prove their conclusions. Of course one cannot assume their conclusion to be correct if it is not supported by the premises, its just that it is a common practice to look "back" from the conclusion to the premise.
Perhaps what is meant by “reasoning backwards” is that one might start out with a certain presupposition, and then reason backwards to look for evidence to support that presupposition. This is a valid criticism only if it is found out that the presupposition is discovered to not be supported by the evidence, in this case this has only been assumed... but the fact is, it is really very hard to develop a presupposition not based on any evidence whatsoever. We all have our presuppositions that we take may for granted to be true. They may be true, they may be false, but discovering what one's perhaps unconsciously held presuppositions are is reasoning backwards, and then one is to be about the business of identifying them (your presuppositions) and then seeking to find out if they are in fact supported by the evidence. This is the business that everyone who seeks to live an examined life is in. And of course, for the Christian, it is a matter of finding out if one's beliefs are supported by the Bible or not.
Speaking of this, one of the best things you can do is to look at the phrase "free will" and then ask yourself what it is that makes your belief in free will to be what it is”. Often people carry around a definition of "free will" that is merely philosophical and not based on what the Bible teaches about God's sovereignty and man's nature since the effect of the fall.
blessings,
Ken
Apparently, you didn't read my apologetic, which followed immediately, including scripture references.
igpruitt is saved by grace thru faith, and that before the foundation of the world, because she responded to the call of the Holy Spirit to receive Christ as personal Lord and Savior. She could have run from the call, as many do, and ended up lost for eternity. But she didn't do that. She responded. Even the faith to respond came from the Holy Spirit, but it was up to igpruitt to say YES! to Lord Jesus. She, like many of us, shopped around for a time, has had questions, but the Holy Spirit draws her to the place where she is today. There is nothing that she needs to do now to enter eternal life. In fact, her eternal life has already begun. Nothing, no thing, can change that. Lisa, forget labels. You are right on target! Rejoice in the Lord always, and again I say, rejoice!
Assuming you are talking to me, I just found out by checking, I made a typo. I have corrected one verse to what I intended to say. Thanks, even if unknowingly, for being helpful. Had you not mentioned this, I probably would not have noticed I made a boo-boo, here. Especially, since I had not noticed it in four months.
In His grace,
Ed
That's presumptuous and utterly unnecessary in the context of what I have written in this and other forums. If you aren't sure, your sentence needs to be reconstructed, directed to me, personally, and with a question mark at the end. </font>[/QUOTE]?????????????????????????????????????????????????
My humble apologies. Please don't get so uptight just because we disagree on something
James_Newman
New Member
I know the difference. Arminians believe that you have to work to stay saved, and Calvinists believe that if your saved, you have to work.
Hmmm....I do not think that you have to work to be saved. That sounds an aweful like the Church of Christ mentality I was brought up in. I believe that your works will show after you've been saved. You are a saved individual and everything you say or do is a reflection of being saved. Make sense?