The devil wants us fighting about this...why?

I agree! Satan divides and weakens us when we waste time arguing whether one teaching or the other is correct when neither will condemn us to hell. We do the same about versions.

Diane

 

Christ desires all people of the world to be saved, that why Christ commands us go and preach to every creature in all nations. Christ desires that all people of the world to hear the gospel, and to be saved. That what 1 Peter 3:9 commands all people of the world to repentance, because God does not want all people of the world go hell. That what Calvary and gospel for.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

It is clear that only one of these views is right.

The "essence" of the posts on this thread is to say "it would not matter WHICH view was right" -- in the end it is all the same with hardly a hair's breadth real difference between the two views.

Suppose we "propose" a future scenario that SHOWS the "expected outcome" given each view's salient points, each view's suppositions -- AND SEE if it really does not matter "one hair's breadth" which way it goes.

Because certainly if the difference is minimal - why waste all the time and effort to "explore that difference"??

Particularly if people will be getting hot under the collar in doing that exploration.

I already HAVE a test case showing the two views that can be posted here "again". Does anyone else?

In Christ.

Bob

 

My previous posts gets to "another problem" on this board. IT is often the case that Calvinists "Can not bring themselves to state the Arminian position" even though they debate it strenuously.

They also "claim" that Arminians have no idea what Calvinism is.

(Calvinists seem to have a lot of problems with reality.)

However - if you really believe your view - you should be able to state the opposing view "accurately" and to propose a "future scenario" for that opposing view that "is reasonable" given the salient points of the opposing view.

This just isn't that hard.

 

I don't know of any CAlvinists who mistate the arminian position on this board. Have you seen it? Nor do I know of any who have problems with reality. It is a demonstrable fact that many on the other side misrepresent the Calvinist position. Why? The only reason I can figure is because they have no answer for what we actually believe.

 

Larry, you ought to consider a life on stage. What a complete joke. Misrepresent the Calvinistic position? More like distortion of the Truth. Ever trying to change the meanings of words, because accepting them for what they are, will only make Calvinism contradict the Word of God. You ought to stop playing games here, and be humble enough, like Dabney, and admit that some of your "proof texts" are really phoney

 

I think we're missing the gist of Bro. Brandon's post which is a concern that we're wasting time fussing about C/A or neither instead of witnessing, door knocking, caring for widows, etc. His intent, in MY opinion, was to express his concerns and move on, not to reengage others in this silly debate.

Putting others first is demanded of us. Fighting over these theological differences ...

 

Amazing.If I decide to join a Baptist church,will I have to choose between cal/arm ? Or will the church be one or the other and which one is right?

 

Yes. Some here have said things like Calvinists believe we are saved without faith, or believe we are saved twice. That is a misrepresentation of the Calvinist position. There can be no debate about that. We believe neither. I think that is one of the reasons the primitives won't claim to be Calvinists. They don't believe that faith is necessary for salvation.

I know of no place where a Calvinst has changed the meaning of a word. Perhaps you could illustrate one in an appropriate thread. So far, there has been none shown.

I am not playing games ... but none of my proof texts are phoney. I believe some of the proof texts of some Calvinists are phoney, but I don't use those. I really don't use proof texts at all. I deal with Scripture in context, properly exegeted to arrive at my views. If others see it differently, then they have to answer for that.

 

Larry,
If you cannot admit that you and other Calvinists do indeed take scriptures OUT OF THEIR CONTEXT to support an unsupportable position, there is no way that you can be convinced that calvinist doctrines are non-biblical, and you remain stuck in your dogma.

 

Might I suggest those who are opposed to Calvinistic teaching go and join www.apuritansmind.com and discuss it with Scott Bushey and C. Matthew McMahon.

They will enjoy explaining the belief to you. I have no problem with Calvinism myself although I do not want to be labled a Calvinist because as I have said before, I am not happy with the attitude of some reformed groups.

Go on, join their board, discuss, come back and tell us what you think. Its an expierience I can tell you.

David

 

I can admit that some Calvinists do. I cannot admit that I do, because I don't believe that to be case. You can't convince me that Calvinist doctrines are unbibical until you use the Bible, in its context and truth, to show that. So far, you have offered not even one valid criticism, not even one point based on a proper understanding of Scripture. Therefore, I am not compelled to change. I see no reason to disregard the Bible's teaching to follow your opinions.

 

The problem with both Calvinist and Arminian views is that there are "flavors" of Calvinism and also a few variations in the Arminian groups. So it is hard to pin ALL calvinists to ONE TULIP with all pedals in place. And Arminians have something of a similar problem - sorta.

But still - within reason - there should be a way for each side to "test" the tenants of the other side and show their flaws based on REAL foundation points of the opposing argument.

I do this with the "future Calvinist scenario" (for 4 and 5 pt Calvinism) and I also show how the "future Arminian scenario" would work.

The problem I found is that when Calvinists SEE their own salient points extending into the future with a God that has a somewhat harsh and negative view of mankind they will sometimes "object" by saying that Calvinism was not represented well.

An example of this is the 4-5 pt Calvinist's idea of "good Calvinism", where we PRAISE God for saving the FEW that He does save without getting into negative feelings about why He is not caring for the lost in a "real" and meaningful way.

That view REQUIRES that your own precious child NOT be among the ones God is NOT CARING for - so that you can still "feel good" about Calvinism's picture of God.

But if you have to make those same words come out of your mouth - with your own precious little daughter as the "victim" -- well that's when they choke and sputter and claim that somebody has loused up Calvinism again!

IN Christ,

Bob

 

If the God of Calvinism ordained that I believe in Arminianism, would that make him the author of error?

 

No

 

No. And if he makes you (as a born-again saved Arminian) continually expose the errors of Calvinism to the pure light of day -- then as a 4 or 5-pt Calvinist I would have to say that "it is ALL of God" and "NONE of you" - and give God and God ALONE the glory for that.

But of course - I am Arminian - and so I would ALSO AGREE with the 4 and 5pt Calvinist who sees that act of yours as being "ALL of God" and "NONE of your OWN choices".

We ALL agree (both sides agree) God SAW that you would do it.

The Calvinist concludes then that you have no CHOICE but to DO all that God has seen - for when it comes to the saved "it is ALL of God".

 

Just curious, Bob ... How do you conclude on this? If God saw it, do you really have a choice? Can God's vision be wrong?

 

I consider that God saw Christ's future just as perfectly as He sees mine.

He also sees His OWN future action in the second coming etc - just as he sees my actions.

I believe that "God has free will" anyway. But my innability to "be God" prevents me from knowing "exactly HOW" He retains free will while still knowing ALL about Christ and ALL about His own future actions.

My "innability to BE God" does not stop free will.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I agree with that Bob, but doesn't it make my point? That man can be "free" while having no other option than to do what God knows he will do.

For instance, if God knew from eternity past that John Q would commit adultery, is there any chance that he will not commit adultery?

I assume you will say No. Which leads to my question, how is that any different than what Calvinism teaches about this matter?