The Reason why Calvinists and Arminians cannot agree

[Bronconagurski]

So who do you believe was convicting you of your sins, telling you to get straight.......who was changing your heart, giving you a conscience so you agonized over your immortal soul? I believe I know but you have to answer that yourself my brother. Clearly though, there was a tussle going on & for a reason.....to bring you to God.

If you read carefully, I already gave credit to the Holy Spirit and His convicting power. I have never had a problem with that. But I could have rejected and apostasized and been lost forever. It was only after I trusted Christ that the burden of sin rolled away.

 

[Van]

Regeneration now means illumination. Calvinism is based on redefining words. Only when we use the word as the author intended do we seek truth, otherwise, we are just rewriting scripture to conform to man-made doctrine.

Regeneration means to be originated again. We were born spiritually dead in iniquity, but when we are spiritually placed in Christ we are born anew, regenerated, made alive together with Christ.

Calvinists and Arminians cannot agree because they use different definitions for the words in scripture. Nothing means what it says when its actual meaning invalidates the man-made doctrine.

 

[convicted1]

One is the Gospel, the other is not. There can be no compromise.

Thank you Brother for proving my response in post #85...................

 

[convicted1]

I agree. It is really said that Particular Baptists, in all humility, give all the honor and Glory to God, while the General Baptists, in sinful human pride, try to appropriate some of that honor and glory for themselves.

With holloween coming up, you need to take up a second job of making scarecrows/strawmen....you sure built a dandy here.

 

[MorseOp]

Thank you Brother for proving my response in post #85...................

Maybe if we tone it down a tad we can view it differently. When it comes to the Calvinist vs. Arminian topic, do not most who participate in this discussions (on the BB) have a firm opinion? Therefore, if you believe your position is right does it not logically follow that you believe the other position is wrong? That is what drove my sidebar conversation with Michael. Because the two positions are so polarizing it seems to make sense that an amicable separation among Baptists is preferable. Look at the SBC. Some of the rhetoric is so uncharitable that it would make a person think the two sides are deadly enemies. Those churches that have separated for the sake of the Gospel have been able to function better as a church.

Just my two cents.

 

[MorseOp]

Continuing...

While the BB is not a church, we do have members who choose not to dialog with each other because they cannot get along. I am the first to admit that I had to place some members on ignore simply because the level of rancor was becoming unloving and dishonoring to God. Some of those same members have also placed me on ignore. Now, if that happens on an Internet message board, what is it like in our churches? Passions run high and it is difficult to disengage. I started this thread to find the reasons why we disagree, not to exasperate the situation. We cannot even do that without a free-for-all! That is a sad commentary, and I take my share of the responsibility for adding to it.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

If you read carefully, I already gave credit to the Holy Spirit and His convicting power. I have never had a problem with that. But I could have rejected and apostasized and been lost forever. It was only after I trusted Christ that the burden of sin rolled away.

And my arguement is that you would not have!

Really how could you.....technically yes....but I suggest that if you were targeted by the holy spirit then he gave you the heart & mindset to turn your life around.....you were loosing sleep over it right? Had you not cared you would have like a block of wood....impervious to it.

My point though is does it really matter .....the end result is that you are now a child of God .... a saved person.

 

[Winman]

In Reformed parlance regeneration is also termed enlightenment or illumination. This occurs when the Holy Spirit changes man's heart and mind; making him able to appropriate and respond to the Gospel.

See, this is what I was talking about. The word "regeneration" literally means to be alive again, but Calvinists redefine it to mean enlightenment or illumination. I would include conviction as well.

They have to redefine regeneration, because they assume Total Inability is true. To the Calvinist, it is impossible for an unregenerate man to have any real desire to seek God, it is impossible for him to truly understand the gospel, and it is impossible for him to place faith in Christ.

But they run into all sorts of problems. They cannot deny that Cornelius was a sincere believer. He feared God, he prayed always, and he gave much alms to the people. God so recognized his good works that he sent an angel to tell Cornelius to send for Peter, whereby he and his family would hear words and be saved.

Acts 11:13 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;
14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.
15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

This passage gives Calvinism serious problems. Verse 14 tells us clearly that Cornelius was not "saved" when the angel appeared to him. Verses 15-17 tells us that the Holy Spirit fell upon Cornelius and his family when they believed.

This is a huge problem for Calvinists. Cornelius sincerely believed in God, and he did not rebel when the angel told him to send for Peter. But according to Total Inability, Cornelius could not have believed at this point, and he could not have cooperated with the Spirit. He should have rebelled against God as he clearly did not have the Spirit and therefore could not be regenerated.

How could Cornelius be born of the Spirit when he did not have the Spirit? So, Calvinism cannot explain this.

The real problem is that Total Inability is false doctrine. The unregenerate man is able to seek God, and he is able to believe. An example of this is the Philipian jailer, who sincerely sought God before he believed. He could not possibly be regenerated, because no one receives the Spirit until they believe, and his sins could not possibly be forgiven until he believed. He must necessarily be dead in sins.

So, this false doctrine of Total Inability trips up and gives problems to Calvinists all over the place.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The person who invented the "IGNORE" feature deserves a medal. It saves of ton of time not reading commentary you just know will aggravate you! :thumbs: :godisgood:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

With holloween coming up, you need to take up a second job of making scarecrows/strawmen....you sure built a dandy here.

Thanks a ton Willis.....now I gotta clean the coffee off the Computer screen! LOL

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

One good turn deserves another..... Skip the advertisement. This is FUNNY!

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

 

[psalms109:31]

1 Thessalonians 5:
19 Do not quench the Spirit. 20 Do not treat prophecies with contempt 21 but test them all; hold on to what is good, 22 reject every kind of evil.

God wants men to repent and live unless you want to change the scriptures and quench the Spirit the word draws all men when Jesus is Lifted up, they are the ones going against the will of God when they like the rich man walks away.

 

[Bronconagurski]

And my arguement is that you would not have!

Really how could you.....technically yes....but I suggest that if you were targeted by the holy spirit then he gave you the heart & mindset to turn your life around.....you were loosing sleep over it right? Had you not cared you would have like a block of wood....impervious to it.

My point though is does it really matter .....the end result is that you are now a child of God .... a saved person.

And to that I still rejoice that my name is written down in heaven. My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus' blood and righteousness.

 

[Van]

An Alternate view

I invested a few hours last evening reading old Calvinist vs. Arminian threads. All of them begin and end in disagreement. Still Calvinism vs. Arminianism is the most popular topic in this forum. The fundamental problem is hermeneutics. There will never be agreement since our respective approach to scripture is systemically different. They are irreconcilable. Still the threads come. This is why churches split over the issue. Neither side is going to be first to back down because they are convinced, by scripture, they are right.

The two sides need to accept scripture rather than rewrite it. Thus they are convinced, in spite of scripture, they are right.

If a person believes what he or she has discerned from scripture, when a more accurate view is presented, they can adopt it. However, if one is simply regurgitating the shoddy doctrines of the past, then they cannot deviate. So it is a proxy war, engaged in by folks without any ability to discern truth by study. Thus, questions are answered with questions, evasions and ad homenims.

 

[12strings]

I invested a few hours last evening reading old Calvinist vs. Arminian threads. All of them begin and end in disagreement. Still Calvinism vs. Arminianism is the most popular topic in this forum. The fundamental problem is hermeneutics. There will never be agreement since our respective approach to scripture is systemically different. They are irreconcilable. Still the threads come. This is why churches split over the issue. Neither side is going to be first to back down because they are convinced, by scripture, they are right.

1. MorseOP: Could you briefly explain what you mean by a different approach to hermeneutics? How is it exactly that Arminians approach Scripture in a different way than Calvinists? I really don't know what you mean by that. Is it simply their assumed positions on Election that color their reading, or are you referring to something else?

2. My take: (a) C & A will never agree on the issue because, like other theology issues, God has seen fit to allow disagreement among honest, Bible-loving, Christ-loving Christians. Somebody is wrong, maybe both in certain was, but we won't be able to say we are completely right until the next life when God sets us all straight.

(b) Why we can't have civil discussions of our disagreements is an entirely different question: It is because both Cals and non-cals are sinful human beings who want to be right, and also because they both truly believe the other side to be in error, and often simply want to help them see that error, sometimes this can be done with both sides acting civilly, sometimes an individual is trying to be helpful, but comes across as arrogant or short, and then sometimes people just say intentionally mean things to each other. Sin is the cause. Christ will set it right...but the discussions are worth having to the degree that we aim to "correct our opponents with gentleness", and as much as it depends on us, "to live at peace with all men." We do have the right, biblically, to attempt to show others where we believe them to be erring...we do not have the right to express hatred or contempt toward our brothers and sisters in Christ.

(c) I totally reject any claims that any one side of this debate is MORE guilty of attacks, or cheap-shots, or intentional scripture twisting than the other. Anyone who characterizes all Calviniss, or all Arminians, as intentional decievers, or hateful attackers is not helping the conversation.

 

[Skandelon]

Good post 12strings! Very well stated! :thumbs:

 

[MorseOp]

The two sides need to accept scripture rather than rewrite it. Thus they are convinced, in spite of scripture, they are right.

If a person believes what he or she has discerned from scripture, when a more accurate view is presented, they can adopt it. However, if one is simply regurgitating the shoddy doctrines of the past, then they cannot deviate. So it is a proxy war, engaged in by folks without any ability to discern truth by study. Thus, questions are answered with questions, evasions and ad homenims.

But this is not true in all cases. There are individuals on both sides who have diligently searched the scriptures and arrived at different conclusions. It is those people of whom I write about; not the amateur theologians who buy into a doctrine because it feels good to them.

When I became convinced of the doctrines of grace it was after years of study. I sought pastoral counsel. I read the scriptures repeatedly. I prayed. Even when I had "crossed over" I refused to cross over. I stayed where I was and tried to ignore the conclusions I came to. Today, if someone where to say to me, "You haven't studied the scriptures enough" I would be highly offended. And thus, that is the reason for many of the problems discussing this topic on the BB. I am going to be charitable and assume that others have invested the same amount of prayer, study, and time that I have. They were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt about their theological position. How am I to suggest they did not do what they said they did? Sometimes people disagree. You and I can debate with them until we are blue in the face, but that will not accomplish anything. The only way a person is going to be convinced is if it is accomplished by the Word of God, and through the Holy Spirit; and then only if the position they hold to is wrong.

 

[MorseOp]

1. MorseOP: Could you briefly explain what you mean by a different approach to hermeneutics? How is it exactly that Arminians approach Scripture in a different way than Calvinists? I really don't know what you mean by that. Is it simply their assumed positions on Election that color their reading, or are you referring to something else?

Both positions start with a presupposition. We may say that we are approaching the scriptures with an open mind, but that is not true. We approach scripture with assumptions and beliefs. We may be open to other assumptions and beliefs, but we bring our own baggage with us.

In my experience Arminians possess the presupposition that man possesses a free will. Thus, they will look at scripture through that lens. Calvinists have the presupposition that God's sovereignty trumps mans will. These are basic presuppositions that may or may not be fully fleshed out, but the person has a bent towards that line of thinking. As their personal theology takes form they are going to buy in to the fundamental points of either position. They may maintain some doubts and contrary beliefs, but they will generally be in agreement with their respective camps. As they continue to approach scripture it will consistently be with their presupposition. That is how their hermeneutic is formed and advanced.

As a personal example; after I became convinced of the doctrines of grace my hermeneutic was formed. It is difficult for me to approach scripture with a disposition different than my conviction. It was not this way at first. I first had to be convinced that the doctrines of grace was an accurate representation of scripture, but once that was done I no longer had to cover that ground again.

2. My take: (a) C & A will never agree on the issue because, like other theology issues, God has seen fit to allow disagreement among honest, Bible-loving, Christ-loving Christians. Somebody is wrong, maybe both in certain was, but we won't be able to say we are completely right until the next life when God sets us all straight.

I agree completely.

(b) Why we can't have civil discussions of our disagreements is an entirely different question: It is because both Cals and non-cals are sinful human beings who want to be right, and also because they both truly believe the other side to be in error, and often simply want to help them see that error, sometimes this can be done with both sides acting civilly, sometimes an individual is trying to be helpful, but comes across as arrogant or short, and then sometimes people just say intentionally mean things to each other. Sin is the cause. Christ will set it right...but the discussions are worth having to the degree that we aim to "correct our opponents with gentleness", and as much as it depends on us, "to live at peace with all men." We do have the right, biblically, to attempt to show others where we believe them to be erring...we do not have the right to express hatred or contempt toward our brothers and sisters in Christ.

I agree with most of this. I do believe a point is reached where the discussion is no longer productive. You can only argue a point, even with civility, for so long before the participants start to sound like drones. At the least a break is needed.

(c) I totally reject any claims that any one side of this debate is MORE guilty of attacks, or cheap-shots, or intentional scripture twisting than the other. Anyone who characterizes all Calviniss, or all Arminians, as intentional decievers, or hateful attackers is not helping the conversation.

Once again, I agree. It is not wise to judge the motives of an entire group. Each individual is judged on his own as to motives and behaviors. Sometimes the accusation of cheap attacks, scripture twisting, intentional deception, and hateful rhetoric is accurate; but let that be based on an individual's action and not the whole group.

 

[Skandelon]

MorseOp,

I'd add that it is more frustrating when you feel that your opponent doesn't really understand your perspective. Sometimes we wrongly (or rightly) presume that the only reason that a well meaning brother in Christ doesn't accept my view as truth is because they don't really understand it.

I was a staunch 5- pointer for a very long time. I was convinced of Calvinism in much the same manner you described and I converted many people to believe Calvinistic doctrine. I could have NEVER imagined myself leaving Calvinism. I thought I understood everything about non-Calvinism and had thoroughly vetted all alternative perspectives on divine election and predestination. I was wrong. I had not really ever understood or fully vetted the corporate view of election. The only 'Arminian' perspective I had really confronted was the 'foresight faith view' and felt that the Calvinistic interpretation was the only viable option once the 'foresight faith view' was defeated in my mind. It was only after I fully vetted the corporate view of election (held by most Southern Baptists) that I was convinced to leave behind the Calvinistic conclusions.

Have you fully vetted the corporate view, or are you still thinking the 'foresight faith view' is the only real opposing view?

 

[MorseOp]

MorseOp,

I'd add that it is more frustrating when you feel that your opponent doesn't really understand your perspective. Sometimes we wrongly (or rightly) presume that the only reason that a well meaning brother in Christ doesn't accept my view as truth is because they don't really understand it.

I was a staunch 5- pointer for a very long time. I was convinced of Calvinism in much the same manner you described and I converted many people to believe Calvinistic doctrine. I could have NEVER imagined myself leaving Calvinism. I thought I understood everything about non-Calvinism and had thoroughly vetted all alternative perspectives on divine election and predestination. I was wrong. I had not really ever understood or fully vetted the corporate view of election. The only 'Arminian' perspective I had really confronted was the 'foresight faith view' and felt that the Calvinistic interpretation was the only viable option once the 'foresight faith view' was defeated in my mind. It was only after I fully vetted the corporate view of election (held by most Southern Baptists) that I was convinced to leave behind the Calvinistic conclusions.

Have you fully vetted the corporate view, or are you still thinking the 'foresight faith view' is the only real opposing view?

I looked at the corporate view but believed it to be contrary to scripture. I still believe that. I am wholly, totally, and irrevocably convinced that the doctrines of grace are an accurate representation of scripture. If I did not I would not hold to them. It is what it is.