The Reason why Calvinists and Arminians cannot agree

[psalms109:31]

I can have all the grace that men and their words can give me and say it is from God all they want to and if i don't believe in it I lower God? If I have no faith in in grace or have faith and no deeds believe and trust in it then grace is nothing. Paul had problems with men wanting the law to be like the Jews, James had people saying they have faith but they had no deeds. When we lift one important thing like just grace, just faith, or just deeds you are not completely in the truth. Regeneration before faith that comes from the words about Jesus and the words of Jesus the Spirit and life in His word is ridiculous, just like grace without faith is ridiculous, you can't have one if the other isn't present. I can't have grace if I don't believe in it.

We will continue to have this war as long as the word says this and men saying it really means this. Jesus has glory from the beginning. What I do will not give Him more or less glory, He will have the same glory He had from the beginning.

 

[percho]

Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did [it] ignorantly in unbelief.

At eleven Forty five AM one day a man named Saul was going down the road to the town of Damascus in unbelief, blind ignorance, you might say for the following purpose;

And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.

At midday, Jesus called him, elected him for the purpose of God.

He wasn't regenerated, he wasn't a believer, he didn't have faith, he was called by Jesus for the purpose of God. Jesus was going to take one ignorant in unbelief and make a believer of him. Jesus will also give him eternal life, IMHO in due time Paul will inherit eternal life. The earnest of that inheritance if the gift of the Holy Spirit which Jesus would pass on to Paul from the Father when he has Ananias lay hands on Saul three days after calling him.

At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me. And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? [it is] hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;

I agree with OR of it being a nature of things yet even we would disagree on just what those natures are.

That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through the faith.

It was through the faith of Christ that the Holy Spirit was given.
for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you;

Jesus went away in death.

God the Father for righteousness sake and by grace raised Jesus from the dead and gave him the promise of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 2:32,33 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath shed forth (On the Jews and the Gentiles, the blessings of Abraham, in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed) this, which ye now see and hear.

IMHO we are to follow the Lord in the regeneration. We are to drink the cup and be baptized with baptism he was baptized with.

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also [in the likeness] of [his] resurrection:

 

[MorseOp]

That was a good post. I do not include you in the posters who start Calvin free will threads for the sake of argument. I agree with OR as said above, the name Calvin is some of the problem. If you will look at my signature line, it speaks very strongly for doctrines of grace.

Interestingly enough a few of the threads I read were on the term "doctrines of grace." There were those on the BB who took exception to that term saying that they, too, believed in the doctrines of grace, but not in the "Calvinist" way. You cannot win for losing.

 

[convicted1]

Some people cannot hear anything that is contrary to their preconceived beliefs.

I once talked to a Brother who now belongs to a church in the Union ORB assoc. He told dad and I that he once belonged in the Mud River ORB assoc(they were on the "hardshell" side, if I remember correctly). Back in his Mud River days, he believed that God predestined EVERYTHING, even down to the shoes you put on. He no longer believes that, btw.

 

[convicted1]

I have decided to bow out of the C/A debates, because of the lack of civility, the excessive vitriol, the "I'm right, therefore you have to be wrong" mindset, etc. When we BOTH go down these avenues, there is nothing good that will come out of it.

 

[Winman]

Winman,

I am sorry i cannot help you[Which you reject anyhow}

You are putting the cart before the horse.Jesus did not start jn 3..at the end of the chapter.....

He started with the Spirits work in regeneration. He did not start with man ...He started with the Spirit....

Jesus did not say a man must be born of the Spirit to have the ability to believe in these verses, you are inserting that into scripture. Jesus said a person must be born of the Spirit before he can see the kingdom of Heaven. That is, a person must be born again before he can enter Heaven.

Jhn 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

You interpret the word "see" in this verse to mean having the ability to believe. That is not what it says or means. If Jesus wanted to say a person must be born of the Spirit to believe, that is what he could have easily said. No, Jesus is speaking of entering heaven as shown in vs. 5.

Jhn 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

This is what Jesus meant in vs. 3 when he said unless a man is born of the Spirit he cannot "see" the kingdom of heaven, he was saying a person cannot "enter" the kingdom of heaven. Jesus does not say one word about the necessity to be born again to have the ability to believe, that is a Reformed insertion that is not supported by the scripture.

Winman...where did Jesus say here..than man believes before the work of the Spirit????? He did not say that.These verses mean something...do not just give them lip service.

That's exactly the point I have been trying to make, Jesus did not mention beliieving or having faith whatsoever in verses 3 through 6, you are inserting into scripture what is not there. Jesus doesn't mention believing until verse 12. After verse 12 Jesus mentions faith many times, and always says a person must believe to have life.

Regeneration means to have life. Actually, it means to have life AGAIN which proves we were not born dead in sin. If we were born dead in sin then you could never say we are alive AGAIN, but that is exactly what the word "regeneration" literally means.

No, Jesus repeatedly says no man is regenerated or has life until he first believes. You ignore all of this scripture.

cannot read it for you. You are not reading with understanding.

You need to learn to read for yourself, Jesus does not even mention faith or believing until verse 12, you are inserting your ideas into scripture when they are not there.

Of course any sinner[and every sinner who ever gets saved]has to believe...that is not the issue.

Jesus did not use the word "saved" here, you are playing with words. Jesus said you have to believe to have LIFE, and that is what we are discussing, regeneration or LIFE.

that is why we are called believers:thumbs: we believe, we repent, we exercise faith, we pray, .....because God enables us to do so....

And Jesus repeatedly said a person must believe to have LIFE or regeneration.

Without the work of the Spirit in regeneration..FIRST...none of these things ever take place...or the sinner could just thank himself for believing.

I would agree that no man can believe without the work of the Spirit. That work is the convicting and persuading power of the word of God. No man could possibly believe in Jesus unless God had revealed Jesus to us through prophets who wrote the holy scriptures and men of God who preached those scriptures. This is a work and grace of God.

But nowhere do the scriptures say a person must be supernaturally regenerated to believe the gospel. You have not proved that here, you have not shown one word of scripture to support your view whatsoever. You can't do it, because no such scripture exists.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Interestingly enough a few of the threads I read were on the term "doctrines of grace." There were those on the BB who took exception to that term saying that they, too, believed in the doctrines of grace, but not in the "Calvinist" way. You cannot win for losing.

Does the Calvinist Way include baptizing babies & believing that's the NT circumcision? God forbid! But if so perhaps an Orthodox Presbyterian Church
is more to your liking.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I have decided to bow out of the C/A debates, because of the lack of civility, the excessive vitriol, the "I'm right, therefore you have to be wrong" mindset, etc. When we BOTH go down these avenues, there is nothing good that will come out of it.

I agree ...it makes for a dividing line...a my God's bigger than your God! But maybe competition is a good thing here. Keeps both sides going back to Scripture for answers! God is sovereign. Amen :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Aaron]

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.

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

 

[MorseOp]

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

I am sure both sides believe that.

 

[MorseOp]

Does the Calvinist Way include baptizing babies & believing that's the NT circumcision? God forbid! But if so perhaps an Orthodox Presbyterian Church
is more to your liking.

Now the argument is over the terms Calvinist vs. doctrines of grace? Talk about nit picking! I use the terms interchangeably. Men like John Piper, Rich Barcellos, Sam Waldron, Al Mohler, and Mark Dever call themselves Calvinists; and the certainly have nothing in common with Presbyterian ecclesiology or infant baptism. It is okay if you do not like the term. Me? In Baptist circles I understand it is referring to soteriology.

I will say this, baptism and ecclesiology aside, I have more in common with many Presbyterians then mainline Baptists. I am a covenant theologian, believe in the doctrines of grace, and subscribe to the regulative principle of worship. However I cannot compromise on my view of the New Covenant, baptism, and church government.

 

[TCassidy]

Now the argument is over the terms Calvinist vs. doctrines of grace? Talk about nit picking! I use the terms interchangeably.

The error is yours. It is not nit picking to be precise in our terminology. I am a Particular Baptist. I believe in Particular Redemption. I believe Christ saved me by His death on the cross. He did not pay for my sins then allowed me to save myself by meeting some condition of faith, or righteousness, or something else in and of myself that when exercised somehow causes me to merit salvation.

The one question no Arminian can answer is, If you and your neighbor both heard the same gospel message, and you believed but you neighbor did not, what is the difference between you and him? Why did you believe the gospel and why did he reject it?

I, being a Particular Baptist believe:

Total Depravity. No part of the human person, body, soul, or spirit was unharmed by the fall. All three parts of man have been brought down by the fall. Nothing in man has escaped the results of the fall.

Unconditional election. No person meets any condition that allows them to merit salvation. No man is any better than any other. All have sinned and fallen far short of the Glory of God.

Limited Atonement. The Atonement is sufficient for all of mankind but efficient (applied only to) only for believers, the elect.

Irresistible Grace. No elect believer will every resist the Grace of God unto perdition.

Perseverance of the Saints. No born again person will ever lose or reject his salvation and be damned. All believers are saved by the Power of God and are preserved in Him by the Power of God.

And that, my Arminian friends, is the Gospel.

 

[Aaron]

I am sure both sides believe that.

No doubt. So it isn't a matter of "backing down." They are incompatible and mutually exclusive doctrines. That's the nature of the debate.

Those who think Calvinism and Arminianism are simply differing shades of the Gospel understand neither. They are two different gospels.

 

[OldRegular]

Just why did you believe? How do you know you were not regenerated before you believed?

How can a person be spiritually alive before faith? Until you believe your sins are not forgiven, you are condemned, you are dead in sins.

You are avoiding the question Winman! You always do!

 

[OldRegular]

The one question no Arminian can answer is, If you and your neighbor both heard the same gospel message, and you believed but you neighbor did not, what is the difference between you and him? Why did you believe the gospel and why did he reject it?

Excellent point. I have posed that question numerous times and have yet to get an answer. I have asked it again of Winman on this thread!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Now the argument is over the terms Calvinist vs. doctrines of grace? Talk about nit picking! I use the terms interchangeably. Men like John Piper, Rich Barcellos, Sam Waldron, Al Mohler, and Mark Dever call themselves Calvinists; and the certainly have nothing in common with Presbyterian ecclesiology or infant baptism. It is okay if you do not like the term. Me? In Baptist circles I understand it is referring to soteriology.

Oh, I am a big nit picker! :laugh: primarily because I want to get it right. 1st, the term "Calvinist" technically is not correct. (2) The Term "Calvinist" draws more fire & causes more arguments ....people automatically draw their swords & choose up seconds the moment the word is mentioned.....too much bad press.

I will say this, baptism and ecclesiology aside, I have more in common with many Presbyterians then mainline Baptists.

Then why are you pastoring a Baptist Church?

 

[Winman]

The one question no Arminian can answer is, If you and your neighbor both heard the same gospel message, and you believed but you neighbor did not, what is the difference between you and him? Why did you believe the gospel and why did he reject it?

Excellent point. I have posed that question numerous times and have yet to get an answer. I have asked it again of Winman on this thread!

Absurd. Asking a question that cannot be answered does not mean your viewpoint is correct and another's error. This is a false form of argument.

I could ask why does one person like mustard on a hamburger, while another person likes ketchup? What does it prove? Nothing. And no one can answer why mustard tastes better to one person while another likes ketchup better.

Why does one person prefer Rock music, while another prefers Country?

I have seen this dumb (and that's exactly what it is) form of argument from many Calvinists. It does not prove that faith is a gift imposed on people. People have their own reasons for believing. Some folks believe Obama would be a better President, others believe Romney would be a better President. Neither opinion is imposed on a person but is a matter of personal choice, for reasons each person chooses for themselves.

Only a fool would be deceived by this false form of argument.

 

[Van]

Analysis

The error is yours. It is not nit picking to be precise in our terminology. I am a Particular Baptist. I believe in Particular Redemption. I believe Christ saved me by His death on the cross. He did not pay for my sins then allowed me to save myself by meeting some condition of faith, or righteousness, or something else in and of myself that when exercised somehow causes me to merit salvation.

The one question no Arminian can answer is, If you and your neighbor both heard the same gospel message, and you believed but you neighbor did not, what is the difference between you and him? Why did you believe the gospel and why did he reject it?

I, being a Particular Baptist believe:

Total Depravity. No part of the human person, body, soul, or spirit was unharmed by the fall. All three parts of man have been brought down by the fall. Nothing in man has escaped the results of the fall.

Unconditional election. No person meets any condition that allows them to merit salvation. No man is any better than any other. All have sinned and fallen far short of the Glory of God.

Limited Atonement. The Atonement is sufficient for all of mankind but efficient (applied only to) only for believers, the elect.

Irresistible Grace. No elect believer will every resist the Grace of God unto perdition.

Perseverance of the Saints. No born again person will ever lose or reject his salvation and be damned. All believers are saved by the Power of God and are preserved in Him by the Power of God.

And that, my Arminian friends, is the Gospel.

This is a typical Calvinist post. Lets review it:

Has no Arminians ever answered the question, why do some folks accept and others reject the gospel? The Calvinist answer is if the person has not been regenerated, then they have total spiritual inability and cannot understand the gospel, let alone embrace it, just like the first soil of Matthew 13. So rather than "because the believers had been regenerated beforehand to both enable and compel them to believe" Calvinist view, the believers and rejecters make their choice autonomously based on their attitudes, attributes and whether their "soil" has been cultivated, such that it is receptive of the gospel. For example, scripture says we must believe in God before we can believe in the One He sent.

Now at this juncture, Calvinists claim the fallen "always" choose against God because of the affects of the fall. But when confronted with Matthew 13, they refine it to say if they choose God, they do so ineffectively because of the affects of the fall. At its core, then the answer turns on the fact Calvinists believe everything is predestined, we are unable to make effective choices for God, and therefore the reason people reject the gospel is because they have not been regenerated. So Calvinism redefines the meaning of the word choice, i.e. God sets before us the choice of life or death, to include choice means non choice, i.e. God actually sets death only before some and life only before others.

To hide this unbiblical view, they misrepresent Arminians and claim they never answer the question.

But note, Allan hit close to the mark, if a person is regenerated before they come to faith, as Calvinism teaches, then that is consistent with the unbiblical Calvinist view. However, we were regenerated when God spiritually placed us in Christ, after crediting our faith as righteousness, then the Calvinist view becomes even more unbiblical.

Now to be regenerated is to be born again, to be made spiritually alive rather than being spiritually dead. Therefore Ephesians 2:5 teaches we are regenerated when we are made alive "together with Christ." Calvinism teaches we are made alive apart from Christ, then put in Christ after we are dragged to faith by irresistible grace.

So since Calvinism cannot be defended biblically, we see power struggles where folks make war on other folks. But it gets worse, if someone makes biblical arguments against Arminianism, they too will be banned, because both groups hold some biblical positions and some unbiblical positions.

So if you reread carefully this thread, you will see generalities, i.e. Arminians are just as bad as Calvinists, but no actual discussion of why both views are unbiblical.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The error is yours. It is not nit picking to be precise in our terminology. I am a Particular Baptist. I believe in Particular Redemption. I believe Christ saved me by His death on the cross. He did not pay for my sins then allowed me to save myself by meeting some condition of faith, or righteousness, or something else in and of myself that when exercised somehow causes me to merit salvation.

The one question no Arminian can answer is, If you and your neighbor both heard the same gospel message, and you believed but you neighbor did not, what is the difference between you and him? Why did you believe the gospel and why did he reject it?

I, being a Particular Baptist believe:

Total Depravity. No part of the human person, body, soul, or spirit was unharmed by the fall. All three parts of man have been brought down by the fall. Nothing in man has escaped the results of the fall.

Unconditional election. No person meets any condition that allows them to merit salvation. No man is any better than any other. All have sinned and fallen far short of the Glory of God.

Limited Atonement. The Atonement is sufficient for all of mankind but efficient (applied only to) only for believers, the elect.

Irresistible Grace. No elect believer will every resist the Grace of God unto perdition.

Perseverance of the Saints. No born again person will ever lose or reject his salvation and be damned. All believers are saved by the Power of God and are preserved in Him by the Power of God.

And that, my Arminian friends, is the Gospel.

AMEN Brother Tom :godisgood: I have to drop "Reformed" from my vocabulary as its another reference to Calvin .....my people were Baptistic Christians long before Luther, Calvin & Hus ever came along. Thanks for the direct commentary. :thumbsup:

 

[OldRegular]

Originally Posted by TCassidy

The one question no Arminian can answer is, If you and your neighbor both heard the same gospel message, and you believed but you neighbor did not, what is the difference between you and him? Why did you believe the gospel and why did he reject it?

Originally Posted by Old Regular
Excellent point. I have posed that question numerous times and have yet to get an answer. I have asked it again of Winman on this thread!

Absurd. Asking a question that cannot be answered does not mean your viewpoint is correct and another's error. This is a false form of argument.

I could ask why does one person like mustard on a hamburger, while another person likes ketchup? What does it prove? Nothing. And no one can answer why mustard tastes better to one person while another likes ketchup better.

Why does one person prefer Rock music, while another prefers Country?

I have seen this dumb (and that's exactly what it is) form of argument from many Calvinists. It does not prove that faith is a gift imposed on people. People have their own reasons for believing. Some folks believe Obama would be a better President, others believe Romney would be a better President. Neither opinion is imposed on a person but is a matter of personal choice, for reasons each person chooses for themselves.

Only a fool would be deceived by this false form of argument.

Shuckin and jivin just won't cut it Winman. Neither will calling those fools who ask a perfectly logical question that those of Arminian persuasion seem to be unable, but more likely unwilling, to answer.