What Are main Differences between Arms and Non cals?

[Yeshua1]

Arminian is not by default the anti-Reformed stance - it carries it's own theology which is, to a large extent, aligned with Calvinism (after all, it was derived from Calvinism). There are plenty of non-Cals who are distinctively non-Arminian.

Lutheran is a good example. They reject Calvinism - but their doctrine also stands in opposition to Arminianism. In my area, there are plenty derived from Anabaptist doctrine, which is also non-Arminian to the core but remains anti-Reformed as well.

All Reformed are calvinists
Not all calvinists are strictly Reformed
problem is that within cal/arm/non call are distinct subdivisions that tend to get overlooked/lumped together

 

[Winman]

election IS indeed the main division here, as that relates to how one views the part, if any, man plays in getting saved!

And while some cals see God as being active in determine the lost/saved state of sinners, MOST would hold to him being determining the stae of the saved in direct/active way, but passing over those still remaining lost!

Baloney, far more people believe in free will than not.

And non-Cals absolutely believe God has determined who will be saved, he has determined that those who knowingly and willingly choose to trust Jesus shall be saved. He has determined that those persons who reject Jesus and do not trust him shall die in their sins.

Non-Cals believe God has determined who shall be saved and lost just like Calvinists, only we believe God determined to give men free will choice.

 

[JonC]

Non-Cals believe God has determined who shall be saved and lost just like Calvinists.

Not "just like" :smilewinkgrin:

 

[JonC]

problem is that within cal/arm/non call are distinct subdivisions that tend to get overlooked/lumped together

Often these “subdivisions” exceed the definition of the title they are ascribing to their beliefs.

 

[Winman]

Not "just like" :smilewinkgrin:

You know what I meant.

We do not believe man chooses to save himself, although we do believe man chooses himself.

Sound like a contradiction? It is not.

God is the one who has made the rules. He has given man the choice to either accept Jesus or reject him. To those that receive Jesus and believe on his name, to these persons God will give the power to become the sons of God. But that regeneration, that being born again is strictly a work of God that no man can perform.

But man does choose.

A simple analogy would be a job. If you have a job, your employer chose you. You did not simply walk in and start working there, and then they paid you on payday. No, first your employer advertised a "want-ad" looking for a person to fill a certain job. You went down and applied. Only if the employer approved you were you hired. So your employer chose you, and you could not have worked there unless they first chose you.

At the same time, you chose them. You did not have to take the job if you did not want to.

It is the same with salvation. God has already chosen every man, all he has to do is show up. That is YOUR choice.

Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

 

[JonC]

You know what I meant.

We do not believe man chooses to save himself, although we do believe man chooses himself.

Sound like a contradiction? It is not.

God is the one who has made the rules. He has given man the choice to either accept Jesus or reject him. To those that receive him and believe on name, to these persons God has given the power to become the sons of God. But the regeneration, the being born again is strictly a work of God that no man can perform.

But man does choose.

A simple analogy would be a job. If you have a job, your employer chose you. You did not simply walk in and start working there, and then they paid you on payday. No, first your employer advertised a "want-ad" looking for a person to fill a certain job. You went down and applied. Only if the employer approved you were you hired. So your employer chose you, and you could not have worked there unless they first chose you.

At the same time, you chose them. You did not have to take the job if you did not want to.

It is the same with salvation. God has already chosen every man, all he has to do is show up. That is YOUR choice.

Rev 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

I know what you mean. I don't discount the will of man in salvation, although I do take a more Calvinistic view (and of course we disagree there).

Some seem to present that God makes men believe against their will, and I disagree with that attitude. To man belong the plans of the heart.

 

[Winman]

I know what you mean. I don't discount the will of man in salvation, although I do take a more Calvinistic view (and of course we disagree there).

Some seem to present that God makes men believe against their will, and I disagree with that attitude. To man belong the plans of the heart.

Well, the term "irresistible" is a poor choice, because it implies that the sinner resists, and that God overpowers and forces him to believe. Most Calvinists will object to this and say rather that God makes a man willing.

There are a few Calvinists who do imply resistance and that God forces a sinner to believe however, R. C. Sproul used the term "holy rape of the soul" a few years back to describe Irresistible Grace. A very poor choice of words.

http://books.google.com/books?ei=hc...Ya2PyPy4C&dq="holy+rape"+Sproul&q="holy+rape"

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Arminian is not by default the anti-Reformed stance - it carries it's own theology which is, to a large extent, aligned with Calvinism (after all, it was derived from Calvinism). There are plenty of non-Cals who are distinctively non-Arminian.

Lutheran is a good example. They reject Calvinism - but their doctrine also stands in opposition to Arminianism. In my area, there are plenty derived from Anabaptist doctrine, which is also non-Arminian to the core but remains anti-Reformed as well.

Your using Lutherans as an example...LOL. you mean RCC lite.:laugh:

 

[JonC]

Well, the term "irresistible" is a poor choice, because it implies that the sinner resists, and that God overpowers and forces him to believe. Most Calvinists will object to this and say rather that God makes a man willing.

There are a few Calvinists who do imply resistance and that God forces a sinner to believe however, R. C. Sproul used the term "holy rape of the soul" a few years back to describe Irresistible Grace. A very poor choice of words.

http://books.google.com/books?ei=hc...Ya2PyPy4C&dq="holy+rape"+Sproul&q="holy+rape"

I always thought “irresistible grace” to be a poor summary of the doctrine. It is not that man does not resist, that is not logical as we are born into resistance, but that God prevails. Even this, however, is not done in opposition to man’s will but is instead God’s work within the will of man. I especially like Spurgeon’s illustration of God touching the “mainspring of man’s heart” so that it runs in an opposite direction. Another illustration would be God conquering the will of man (which I’d imagine would be an illustration to which you’d object), but either way Scripture does not indicate that man resists and is overpowered unto salvation. No one is saved who does not willingly arrive at salvation.

Soul rape is indeed a very poor choice of words – even not knowing the context in which Sproul writes. But it is how some Calvinists view salvation - like the Borg in Star Trek (“resistance is futile"). I agree that man does not choose to save himself, although man chooses himself – and I also do not see a contradiction in this (although I do have an entirely different view). But there are some on both sides of the debate that cannot see those statements without seeing a contradiction.

 

[JonC]

Your using Lutherans as an example...LOL. you mean RCC lite.:laugh:

I could also use Calvinism (historical - not just it's soteriology) for that also :smilewinkgrin:

 

[preacher4truth]

I could also use Calvinism (historical - not just it's soteriology) for that also :smilewinkgrin:

Not quite. You could use a straw man argument to 'use' Calvinism for that purpose, thus, your misunderstanding of DoG is glaring. I know of no Calvinist who comes remotely close to the heresy of catholicism. One must drum up presuppositions and other erroneous ideologies concerning Calvinism to come to a pretentious conclusion that you assume. :thumbsup:

 

[Yeshua1]

I always thought “irresistible grace” to be a poor summary of the doctrine. It is not that man does not resist, that is not logical as we are born into resistance, but that God prevails. Even this, however, is not done in opposition to man’s will but is instead God’s work within the will of man. I especially like Spurgeon’s illustration of God touching the “mainspring of man’s heart” so that it runs in an opposite direction. Another illustration would be God conquering the will of man (which I’d imagine would be an illustration to which you’d object), but either way Scripture does not indicate that man resists and is overpowered unto salvation. No one is saved who does not willingly arrive at salvation.

Soul rape is indeed a very poor choice of words – even not knowing the context in which Sproul writes. But it is how some Calvinists view salvation - like the Borg in Star Trek (“resistance is futile"). I agree that man does not choose to save himself, although man chooses himself – and I also do not see a contradiction in this (although I do have an entirely different view). But there are some on both sides of the debate that cannot see those statements without seeing a contradiction.

would say that God is NOT a Cosmic Raptists, bu that the Lord loved His own chosen ones so much that He enabled them to be able to freely come unto Him, as he is the very source of Life, so those drawn/called by him cannot resist Jesus, as He is what they will desire!

Oure sin natures desire darkness, but once quickened and that block removed, no one would resist the person of Jesus!

 

[JonC]

Not quite. You could use a straw man argument to 'use' Calvinism for that purpose, thus, your misunderstanding of DoG is glaring. I know of no Calvinist who comes remotely close to the heresy of catholicism. One must drum up presuppositions and other erroneous ideologies concerning Calvinism to come to a pretentious conclusion that you assume. :thumbsup:

Like I said, I could use historical Calvinism as an entire system (not just soterioloty) as RCC lite. I could if only because I reject baptism and the Lord’s supper as actual sacraments (I don’t believe a sacramental union exists, but instead that this is a holdover from RCC adopted paganism). I could do so because I do not believe in a geographical church or Christian commonwealth (which was a carryover from the RCC view of church). I could because I reject infant baptism and accept believer’s baptism (see last comment, they are related). I believe in religious freedom and the congregational church….so there are MANY reasons that I could relate historical Calvinism to the RCC (just as it was called “Romish” by others centuries ago). It may be a matter of perspective - if one accepts sacramental union, rely on the church as the final authority to interpret Scripture, look towards a Christian commonwealth, reject believers baptism, etc. then they are closer to the subject and may not see the link. But I was not speaking of DoG.

That’s why I made sure to indicate I was speaking of Calvinism the past (hence, “historical”) and not just DoG. If you believe it pretentious then you may need to examine the Reformation and the history shortly concluding a little more closely. While Calvin was far from the RCC in many respects, he remained close to it in others. But “strawman”…well, no. If used in an argument about DoG, then maybe – but I made it abundantly clear I was not speaking of DoG.

 

[Winman]

I always thought “irresistible grace” to be a poor summary of the doctrine. It is not that man does not resist, that is not logical as we are born into resistance, but that God prevails. Even this, however, is not done in opposition to man’s will but is instead God’s work within the will of man. I especially like Spurgeon’s illustration of God touching the “mainspring of man’s heart” so that it runs in an opposite direction. Another illustration would be God conquering the will of man (which I’d imagine would be an illustration to which you’d object), but either way Scripture does not indicate that man resists and is overpowered unto salvation. No one is saved who does not willingly arrive at salvation.

Soul rape is indeed a very poor choice of words – even not knowing the context in which Sproul writes. But it is how some Calvinists view salvation - like the Borg in Star Trek (“resistance is futile"). I agree that man does not choose to save himself, although man chooses himself – and I also do not see a contradiction in this (although I do have an entirely different view). But there are some on both sides of the debate that cannot see those statements without seeing a contradiction.

I believe the goodness of God leads a person to repentance.

Rom 2:4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?

I believe God overcomes evil with good.

Rom 12:21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

I believe that God wins a man over with love and kindness. When we realize that God loves us and sent his Son Jesus to die for our sins, even when we were enemies, this can break the hardest heart.

 

[BobRyan]

What would they divide over?

Most of the Arminians I know - believe

1. limited Atonement - but an unlimited "Atoning Sacrifice" made at the cross.
2. that the Romans 11 warning is "real" for those who "stand only by their faith" told to "fear ... for if He did not spare them neither will He spare you". And that OSAS is simply a man-made tradition contrary to the Bible

3. the sinful nature makes all mankind depraved and inclined to sin.

4. That the drawing of God (John 12:32) - is supernatural and applies to "all" - and this enables free will for "all".

5. That it is better to hold to the Bible than man-made tradition.

6. That the Calvinist model of arbitrary selection is false.

7. That mortal man has no ability at all to know for certain if/when/that God sovereignly acts in full ignorance of what He foreknows, or with total disregard to what He foreknows. There is no way for us to claim "Hey I think God just decided something without even noticing what His foreknowledge knows about that subject".

8. That "God so loved the World" -- yes "really!".

9. That God gave Christ as the "atoning sacrifice for OUR sins and not for OUR sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD" -- yes really (1John 2:2)

10. That Paul is being "serious" when he says "I do ALL things for the sake of the Gospel that I might be a fellow partaker OF IT.... I buffet my body and make it my slave LEST after preaching the Gospel to others I MYSELF should be disqualified" 1Cor 9

in Christ,

Bob

 

[preacher4truth]

Like I said, I could use historical Calvinism as an entire system (not just soterioloty) as RCC lite.

Actually you can't and have failed to prove your ideology. :thumbsup:

 

[JonC]

Actually you can't and have failed to prove your ideology. :thumbsup:

No, I can and you failed to prove your ideology :tongue3:

(really, I'm not trying to prove any ideology - just stating the controversy between the reformation and the radical reformation (yes, they both happened and much of the disagreement was about the lack of a clean break from the Catholic church). And again I am not talking about the DoG - just made a comment on the Lutheran being lite RCC. I'll start a thread if you need to discuss history but I don't think this one needs to be hijacked.

 

[preacher4truth]

No, I can and you failed to prove your ideology :tongue3:

(really, I'm not trying to prove any ideology - just stating the controversy between the reformation and the radical reformation (yes, they both happened).

You can? Get to it then.

I'll be waiting. :wavey:

 

[quantumfaith]

No, I can and you failed to prove your ideology :tongue3:

(really, I'm not trying to prove any ideology - just stating the controversy between the reformation and the radical reformation (yes, they both happened and much of the disagreement was about the lack of a clean break from the Catholic church). And again I am not talking about the DoG - just made a comment on the Lutheran being lite RCC. I'll start a thread if you need to discuss history but I don't think this one needs to be hijacked.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

I would be astonished if you get the last word on the matter.

 

[quantumfaith]

Most of the Arminians I know - believe

1. limited Atonement - but an unlimited "Atoning Sacrifice" made at the cross.
2. that the Romans 11 warning is "real" for those who "stand only by their faith" told to "fear ... for if He did not spare them neither will He spare you". And that OSAS is simply a man-made tradition contrary to the Bible

3. the sinful nature makes all mankind depraved and inclined to sin.

4. That the drawing of God - is supernatural and applies to "all" - and this enables free will for "all".

5. That it is better to hold to the Bible than man-made tradition.

6. That the Calvinist model of arbitrary selection is false.

7. That moral man has no ability at all to know for certain that God sovereignly acts in full ignorance of what He foreknows, or with total disregard to what He foreknows.

in Christ,

Bob

Bob, perhaps my intellect is "dulled" tonight, but I never could quite understand your #7, as for the others....I liked what I read.