What Are main Differences between Arms and Non cals?

[BobRyan]

QuantumFaith - sorry for my obtuseness on that number 7.

I meant to say "That mortal man cannot possibly claim that God makes choices apart from His foreknowledge" - as if someone was sitting inside God's head and saying "Hey look! Right there! you ignored your foreknowledge of the future and declared something to be true for all of time". People who claim that they know when God is doing that - or that claim that their doctrine demands that they know when this happens in God's mind - are going wayyyyy out on a limb for a desperate defense of a failed doctrine.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[JonC]

You can? Get to it then.

I'll be waiting. :wavey:

OK, sounds good to me.

I'll start a new thread and post what I "think I know" and you can dismantle it from there. I may be wrong - it's been awhile since I studied church history and perhaps Calvin made a clean break and held no Catholic ideologies. I'll call it "Reformation Calvinism...or not :smilewinkgrin:" and I'll look forward to being enlightened.

 

[quantumfaith]

QuantumFaith - sorry for my obtuseness on that number 7.

I meant to say "That mortal man cannot possibly claim that God makes choices apart from His foreknowledge" - as if someone was sitting inside God's head and saying "Hey look! Right there! you ignored your foreknowledge of the future and declared something to be true for all of time". People who claim that they know when God is doing that - or that claim that their doctrine demands that they know when this happens in God's mind - are going wayyyyy out on a limb for a desperate defense of a failed doctrine.

in Christ,

Bob

I completely agree........I think?

 

[Winman]

QuantumFaith - sorry for my obtuseness on that number 7.

I meant to say "That mortal man cannot possibly claim that God makes choices apart from His foreknowledge" - as if someone was sitting inside God's head and saying "Hey look! Right there! you ignored your foreknowledge of the future and declared something to be true for all of time". People who claim that they know when God is doing that - or that claim that their doctrine demands that they know when this happens in God's mind - are going wayyyyy out on a limb for a desperate defense of a failed doctrine.

in Christ,

Bob

Are you referring to the Calvinist doctrine that God does not elect someone based on foreseen faith in Christ?

 

[JonC]

You can? Get to it then.

I'll be waiting. :wavey:

Wait no longer, it's there (I stuck it in Baptist history, didn't know where else to put it).

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

Me too :smilewinkgrin:

 

[InTheLight]

QuantumFaith - sorry for my obtuseness on that number 7.

I meant to say "That mortal man cannot possibly claim that God makes choices apart from His foreknowledge" - as if someone was sitting inside God's head and saying "Hey look! Right there! you ignored your foreknowledge of the future and declared something to be true for all of time". People who claim that they know when God is doing that - or that claim that their doctrine demands that they know when this happens in God's mind - are going wayyyyy out on a limb for a desperate defense of a failed doctrine.

in Christ,

Bob

God doesn't have foreknowledge because time does not unwind linearly for God. God Is. God Knows. God Decrees. Foreknowledge is a word humans use to try to understand God's attributes. God knows everytime, anytime, simultaneously. There is no yesterday or tomorrow for an eternal God.

This idea that God looks down the corridor of time to see who will become a believer is a human convention attempting to put God inside the human box of linear time. There is no reason for time to progress from the present into the future except that God created humans with that perception.

 

[BobRyan]

God doesn't have foreknowledge because time does not unwind linearly for God. God Is. God Knows. God Decrees.

However He knows (and only infinite God knows just how He knows what he know) the fact is that limited man has no credibility trying to "imagine" that God decrees anything at all "apart from what He knows".

It is an absurd length to which the Calvinist argument must go - that cannot be taken seriously.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Are you referring to the Calvinist doctrine that God does not elect someone based on foreseen faith in Christ?

Yes - the idea that God arbitrarily selects person A and not person's B - thru - Z - but not in the context of knowing something - but rather "just because".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Winman]

Yes - the idea that God arbitrarily selects person A and not person's B - thru - Z - but not in the context of knowing something - but rather "just because".

in Christ,

Bob

Well, I believe God does elect persons according to foreseen faith. We have 1 Pet 1:2 that says we are elect "according the foreknowledge of God the Father", so our election is due to something foreseen or known about us.

We have what I believe to be a figure of God's foreknowledge in John 1 concerning Nathanael. Jesus saw Nathanael "coming to him". The word "coming" is often synonymous with "believing". Jesus calls Nathanael an "Israelite indeed, in whom there is no guile!" showing he is a true believer whose circumcision is of the heart, in the spirit, and whose praise is of God. We then see how Nathanael asks Jesus, "Whence knowest thou me?", and Jesus answers "Before that Philip called thee, when thou was under the fig tree, I SAW thee."

Then, and only then did Nathanael believe on Jesus and call him the Son of God.

So, I believe this is absolutely a figure or picture of God's foreknowledge, in knowing who will believe before they actually do so. I see no other point in telling us this story with these particular facts except to reveal this.

And for someone to say God has no foreknowledge when the scriptures say God does have foreknowledge is beyond presumptuous.

 

[Rippon]

Yes - the idea that God arbitrarily selects person A and not person's B - thru - Z - but not in the context of knowing something - but rather "just because".

I have warned you before about bearing false witness. Just because you hate what you think biblical Christianity is -- gives you no legitimate reason to
lie about things to furthur your cause.

You cannot produce any Calvinist quotes affirming your blasphemy so simply acknowlege your sin and move on.

No true believer from either the Calvinist or Arminian camps thinks that the Lord acts in a haphazard fashion according to whims. God has no whims. Have some reverence for God. Stop in your tracks.

 

[Protestant]

Well, I believe God does elect persons according to foreseen faith. We have 1 Pet 1:2 that says we are elect "according the foreknowledge of God the Father", so our election is due to something foreseen or known about us.

We have what I believe to be a figure of God's foreknowledge in John 1 concerning Nathanael. Jesus saw Nathanael "coming to him". The word "coming" is often synonymous with "believing". Jesus calls Nathanael an "Israelite indeed, in whom there is no guile!" showing he is a true believer whose circumcision is of the heart, in the spirit, and whose praise is of God. We then see how Nathanael asks Jesus, "Whence knowest thou me?", and Jesus answers "Before that Philip called thee, when thou was under the fig tree, I SAW thee."

Then, and only then did Nathanael believe on Jesus and call him the Son of God.

So, I believe this is absolutely a figure or picture of God's foreknowledge, in knowing who will believe before they actually do so. I see no other point in telling us this story with these particular facts except to reveal this.

I believe another interpretation is possible.

To demonstrate I will use ‘The Winman Method of Inductive Reasoning.’

This method was seen in his prodigious exegesis of the Prodigal Son parable.

“47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!”​

Nathanael had no guile, proving he was born sinless and has remained sinless by his own free will.

“48 Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.”​

Nathanael was under the very fig tree with whose fig leaves Adam and Eve covered their privy parts.

Therefore, the Garden of Eden is located somewhere between Galilee and Bethsaida.

Nathanael was not under the fig tree due to any sin which needed covering.

Rather, he was hiding from his irate wife who had a habit of falsely accusing him of neglecting household chores by ‘conveniently disappearing’ when needed.

51 "And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.”​

Jesus was a normal sized man made of flesh. Thus, angels must be quite diminutive to both land on and take-off from His shoulders.

A conservative estimate would have them be no taller than fairies.

From this we learn that Tinker Bell is really an angel, though not recognized as such by the Lost Boys.

We can extrapolate further.

Peter Pan is a type of Christ whose mission is to save the Lost Boys.

Wendy is a type of the Church whom Peter desired to wed.

Captain Hook is a type of false Christian whose hand Peter Pan severed with the sword of the Word of God.

The crocodile is a type of Satan who roams the earth seeking whom he may devour.

From this we learn that the Lord has hidden many Bible truths in children’s bedtime stories.

Little Red Riding Hood is no exception.

Thus ends another example of ‘The Winman Method of Inductive Reasoning.’

 

[BobRyan]

No true believer from either the Calvinist or Arminian camps thinks that the Lord acts in a haphazard fashion according to whims. .

Romans 2:11 says that "God is not partial" and Romans 2:4-16 shows a very logical and consistent method that God uses to determine the lost and the saved.

Nothing arbitrary at all in that - for God who "So loved the WORLD that He gave" -- yes really that is what He says about His own LOVE.

Nothing arbitrary at all in that - for God who "is not WILLING that ANY should perish but that ALL should come to repentance" Matt 23 -- yes really that is what He says about His own WILL.

Nothing arbitrary at all in that for God who says "I will DRAW ALL unto Me" the unqualified ALL. Yes really that is what HE says about His Drawing of ALL the unqualified ALL.

Nothing arbitrary at all in that for God who says HE send Christ "to be the SAVIOR of the WORLD" 1John 4. Yes REALLY! That is what He said about the mission and scope of Christ in salvation!

Nothing arbitrary at all in that for God who says He gave Christ on the cross as "the Atoning Sacrifice for OUR sins and NOT for OUR sins only but for the SINS of the WHOLE WORLD" 1John 2:2.

Nothing arbitrary at all in that for God who says He gave Christ "is the light that coming into the world enlightens EVERY man" John 1.

Nothing arbitrary at all in that for God who says He gave Christ "He came to HIS OWN and HIS OWN received Him NOT" John 1.

More if you like.

by contrast many Calvinists claim that the difference between the saved and the lost is ONLY that God selected one to be saved and one to be lost AND That God does not select one to be saved BECAUSE that one does/or is/ or says anything at all. God selects them because He sovereignly decides to love that ONE and NOT that OTHER ONE. Works great if YOU are the one he just-so-happens to select IN - but what about when your child is NOT so selected??? Are you really so quick to embrace Calvinism over the Bible when it goes places like that?? Why not accept the Bible teaching as listed instead when it speaks to the scope of the Gospel?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

God doesn't have foreknowledge because time does not unwind linearly for God. God Is. God Knows. God Decrees. Foreknowledge is a word humans use to try to understand God's attributes. God knows everytime, anytime, simultaneously. There is no yesterday or tomorrow for an eternal God.

This idea that God looks down the corridor of time to see who will become a believer is a human convention attempting to put God inside the human box of linear time. There is no reason for time to progress from the present into the future except that God created humans with that perception.

Good summation....:thumbs:

 

[Rippon]

By contrast many Calvinists claim that the difference between the saved and the lost is ONLY that God selected one to be saved and one to be lost AND That God does not select one to be saved BECAUSE that one does/or is/ or says anything at all. God selects them because He sovereignly decides to love that ONE and NOT that OTHER ONE.

Since the Lord is the LORD --He gets to decide many things without Bob Ryan's approval. Who are you to compain about God's ways? Everything God does is just and righteous. Don't rail against His ways. No one here --Calvinist or Arminian has ever believed that God is arbitrary in His dealings with mankind --why are you continually stating that untruth over and over again? Calvinists abhor that kind of nonsense and you need to take that junk off the table and deal with what we actually believe.Simply repeating a slanderous lie does not magically make it true. Produce quotes from Calvinists who believe in a capricious God or apologize and tell us you were wrong to even say it in the first place.

 

[Winman]

I believe another interpretation is possible.

To demonstrate I will use ‘The Winman Method of Inductive Reasoning.’

This method was seen in his prodigious exegesis of the Prodigal Son parable.

“47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!”​

Nathanael had no guile, proving he was born sinless and has remained sinless by his own free will.

“48 Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.”​

Nathanael was under the very fig tree with whose fig leaves Adam and Eve covered their privy parts.

Therefore, the Garden of Eden is located somewhere between Galilee and Bethsaida.

Nathanael was not under the fig tree due to any sin which needed covering.

Rather, he was hiding from his irate wife who had a habit of falsely accusing him of neglecting household chores by ‘conveniently disappearing’ when needed.

51 "And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.”​

Jesus was a normal sized man made of flesh. Thus, angels must be quite diminutive to both land on and take-off from His shoulders.

A conservative estimate would have them be no taller than fairies.

From this we learn that Tinker Bell is really an angel, though not recognized as such by the Lost Boys.

We can extrapolate further.

Peter Pan is a type of Christ whose mission is to save the Lost Boys.

Wendy is a type of the Church whom Peter desired to wed.

Captain Hook is a type of false Christian whose hand Peter Pan severed with the sword of the Word of God.

The crocodile is a type of Satan who roams the earth seeking whom he may devour.

From this we learn that the Lord has hidden many Bible truths in children’s bedtime stories.

Little Red Riding Hood is no exception.

Thus ends another example of ‘The Winman Method of Inductive Reasoning.’

Wow, it is obvious that my interpretations of scripture have had a big impact upon you. This must be about the tenth post you have written specifically attacking me. I guess I should be honored.

All I can say is that I suspect that deep down you know there is something to my interpretations of scripture and they cause you a great deal of anxiety.

I believe the story of Nathanael indeed demonstrates God's foreknowledge. It clearly shows that Jesus had a personal knowledge of Nathanael before Nathanael met Jesus and believed on him.

I cannot think of any other purpose for telling us this story except to demonstrate God's foreknowledge. If not, then what does this story tell us, and why did God feel it necessary to record this in scripture?

To those that deny God's foreknowledge, well, that is just silly, the scriptures directly tell us God has foreknowledge in several verses.

Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

1 Pet 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

 

[JonC]

What would they divide over?

It's hard to tell. Saying non-Cal is a wide statement while Arminianism narrows it down (Arms are non-cal but there are quite a few non-Cals who would reject Arm doctrine).

I attend a non-Cal but also non-Armianian church (which I would guess is somewhat common for evangelicals... and it is "non" not "anti". So I suppose one dividing factor would be an insistence on human understanding over biblical authority).

 

[Yeshua1]

OK, sounds good to me.

I'll start a new thread and post what I "think I know" and you can dismantle it from there. I may be wrong - it's been awhile since I studied church history and perhaps Calvin made a clean break and held no Catholic ideologies. I'll call it "Reformation Calvinism...or not :smilewinkgrin:" and I'll look forward to being enlightened.

Think a lot of this discussion revovles around how "tight" a definition one gives to what it means to be a calvinist, as many would say JUST the Reformed qualify, myself and tohers would see it basicallybased upon the issue of Sotierology, as otherdoctrines held in Dispy or Covenant theologies NOT the essential matter to define onself as such, but in if we holdto the DoG or not!

 

[Rippon]

It's hard to tell. Saying non-Cal is a wide statement while Arminianism narrows it down (Arms are non-cal but there are quite a few non-Cals who would reject Arm doctrine).

Would they reject it being fully informed, or simply say they are not Arminian because they believe in OSAS?

I attend a non-Cal but also non-Armianian church (which I would guess is somewhat common for evangelicals... and it is "non" not "anti".

Roger Olson,a staunch Arminian firmly believes that most churches in America are semi-Pelagian.

So I suppose one dividing factor would be an insistence on human understanding over biblical authority).

And who,in your opinion,would be in the two camps?

 

[Yeshua1]

Wow, it is obvious that my interpretations of scripture have had a big impact upon you. This must be about the tenth post you have written specifically attacking me. I guess I should be honored.

All I can say is that I suspect that deep down you know there is something to my interpretations of scripture and they cause you a great deal of anxiety.

I believe the story of Nathanael indeed demonstrates God's foreknowledge. It clearly shows that Jesus had a personal knowledge of Nathanael before Nathanael met Jesus and believed on him.

I cannot think of any other purpose for telling us this story except to demonstrate God's foreknowledge. If not, then what does this story tell us, and why did God feel it necessary to record this in scripture?

To those that deny God's foreknowledge, well, that is just silly, the scriptures directly tell us God has foreknowledge in several verses.

Acts 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:

1 Pet 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

God Foreknew John the Baptist, as God had already chosen him to be the forerunner from the Womb, His foreknowledge was of a personal kind, He knew John as a baby and had chosen and selected him before birth, sdso NOT waiting to see if he would pick being a prophet or not!

 

[Rippon]

Wow, it is obvious that my interpretations of scripture have had a big impact upon you.

Having "a big impact" is not always in a positive sense.