Why Calvinists and Arminianists are both wrong

[Doubting Thomas]

Larry, I had said...

Quote:
So it would seem then that Jesus and His apostles did not "clearly" teach this (TULIP) at all, or else: (1) one would be able to find an example of teachers in the Church somewhere who expoused TULIP before Calvin (*similar views to Calvin--unconditional election and reprobation; limited atonement--were in fact espoused by Lucidus, but not until the mid-5th century and they were condemned as heretical) and (2) one would find a consensus today that TULIP is the NT doctrine--doesn't look like that consensus is forthcoming.

To which you amazingly responded...

The consensus is pretty strong and the evidence is overwhelming from Scripture.

Yeah, I'm sure if you limit your sample size to fellow Calvinists then you would think that the consensus is pretty strong. Of course, this is quite laughable given that Weslyan-Arminians, non-Calvinist Baptists, classical Anglicans and Lutherans, not to mention RC and EO would disagree with you.

And, no, the evidence is NOT overwhelming from Scripture despite your assertions to the contrary. (But I suppose you and your Calvinist Amen corner will keep telling yourselves that, seeing how invested you are in your viewpoint)

I had said about your statement that TULIP is often called 'Augustinianism'..
Quote:
It is often misnamed Augustinianism since Augustine didn't even subscribe to TULIP, as he believed that a regenerated believer could in fact fall from grace and finally be unsaved (so much for the L, I, and P of TULIP).

To which you astonishingly replied....

You seriously need to study. Your knowledge of historical theology is woefully lacking, as I mentioned above.

If you honestly think that Augustine would have be a proponent of TULIP, given that he believed that a regenerated believer could in fact fall from grace and be finally unsaved, then you are the one whose knowledge of church history and historical theology is "woefully lacking".

I had then said...
Quote:
However, Calvinists believe that Calvinism is "scriptural", the rest of us don't.
To which you replied...

Belief is irrelevant. The question is, "What does the Bible say?"

The problem is, Larry, the bare text of Scripture doesn't "say" anything that's unmediated by human interpretation.

To this question, the answer is that the Bible teaches what is known as Calvinism. Your disbelief doesn't change that.

No, you (mis)interpret the Bible as teaching Calvinism. Scripture properly interpreted, and as taught by the consensus of the Church from the beginning across time and space, does not teach TULIP.

So disagree with me if you will. I am okay with that, but please realize your disagreement and bald claims that Calvinism is 'clearly taught' by Scriptures (and your incredible assertions about a consensus of Christian believers subscribing to TULIP) doe not change the truth that Calvinism as a system is a doctrinal novelty and unscriptural.

Perhaps I'll add more at a later date when I have more time, though I'm sure it will fall on deaf ears.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Yeah, I'm sure if you limit your sample size to fellow Calvinists then you would think that the consensus is pretty strong. Of course, this is quite laughable given that Weslyan-Arminians, non-Calvinist Baptists, classical Anglicans and Lutherans, not to mention RC and EO would disagree with you.

Even if you include those, the consensus is pretty strong.

And, no, the evidence is NOT overwhelming from Scripture despite your assertions to the contrary.

Yes, it is. Sorry, that’s just the way it is.

… your statement that TULIP is often called 'Augustinianism'..

Where did you hear that? The statement was made about basics of Calvinism, which are clearly Augustinian. If you can’t be fair with my words in a direct conversation, how in the world can you be fair with the words of Scripture?

The problem is, Larry, the bare text of Scripture doesn't "say" anything that's unmediated by human interpretation.

Yes, the Scripture says what it says regardless of interpretation. You are espousing an existentialism here, that Scripture doesn’t mean anything until it is interpreted. The point would be better made that our interpretation can certainly cloud it, and you are prime evidence of that.

No, you (mis)interpret the Bible as teaching Calvinism. Scripture properly interpreted, and as taught by the consensus of the Church from the beginning across time and space, does not teach TULIP.

Again, there are multitudes that disagree with you and the text of Scripture is the basis. For my part, I find it hard to argue with “He chose you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification and belief in the truth.” It made me a Calvinist because I refused to continue to impose my own beliefs on God’s word. You apparently don’t share that commitment.

please realize your disagreement and bald claims that Calvinism is 'clearly taught' by Scriptures (and your incredible assertions about a consensus of Christian believers subscribing to TULIP) doe not change the truth that Calvinism as a system is a doctrinal novelty and unscriptural.

That’s pure and utter nonsense. And you know it.

Perhaps I'll add more at a later date when I have more time, though I'm sure it will fall on deaf ears.

I hear you just fine. That’s how I know I disagree with you. Why do you think that you will do what no one has done before? You have way too high an opinion of your own thinking. It is badly misplaced.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Even if you include those, the consensus is pretty strong.

Umm...no. Among Christians, 5-Point Calvinism is a minority viewpoint. This hardly constitutes a consensus

I hear you just fine. That’s how I know I disagree with you. Why do you think that you will do what no one has done before? You have way too high an opinion of your own thinking. It is badly misplaced.

Same goes for you and lot of other Calvinists apparently, probably more so since many of you are arrogant enough to think that the Church apparently got it wrong until John Calvin came along. Sad, really.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

I had said....

Quote:
No, you (mis)interpret the Bible as teaching Calvinism. Scripture properly interpreted, and as taught by the consensus of the Church from the beginning across time and space, does not teach TULIP.
To which you replied....

Again, there are multitudes that disagree with you and the text of Scripture is the basis.

And there are multitudes more who disagree with you and base their disagreement on the text of Scriptures.

I then said...

Quote:
please realize your disagreement and bald claims that Calvinism is 'clearly taught' by Scriptures (and your incredible assertions about a consensus of Christian believers subscribing to TULIP) doe not change the truth that Calvinism as a system is a doctrinal novelty and unscriptural.

That’s pure and utter nonsense. And you know it

Sorry, but that's the truth.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Umm...no. Among Christians, 5-Point Calvinism is a minority viewpoint. This hardly constitutes a consensus

Five point Calvinism may be, but Calvinistic doctrine is probably not. I think you probably define "Christian" broader than I would. I think the Bible defines "Christian" as those who are followers of Christ by trusting in Christ alone for salvation.

Same goes for you and lot of other Calvinists apparently, probably more so since many of you are arrogant enough to think that the Church apparently got it wrong until John Calvin came along. Sad, really.

I don't know any who think the church got it wrong until Calvin. The doctrines of grace extend far prior to Calvin. Only historical ignorance would say otherwise. The Reformation was a return to what the church had historically believed from the Bible before the distortion of Catholicism.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Larry,

I had said this...

Quote:
Umm...no. Among Christians, 5-Point Calvinism is a minority viewpoint. This hardly constitutes a consensus
To which you replied....

Five point Calvinism may be, but Calvinistic doctrine is probably not.

Really? That's interesting because I think most non-Calvinists I've read--whether Anglican, Baptist, Lutheran, Wesylan, RC and EO--would equate "5 point Calvinism" with "Calvinistic doctrine". In what way is Calvinistic doctrine distinguished from "five point Calvinism"? How are they different?

I think you probably define "Christian" broader than I would.

Maybe.

I think the Bible defines "Christian" as those who are followers of Christ by trusting in Christ alone for salvation.

I don't think that definition of "Christian" is strictly spelled out like that in Scripture. I would say,however, that a true follower of Christ is in fact actively trusting in Christ alone for his salvation--ie is abiding in the vine.

I had also said this (in response to your comment that perhaps I had "way too high an opinion of [my] own thinking")....
Quote:
Same goes for you and lot of other Calvinists apparently, probably more so since many of you are arrogant enough to think that the Church apparently got it wrong until John Calvin came along. Sad, really.
To which you replied...

I don't know any who think the church got it wrong until Calvin. The doctrines of grace extend far prior to Calvin. Only historical ignorance would say otherwise.

It depends on what you would define as "the doctrines of grace". If you mean the 'TULIP' doctrines, then I'd say the opposite holds--that it's historical ignorance to suggest that these "doctrines" extend "far prior to Calvin". Sure, something approximating a couple of these doctrines can be found in Augustine (but he flatly teaches the opposite of the others). As for the consensus of the Church (East and West), however, something more akin to the five articles of the Remonstrance would be a more accurate representation of its (particularly the West's) thought (except in the case of the 5th article--the undivided Church definitely believed that one can fall from salvation, whereas the Remonstrance itself left that as an open question and possibility).

The Reformation was a return to what the church had historically believed from the Bible before the distortion of Catholicism

Ahh...but whose 'Reformation'?
(a)Calvin's (b)Luther's (c)Zwingli's (d)Arminius (e)The Church of England's (f)The Anabaptists (g)other
(If you selected 'e', then I'd agree) :smilewinkgrin:

And which "distortions of Catholicism"? (Afterall, the different reformers disagreed among themselves about WHAT was a distortion and what wasn't)

 

[Pastor Larry]

Really? That's interesting because I think most non-Calvinists I've read--whether Anglican, Baptist, Lutheran, Wesylan, RC and EO--would equate "5 point Calvinism" with "Calvinistic doctrine". In what way is Calvinistic doctrine distinguished from "five point Calvinism"? How are they different?

Perhaps this is evidence that you should stop talking and making dogmatic assertions and learn a bit. Calvinistic doctrine is the idea that God unilaterally elects individuals to salvation before the foundation of the world. That usually involves at least 4 points, and often 5. But the center of it is unconditional election.

Part of your problem is that you see the TULIP as the issue. You claim that because no one ever formulated TULIP prior to c. 1500 that it didn't exist. As I have said, that is pure nonsense. The elements of Calvinistic doctrine are ancient because they came from the Scriptures, not from Calvin.

I don't think that definition of "Christian" is strictly spelled out like that in Scripture. I would say,however, that a true follower of Christ is in fact actively trusting in Christ alone for his salvation--ie is abiding in the vine.

Um, that's what I said isn't it?

It depends on what you would define as "the doctrines of grace". If you mean the 'TULIP' doctrines, then I'd say the opposite holds--that it's historical ignorance to suggest that these "doctrines" extend "far prior to Calvin". Sure, something approximating a couple of these doctrines can be found in Augustine (but he flatly teaches the opposite of the others). As for the consensus of the Church (East and West), however, something more akin to the five articles of the Remonstrance would be a more accurate representation of its (particularly the West's) thought (except in the case of the 5th article--the undivided Church definitely believed that one can fall from salvation, whereas the Remonstrance itself left that as an open question and possibility).

Again, just historical ignorance at work here. To think that Calvinistic doctrine didn't exist until Calvin is to know nothing of historical theology.

Ahh...but whose 'Reformation'?

The Reformation generally speaking. Much of what you say is part of the same Reformation. The Reformation can technically be divided in various ways, but it is all considered a part of the Reformation, and their goal was to reform the church back to what it was from Scripture. They had varying degrees of success in different places.

And which "distortions of Catholicism"?

The distortions on authority and Scripture, the way of salvation, and the role of the church (which is tied into authority and Scripture). The Roman church distorted the doctrine of Scripture, and has led many people to hell. They have not repented of that teaching and have not changed it.

 

[webdog]

Perhaps this is evidence that you should stop talking and making dogmatic assertions and learn a bit. Calvinistic doctrine is the idea that God unilaterally elects individuals to salvation before the foundation of the world.

How is anything done "before" time is created?

 

[historyb]

Why can't God? Your limiting God by saying He can't do what He wants

 

[webdog]

Why can't God? Your limiting God by saying He can't do what He wants

God can't sin...is that limiting God? There are certain laws that He created, time being one of them. Something can't be done "before" (a phrase wrapped in time language) before time even exists.

 

[historyb]

He can choose when He wants

 

[webdog]

He can choose when He wants

That being the case...are you saying he can elect or "predestine" someone after faith in Christ? You are sounding more like a non-cal.

 

[historyb]

No, no one can have faith until they are chosen.

4 Even before he made the world, God loved us and chose us in Christ to be holy and without fault in his eyes.

Eph 1:4

 

[webdog]

No, no one can have faith until they are chosen.

4 Even before he made the world, God loved us and chose us in Christ to be holy and without fault in his eyes.

Eph 1:4

Anthropomorphic language. I thought you said He can choose when He wants?

 

[historyb]

He does, I was referring to you referring to the fact that God can't chose before time. The Scriptures refute that God chose us before the foundations of the world

 

[webdog]

He does, I was referring to you referring to the fact that God can't chose before time. The Scriptures refute that God chose us before the foundations of the world

Scripture also states that those in Christ are chosen, and that occurs upon faith in Him. My whole point is we need to understand the intentions and meanings of the verse, and not the wording. Christ is the Lamb slain "before the foundation of the world", yet we can pinpoint the exact year it took place...and it wasn't before the world was created. Since we are in Christ and share in His death, burial and resurrection, this anthropomorphic language of "before" the world, or rather before time alluding to our predestining also occurs at a fixed point in time.

 

[historyb]

We are chosen elected before, we can not ever ever go to God on our own

 

[webdog]

We are chosen elected before, we can not ever ever go to God on our own

Apples and oranges. I agree that we will never seek God on our own, but that is not the point of being chosen.

 

[historyb]

God chooses who He will from before time.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Larry, regarding your comment suggesting a distinction between "5 point Calvinism" and "Calvinistic doctrine", I had stated then asked...

Quote:
Really? That's interesting because I think most non-Calvinists I've read--whether Anglican, Baptist, Lutheran, Wesylan, RC and EO--would equate "5 point Calvinism" with "Calvinistic doctrine". In what way is Calvinistic doctrine distinguished from "five point Calvinism"? How are they different?
To which you eloquently replied...

Perhaps this is evidence that you should stop talking and making dogmatic assertions and learn a bit.

Which is why I asked the question (and perhaps you should take your own advice as well)

Calvinistic doctrine is the idea that God unilaterally elects individuals to salvation before the foundation of the world. That usually involves at least 4 points, and often 5. But the center of it is unconditional election.

But the belief in unconditional election itself is not even held by the consensus of the Church (unless again you want to limit the Church to only those who agree with you are the issue).

Part of your problem is that you see the TULIP as the issue. You claim that because no one ever formulated TULIP prior to c. 1500 that it didn't exist.

Yep, more or less. We don't have any historical evidence to suggest otherwise (except in a few rare cases like Lucidus and Gottschalk whose views would have been consistent with such a formulation).

As I have said, that is pure nonsense.

Nope--historical facts are not nonsense.

The elements of Calvinistic doctrine are ancient because they came from the Scriptures, not from Calvin.

The elements of Calvinistic doctrine (as a system) are based on Calvin's interpretation of Scripture. Certain isolated parts were believed by a few--ie Augustine held to an unconditional election to salvation, but he was pretty much a pioneer in this area. The Western Church certainly moderated some of Augustine's later views (and of course Augustine never subsribed to the "LIP" of TULIP--he taught just the opposite from the L and P at least) and condemend those views (like those of Lucidus) who tried to take Augustine in a more "Calvinistic" (extreme) direction, as it were. The Eastern Church never held to unconditional election, limited atonement, or irristable grace, or the idea that a true believer could never fall from grace and finally be lost again. Synergism (not monergism) was the rule among the ante-Nicene fathers, and continued to be the consensus opinion until the time of the Reformers.

I had then said this in response to your comment about the "doctrines of grace"...
Quote:
It depends on what you would define as "the doctrines of grace". If you mean the 'TULIP' doctrines, then I'd say the opposite holds--that it's historical ignorance to suggest that these "doctrines" extend "far prior to Calvin". Sure, something approximating a couple of these doctrines can be found in Augustine (but he flatly teaches the opposite of the others). As for the consensus of the Church (East and West), however, something more akin to the five articles of the Remonstrance would be a more accurate representation of its (particularly the West's) thought (except in the case of the 5th article--the undivided Church definitely believed that one can fall from salvation, whereas the Remonstrance itself left that as an open question and possibility).
To which you (predictably) replied....

Again, just historical ignorance at work here. To think that Calvinistic doctrine didn't exist until Calvin is to know nothing of historical theology.

By now it's evident that you are the one trying to cover up your own historical evidence by accusing others of the same.

I asked this about your comment regarding the Reformation...
Quote:
Ahh...but whose 'Reformation'?
To which you replied....

The Reformation generally speaking. Much of what you say is part of the same Reformation. The Reformation can technically be divided in various ways, but it is all considered a part of the Reformation, and their goal was to reform the church back to what it was from Scripture.

But the Scriptures as interpreted by whom? Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli had some serious disagreements on some fundamental issues.

They had varying degrees of success in different places.

According to whose standard of success?

Me...
Quote:
And which "distortions of Catholicism"?
You...

The distortions on authority and Scripture, the way of salvation, and the role of the church (which is tied into authority and Scripture). The Roman church distorted the doctrine of Scripture, and has led many people to hell. They have not repented of that teaching and have not changed it.

Again, some of the Reformers accused each other of distorting the same Scriptures and often called each other some pretty harsh names. Who was right? (Let me guess...Calvin? :smilewinkgrin