Why Calvinists and Arminianists are both wrong

[webdog]

God chooses who He will from before time.

The bolded is an oxymoron.

 

[Pastor Larry]

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

I do take my own advice. I don’t make dogmatic assertions about things I don’t know about. If I have to ask someone else, I am not dogmatic about it. But there are certain things I do happen to know.

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).

I have already said that “the Church “ is not limited to those who agree with me. However, it seems that unconditional election is the predominant or majority position among believers. It is too clear in Scripture not to be.

Yep, more or less. We don't have any historical evidence to suggest otherwise

And that’s what I am saying is nonsense. The historical facts are that Calvinistic doctrine has existed in the church since the apostolic era because it is in Scripture. The early centuries of the church were concerned with things other than the systematization of doctrine (things like survival in a hostile world).

The elements of Calvinistic doctrine (as a system) are based on Calvin's interpretation of Scripture.

No, they aren’t. The elements of Calvinistic doctrine precede Calvin by over a thousand years, and it is therefore impossible to be based on his interpretation. The elements of Calvinistic doctrine are based on the Scriptures. Calvin is credited with systematizing it.

Here is Lorraine Boettner:

This cardinal truth of Christianity was first clearly seen by Augustine, the great Spirit-filled theologian of the West. In his doctrines of sin and grace, he went far beyond the earlier theologians, taught an unconditional election of grace, and restricted the purposes of redemption to the definite circle of the elect.
Against these views Augustine developed the very opposite. He taught that the whole race fell in Adam, that all men by nature are depraved and spiritually dead, that the will is free to sin but not free to do good toward God, that Christ suffered vicariously for His people, that God elects whom He will irrespective of their merits, and that saving grace is efficaciously applied to the elect by the Holy Spirit (The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, p. 213).
Other sources could be cited as evidence.


Your history is clearly lacking and your theology is as well. However, we can certainly debate theology. There is no debate about the long history of Calvinistic doctrine.

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

Of course. But they had some agreement on some fundamental issues as well.

According to whose standard of success?

According to anyone’s. In some places, the Reformation and even separation from the Catholic church had great success, and in other places it didn’t.

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? )

I don’t know which particular case you are talking about, and in many cases, these issues are still debated among those who agree on the more core issues.

DT, I would seriously stop talking if I were you. You can’t win on the evidence. It simply doesn’t support you.


There is no doubt that there is disagreement over the issue in the church at large. But to pretend that Calvin made it up is unthinkable. I can't imagine where in the world you came up with that.

 

[Pastor Larry]

The bolded is an oxymoron.

So you think Paul was oxymoronic under the inspiration of the Spirit?

 

[historyb]

The bolded is an oxymoron.

Than take it up with Him because it is in Scripture, I'm otta here

 

[webdog]

So you think Paul was oxymoronic under the inspiration of the Spirit?

Oxymoronic, no...anthropomorphic, yes. Where did he use the specific language "before time"?

 

[webdog]

Than take it up with Him because it is in Scripture, I'm otta here

So is the fact Christ has a sword coming out of His mouth...you believe that literally also?

 

[Doubting Thomas]

DT, I would seriously stop talking if I were you. You can’t win on the evidence. It simply doesn’t support you.

On the contrary, perhaps you need to stop talking. Your quote of Lorraine Boettner proves MY point not yours--that Augustine diverged (I believe I used the word "pioneer" in my last post) from the rest of the early church in his teaching of an unconditional election (here's the quote you cited, with emphasis added by me):

"This cardinal truth of Christianity was first clearly seen by Augustine, the great Spirit-filled theologian of the West. In his doctrines of sin and grace, he went far beyond the earlier theologians, taught an unconditional election of grace, and restricted the purposes of redemption to the definite circle of the elect*.
Against these views Augustine developed the very opposite. He taught that the whole race fell in Adam, that all men by nature are depraved and spiritually dead, that the will is free to sin but not free to do good toward God, that Christ suffered vicariously for His people, that God elects whom He will irrespective of their merits, and that saving grace is efficaciously applied to the elect by the Holy Spirit" (The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, p. 213).


In other words Boettner concedes that Augustine "went far beyond" the earlier theologians (just as I said in my last post) and actually taught the "very opposite" regarding unconditional election "against these (earlier) views". This would be like saying that Arius "first clearly" saw the "cardinal truth" of Christianity regarding Christ's true nature as opposed to all those that went before him just because they hadn't "systematized" that particular doctrine yet (eg in the homoousion of the Nicene Creed). And by that argument, Unitarians and Jehovah's Witnesses could look back in history and say "See? the Unitarian doctrine is present in the Church 1000 years before the Socianists (etc) revived it during the time of the Reformation! It's what Christ and His apostles meant afterall!"

At any rate, Boettner is incorrect in claiming that Augustine "restricted the purposes of redemption to the definite circle of the elect". This is demonstrably false, as Augustine taught that one could be regenerate (ie redeemed) and still fall from grace and be finally lost. As I mentioned before, the Western consensus moderated some of Augustine's more rigidly monergistic views, and the Eastern church never accepted unconditional election--it continued the synergism of the ante-Nicene fathers.

Then you offered this gem...

However, it seems that unconditional election is the predominant or majority position among believers. It is too clear in Scripture not to be.

Which, of course, amounts to implying all those who don't hold to unconditional election (ie Arminians, Weslyans, classical Anglicans, many Baptists, Eastern Orthodox, RC Molinists, etc), who outnumber Calvinists, must not be true "believers", as they don't "clearly" see unconditional election in Scriptures.

There is no doubt that there is disagreement over the issue in the church at large. But to pretend that Calvin made it up is unthinkable. I can't imagine where in the world you came up with that.

Umm...it's called CALVINism for reason

 

[Gup20]

I composed quite a long response and even posted it, but have decided to retract it for a few reasons. There is a such a woeful ignorance of historical theology and biblical theology manifested here that it is hardly worth the time to repeat what has already been said in thousands of posts, and thousands of printed works.

Anyone who denies the biblical basis of Calvinism (or Arminianism ... BTW, when you call someone an "arminianist" you are giving yourself away as being uninformed) is simply either dishonest or uninformed. I will assume the latter here. The truth is that both Calvinism and Arminianism have a biblical basis, and both have long historical bases.

But it is not worth it to me to spend time repeating what has already been said. It has not been interacted with in any sufficient way, and it has certainly never been refuted. I doubt this time will be any different on either count.

Indeed one wonders if folks would have spent half the time discussing scripture x with scripture y, rather than Calvinism vs Arminianism - two humanist teachings - it would have been more productive.

 

[Gup20]

Historyb and Webdog,

Eph 1:3 Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly [places] in Christ:
4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
​

Take this scripture in context with Deuteronomy:

Deu 30:1 And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, and thou shalt call [them] to mind among all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath driven thee,
Deu 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, [that] I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
​

If God sets a choice before us, and commands us to choose, then he intends to honor our selection. This does no damage to the sovereignty of God to give us a choice - no, to COMMAND us to choose.

Therefore it is made clear that the elect are those who have chosen blessing and life. We choose life by choosing to believe in Jesus Christ and his resurrection.

Jhn 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
​

According to scripture, choosing to believe in Jesus is "choosing life" as Deuteronomy 30 says.

Therefore, 'the elect' are those who have chosen to believe in Jesus Christ. God has chosen to reward the ones who choose to believe.

Hbr 11:6 But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
​

Just as Abraham believed the gospel of Christ and was saved, so we too are made righteous by our belief in Jesus Christ.

Gal 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, [saying], In thee shall all nations be blessed.
9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
​

 

[Pastor Larry]

Oxymoronic, no...anthropomorphic, yes. Where did he use the specific language "before time"?

Before the foundation of the world and from the beginning are "before time."

 

[Pastor Larry]

Your quote of Lorraine Boettner proves MY point not yours--that Augustine diverged (I believe I used the word "pioneer" in my last post) from the rest of the early church in his teaching of an unconditional election (here's the quote you cited, with emphasis added by me):

"This cardinal truth of Christianity was first clearly seen by Augustine, the great Spirit-filled theologian of the West. In his doctrines of sin and grace, he went far beyond the earlier theologians, taught an unconditional election of grace, and restricted the purposes of redemption to the definite circle of the elect*.
Against these views Augustine developed the very opposite. He taught that the whole race fell in Adam, that all men by nature are depraved and spiritually dead, that the will is free to sin but not free to do good toward God, that Christ suffered vicariously for His people, that God elects whom He will irrespective of their merits, and that saving grace is efficaciously applied to the elect by the Holy Spirit" (The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, p. 213).

Did you read? It says "first clearly seen." There is no dispute that it was not an emphasis prior to Augustine. I never said otherwise, and if you would pay attention you would know that.

At any rate, Boettner is incorrect in claiming that Augustine "restricted the purposes of redemption to the definite circle of the elect".

Excellent. Some uninformed fellow on an internet site telling Boettner he is incorrect. That's a classic.

The truth is that there are comments by most that can be interpreted in different ways. Calvin and Augustine, as well as Spurgeon, and a host of others can be painted both on both sides of the atonement question.

Which, of course, amounts to implying all those who don't hold to unconditional election (ie Arminians, Weslyans, classical Anglicans, many Baptists, Eastern Orthodox, RC Molinists, etc), who outnumber Calvinists, must not be true "believers", as they don't "clearly" see unconditional election in Scriptures.

It implies no such thing. Please be more careful. If this is indicative of your typical way of thinking, it's no wonder you are confused. You are not careful with people's words. The truth remains that no matter what someone believes, unconditional election is clearly in Scripture. Some have chosen to believe that and hold some other points in tension, thus holding to less than four or five points. Some just don't address it. Furthermore, th idea that these groups outnumber Calvinists is certainly not clear.

Umm...it's called CALVINism for reason

Of course it is. If you knew history you would know why. You would know that it is not because he invented it or came up with it.

Again, it would probably be better for you just to stop talking at this point. Going farther isn't helping your case. It is only demonstrating carelessness.

 

[webdog]

Before the foundation of the world and from the beginning are "before time."

...and since time itself defines before and after, with nothing occurring "before" the "before" is created...it's an anthropomorphism since it's man describing God's attributes and not coming from God as first person.

 

[Pastor Larry]

...and since time itself defines before and after, with nothing occurring "before" the "before" is created...it's an anthropomorphism since it's man describing God's attributes and not coming from God as first person.

What? That's not even coherent. Before the foundation of the world means exactly that. It's not describing God's attributes. It is talking about his actions ... his choice. And he is telling us when it happened.

Was there a point when the creation did not exist? Of course ... And that is when God chose.

 

[webdog]

What? That's not even coherent. Before the foundation of the world means exactly that. It's not describing God's attributes. It is talking about his actions ... his choice. And he is telling us when it happened.

Was there a point when the creation did not exist? Of course ... And that is when God chose.

Talk about incoherent! Of course there is a point when creation did not exist...to us....not to God, else He's not truly ominpresent. If you speak of His actions and choice, by default you are also dealing with His attributes. You clearly do not understand the meaning of statments wrapped in time, so discussing this is futile. Can someone be born before they are actually born? Of course not, and makes no sense. Same with the "birth" of the phrase before. No time = no before.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Of course there is a point when creation did not exist...to us....not to God, else He's not truly ominpresent.

So creation is eternal to God?

BTW, omnipresence has nothing to do with this discussion.

If you speak of His actions and choice, by default you are also dealing with His attributes.

No, his actions flow out of his attributes.

You clearly do not understand the meaning of statments wrapped in time, so discussing this is futile.

I think it is clear that you are the one who doesn't understand. You say that creation has always existed to God. Yet the Bible says that God created it, meaning that it didn't always exist, not even in the mind of God. The fact that God knows something does not mean it exists.

Your attempt to philosophize here is certainly empty. The Bible doesn't need your help. It is just fine the way it is. Your attempts here reveal the problems you complain about with Calvinism and Arminianism ... You complain they attempt to go beyond Scripture to explain things. That is exactly what you are doing. Rather than let the Scripture stand on its own, and believe what it says, you are forced to create categories that are incoherent because your commitment to your own belief is greater than your commitment to Scripture.

The Bible says that God chose us before the foundation of the world. Don't try to massage it to fit your personal prejudice. Just believe it.

 

[webdog]

So creation is eternal to God?

BTW, omnipresence has nothing to do with this discussion.

Omnitemporalness is part of omnipresence, hence it is warranted in the discussion. Being omnitemporal, creation is indeed eternal to God.

No, his actions flow out of his attributes.

Which is the exact same thing I said worded differently.

I think it is clear that you are the one who doesn't understand. You say that creation has always existed to God. Yet the Bible says that God created it, meaning that it didn't always exist, not even in the mind of God. The fact that God knows something does not mean it exists.

When Christ was the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world...did the event exist? It seems you have bound up God in time...which I understand, as it is necessary to make TULIP work.

Your attempt to philosophize here is certainly empty. The Bible doesn't need your help. It is just fine the way it is. Your attempts here reveal the problems you complain about with Calvinism and Arminianism ... You complain they attempt to go beyond Scripture to explain things. That is exactly what you are doing. Rather than let the Scripture stand on its own, and believe what it says, you are forced to create categories that are incoherent because your commitment to your own belief is greater than your commitment to Scripture.

And the ad hominems start. You held off longer than I thought
Your ignorance on time is startling, concerning words do have meanings. I'll say it again: No time = no before.

The Bible says that God chose us before the foundation of the world. Don't try to massage it to fit your personal prejudice. Just believe it.

I'll point you to your own advice and add what you conveniently left off...that we are chosen through faith and the work of the Holy Spirit...clearly done since the foundation of the world, unless you had faith before you were born or before the world was created, which seems like a possibility to you.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Omnitemporalness is part of omnipresence, hence it is warranted in the discussion. Being omnitemporal, creation is indeed eternal to God.

Uh, no.

Which is the exact same thing I said worded differently.

Um, no.

When Christ was the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world...did the event exist?

No. It is a statement of certainty, but more than that, it is probably a statement of whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life. There is some debate over how to translate it.

It seems you have bound up God in time...which I understand, as it is necessary to make TULIP work.

God bound himself up in time. It’s in “The Book.”

And the ad hominems start.

Where? I made no ad hominems.

Your ignorance on time is startling, concerning words do have meanings.

What? That’s incoherent too. But at least this is a grammatical issue and not a theological one.

I'll say it again: No time = no before.

You can say it all you want. It won’t change the facts.

I'll point you to your own advice and add what you conveniently left off...that we are chosen through faith and the work of the Holy Spirit...clearly done since the foundation of the world, unless you had faith before you were born or before the world was created, which seems like a possibility to you.

You have just pointed out your own contradiction. But as I have said, “through faith and the setting apart of the Spirit” modifies “salvation” not “chosen.” You still, after all this time, don’t read the verse right. I don’t suppose that will change.

 

[webdog]

Larry, ever discussion with you is fruitless, pointless, and leads to the same place...nowhere. I sometimes think you type replies just to see yourself on the screen. "Um, no" and "uh, no" are hardly worthy replies, and to claim that God "bound himself up in time, it's in the book" stomps on the throat of His sovereignty and in unorthodox.

Where? I made no ad hominems.

Of course not...you never do

What? That’s incoherent too. But at least this is a grammatical issue and not a theological one.

Rule 1: When not having a point to make, attack spelling. Rule 2: When spelling is correct, attack grammar.

You can say it all you want. It won’t change the facts.

Start with the dictionary and the definition of the word "before", and then come back to play.

You still, after all this time, don’t read the verse right. I don’t suppose that will change.

I know I don't read it right...because I add the whole of Scripture, not just the portion you listed. It's much easier to chop up Scripture to make it say what you want it to.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Larry, ever discussion with you is fruitless, pointless, and leads to the same place...nowhere.

But why? Because you don't respond to facts, to theology, to Scripture. Talk about frustrating.

I sometimes think you type replies just to see yourself on the screen.

I seriously doubt that.

"Um, no" and "uh, no" are hardly worthy replies

To the statements made, they were very worthy. You said two incorrect things based on a probably well meaning but incorrect understanding. There is really no way else to say that other than "No." I guess I could have added "That's incorrect."

... and to claim that God "bound himself up in time, it's in the book" stomps on the throat of His sovereignty and in unorthodox.

How? It doesn't step on his sovereignty, at least not if you define sovereignty the way the Bible does.

Of course not...you never do

I am not sure I would say "never," but certainly rarely. This was not one of them.

Rule 1: When not having a point to make, attack spelling. Rule 2: When spelling is correct, attack grammar

I am not attacking it. I am pointing out that it is incoherent, but for a different reason than your other posts. I don't konw what you were trying to say.

Start with the dictionary and the definition of the word "before", and then come back to play.

I know what the word before means. That's not at issue. The problem is a biblical one. The Bible says that God chose us "before" the foundation of the world. Assuming that the "foundation of the world" was in Genesis 1, and the creation of everything that is not God, God is the one who said he chose "before." Your problem is not with me or the dictionary. Your problem is with the Bible's clear statement.

I know I don't read it right...because I add the whole of Scripture, not just the portion you listed. It's much easier to chop up Scripture to make it say what you want it to.

I have never done that. As I have pointed out (and you have never answered), the Bible says that the salvation is by setting apart of the Spirit and belief in the truth. It does not say the choosing is. That is the major difference. You ignore what Scripture actually says and try to force your own meaning in it.

Here's why we never get anywhere: You don't actually read and think about the words and the theology. You decided what you believe and you will make Scripture fit it. I disagree with that methodology and I reject it .

 

[webdog]

But why? Because you don't respond to facts, to theology, to Scripture. Talk about frustrating.

Lie.

To the statements made, they were very worthy. You said two incorrect things based on a probably well meaning but incorrect understanding. There is really no way else to say that other than "No." I guess I could have added "That's incorrect."

They were coherent enough to reply to with incoherent "Uh" and "um no" comments.

How? It doesn't step on his sovereignty, at least not if you define sovereignty the way the Bible does.

Defining it biblically is to not bind God to time.

I am not attacking it. I am pointing out that it is incoherent, but for a different reason than your other posts. I don't konw what you were trying to say.

...yet you continue to reply. I guess it's coherent enough, then.

I know what the word before means. That's not at issue. The problem is a biblical one. The Bible says that God chose us "before" the foundation of the world. Assuming that the "foundation of the world" was in Genesis 1, and the creation of everything that is not God, God is the one who said he chose "before." Your problem is not with me or the dictionary. Your problem is with the Bible's clear statement.

I see you still do not know what the word means.

I have never done that. As I have pointed out (and you have never answered), the Bible says that the salvation is by setting apart of the Spirit and belief in the truth. It does not say the choosing is. That is the major difference. You ignore what Scripture actually says and try to force your own meaning in it.

Wrong. It states plainly we are chosen for salvation through faith and the work of the Spirit. The choosing is the whole of the entire phrase. You have eisegeted the choosing out of the passage, which is not a shock.

Here's why we never get anywhere: You don't actually read and think about the words and the theology. You decided what you believe and you will make Scripture fit it. I disagree with that methodology and I reject it .

Not only is this also a lie, but could be said of your approach as well.