PDA

View Full Version : Arminianism or Calvinism?



MidnightsPaleGlow
Mar 24th 2008, 04:11 AM
OK, this post is to correct my earlier "oops." I was wondering who adheres to Arminianism and who adheres to Calvinism. I myself am more of an Arminian, but I view those with more Calvinistic views as my brothers/sisters despite petty ideological differences.

RoadWarrior
Mar 24th 2008, 04:14 AM
You need another option. "Neither".

MidnightsPaleGlow
Mar 24th 2008, 04:18 AM
You need another option. "Neither".

Oops, ahh I did it again! I don't think I can go back and add another option to it now though, ah well, I'm not perfect (just forgiven)...:blush:

RoadWarrior
Mar 24th 2008, 04:22 AM
No problem. Most people don't seem to realize that you don't have to choose one camp or the other. Each has some truth, and also some error in their teaching. I find it much easier to just read the Bible, let it speak for itself.

:hug:

pnewton
Mar 25th 2008, 12:05 AM
Oops, ahh I did it again! I don't think I can go back and add another option to it now though, ah well, I'm not perfect (just forgiven)...:blush:Besides, you did say "adhere more to."

matthew94
Mar 28th 2008, 06:45 AM
Yeah, the 'more to' makes it very simple for seemingly everyone to participate in this poll. I am definitely MORE inclined to side with the arminian camp. No contest.

Athanasius
Apr 19th 2008, 02:56 AM
They are both right and wrong concerning different areas. If I was forced to pick then definitely Arminianism.

Revinius
Apr 20th 2008, 02:37 PM
i adhere to scripture :D

jmj
Apr 23rd 2008, 09:07 AM
I went for Calvinism. From what I've learned about Calvinism, it's actually a mix of Predestination and Free Will, not just Predestination which is what I first thought.

9Marksfan
Apr 23rd 2008, 09:59 AM
Hey! We're leading! On THIS forum, that's nothing short of ASTOUNDING!!!!!!!:o:o:o

Revinius
Apr 23rd 2008, 10:40 AM
http://www.the-highway.com/compare.html

threebigrocks
Apr 26th 2008, 03:05 AM
Oops, ahh I did it again! I don't think I can go back and add another option to it now though, ah well, I'm not perfect (just forgiven)...:blush:

I can add an option if you would like.


No problem. Most people don't seem to realize that you don't have to choose one camp or the other. Each has some truth, and also some error in their teaching. I find it much easier to just read the Bible, let it speak for itself.

:hug:


i adhere to scripture :D

And I agree with these two. Just scripture. Divisions divide. ;)

Brother Mark
Apr 26th 2008, 04:17 AM
In some areas, I was predestined to be Arminian. In others, I choose to be Calvinist. :P

BrckBrln
Apr 26th 2008, 04:55 AM
"Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else." C.H. Spurgeon

I agree.

Brother Mark
Apr 26th 2008, 05:01 AM
"Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else." C.H. Spurgeon

I agree.

I would say that Jesus is the gospel and nothing else. Calvinism or any other doctrine named after man isn't even a close second. ;)

BrckBrln
Apr 26th 2008, 05:32 AM
I would say that Jesus is the gospel and nothing else. Calvinism or any other doctrine named after man isn't even a close second. ;)

What Spurgeon is saying is that the teachings of what is called 'calvinism' are what the scriptures teach. That's why he had no problem being labeled a calvinist. Obviously people disagree with this and a lot of people don't like to be called something named after a man and I understand that completely. I agree Jesus is the gospel and that is what calvinism is.

Brother Mark
Apr 26th 2008, 05:36 AM
What Spurgeon is saying is that the teachings of what is called 'calvinism' are what the scriptures teach. That's why he had no problem being labeled a calvinist.

I know. I am quite fond of Brother Spurgeon. I was just being smart and trying to be funny. ;)

Though his brand of Calvinism is sometimes different than what we hear today. He has been known to tell the unbeliever "God has those he has chosen. Why don't you be one of them?"

There are too many verses that make me believe the offer of salvation is made, genuinely, to all men and that all men CAN be saved but won't be. And of course, there are the verses about election that cannot be ignored. Many on each side, get in a ditch, IMO.

9Marksfan
Apr 28th 2008, 06:34 PM
Though his brand of Calvinism is sometimes different than what we hear today. He has been known to tell the unbeliever "God has those he has chosen. Why don't you be one of them?"

:lol: LOVE it!


There are too many verses that make me believe the offer of salvation is made, genuinely, to all men

That's consistent with mainstream Calvinism - no problems there!


and that all men CAN be saved but won't be.

Again - no problems there! Sounds like you're a J C Ryle-esque Calvinist!


And of course, there are the verses about election that cannot be ignored.

Amen -such as this one!

Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. Acts 13:48 NKJV

Many on each side, get in a ditch, IMO.[/quote]

I try and stay on the path! :)

sunney4
Apr 28th 2008, 06:37 PM
I'm a Calvinist, but according to my professor, it is something of a misnomer, kind like the reformation was kinda a misnomer. anyway, still a Calvinist here. read some stuff about Arminius and arminism...lets just say that its definitely not me today...

Brother Mark
Apr 28th 2008, 06:49 PM
:lol: LOVE it!

Yea, I like that line too.


That's consistent with mainstream Calvinism - no problems there!

That's not very consistent with the calvinist I know. Many of them don't believe that some men can be saved and that they are predestined to spend eternity in hell no matter what. That's not a genuine offer for salvation because the offer is impossible to accept.


Again - no problems there! Sounds like you're a J C Ryle-esque Calvinist!

You might be surprised. ;)


Amen -such as this one!

Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. Acts 13:48 NKJV

Well, it's there isn't it. So is this one, and my calvinist friends always try to explain it away.

1 John 2:1-2

2 My little children, I am writing these things to you that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; 2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.
NASB


I try and stay on the path! :)

Glad to hear it!

9Marksfan
Apr 29th 2008, 09:55 AM
Yea, I like that line too.

He had a great warmth and mischievous sense of humour!


That's not very consistent with the calvinist I know. Many of them don't believe that some men can be saved and that they are predestined to spend eternity in hell no matter what. That's not a genuine offer for salvation because the offer is impossible to accept.

That's leaning towards Hypercalvinism - most Calvinists like me believe that there IS a genuine offer of the gospel - please don't label us all the same!


You might be surprised. ;)

Judging by the general soundness of your posts, no! :)


Well, it's there isn't it. So is this one, and my calvinist friends always try to explain it away.

1 John 2:1-2

2 My little children, I am writing these things to you that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; 2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.
NASB

The difficulty with taking that verse the way that Arminians do (ie "whole world" means every individual who has ever lived) is that, if we understand what propitiation - hilasterion - means, we really have to be universalists. Someoone will say "God never condemns anyone for their sin, but for rejecting Christ" - so, isn't unbelief a sin? Isn't rejecting Christ the ULTIMATE sin? If that hasn't been atoned for, then we have to atone for it ourselves by our faith and our acceptance of Christ! And that's a works-based salvation - no grace there!

My own understanding is that what John is saying is that Christ is the propitiation not only of his and his readers sins, but (either) of all who will respond to Christ; or that is sufficient for the whole world (my own understanding), because it was payment for SIN.


Glad to hear it!

Keep walking that path! :thumbsup:

Brother Mark
Apr 29th 2008, 12:53 PM
The difficulty with taking that verse the way that Arminians do (ie "whole world" means every individual who has ever lived) is that, if we understand what propitiation - hilasterion - means, we really have to be universalists. Someoone will say "God never condemns anyone for their sin, but for rejecting Christ" - so, isn't unbelief a sin? Isn't rejecting Christ the ULTIMATE sin? If that hasn't been atoned for, then we have to atone for it ourselves by our faith and our acceptance of Christ! And that's a works-based salvation - no grace there!

Ever studied the universalist? They are very, very close to Calvinist in doctrine.


My own understanding is that what John is saying is that Christ is the propitiation not only of his and his readers sins, but (either) of all who will respond to Christ; or that is sufficient for the whole world (my own understanding), because it was payment for SIN.Like I said, my Calvinist friends look for ways around the face value of that verse.

My take? Man goes to hell for rejecting Christ and not his sin. As the spirit woos him and he tells the spirit "No, you are not of God" he has blasphemed God. There is no longer any hope for him for forgiveness as God turns him over to a reprobate mind. But his sins were paid for. Jesus was the propitiation for them. But, just as one can buy a plane ticket and not get on the plane, so Christ purchased for them a ticket to heaven, yet they refuse the ride. The ticket was bought and paid for but rejected.

I suppose I could call it effect, but I see it a little different.

Look at how God judges the world. We think it is based on the evil they commit. And it is to a degree. But things will be worse for the cities in Jesus day than it will be for Sodom. Why? Because they rejected more light. It is the rejecting of Jesus that gets one in the most trouble with God.

I have no issue with John 2. But you are right. Some calvinist turn into universalist because of verses like that.






Keep walking that path! :thumbsup:

You too my friend!

daughter
Apr 29th 2008, 01:31 PM
Jesus takes away the sins of the world... ALL the sins of the world. Those who reject Him will also be rejected and cast out utterly. This doesn't mean I'm an annihilationist by the way... but if you die without Christ, then you die without any of what God gave you that made you in anyway a decent human being. All that is left is sin. And that will be thrown into the lake of fire.

Whether you repent or not, Jesus has paid for your sins, and has taken them away. But if you die an unrepentant sinner, all you are is the trash and slough that is left when God has departed.

Either way, Jesus has disposed of all the sins of the world.

HisLeast
Apr 29th 2008, 07:39 PM
I believe God has perfect knowledge of every outcome of our decisions. Thus he knows how our lives will turn out if every decision is aligned with His righteousness and he knows how it turns out if every decision is selfish and evil. He knows the sum of all future potentials. The choosing of these potentials is given to us.

I've been told this is called "Monalism" and that it is heretical. :wave:

grit
Apr 29th 2008, 09:03 PM
Calvin preferred to call himself a Biblicist, as do I, though I think both ‘sides’ would probably think of themselves as aligning along Scriptural grounds. I think the clearer (or more basic) arguments would be presented as Augustinianism (Calvinism) vs Pelagianism (Arminianism), and both deal with difficult issues of God’s sovereign lordship over all His creation vs man’s responsibility as the crown of God’s creation and made in His image. There certainly are paradoxes in sorting through any Scripturally consistent presentation of both truths.

While it is true that both Pelagianism and Arminianism have been historically denounced as heretical and outside of historic orthodox Christianity by an orthodox majority of Christianity, Arminianism, with its emphasis on man’s freedom and power, is a far more popular view in current Christendom, perhaps especially so in America and other democracies where people are quite used to personal freedoms and independent choices.

From most every encounter I’ve witnessed between proponents of either view, there always seems to be an overzealous demonizing and straw-man repackaging of the opposing position, fostering negative mischaracterizations.

For my part, with an admitted ardent grounding in the Reformed tradition, Calvinism can fairly be said to be the most internally consistent with orderly logic and a unity of the Scriptures; but the Western Church (in its pre-Reformation influence from Greco-Roman philosophy and emphasis on scientific thinking) often needlessly and sometimes harmfully insists on theological formulas that discount the mysticism and transcendent emphasis more common in the Eastern Church.

Molinism, which I find just as flawed as Arminianism, at least gives a valiant effort toward reconciling the two disparate views which have presented such a troubling conundrum for God’s one Church over the course of its history. If there’s to be some common resolution betwixt Calvinism and Arminianism (both of which have most excellent Christian pedigrees of support from spiritual heroes any Christian would admire), it’s probably to be found in a more Eastern Orthodox approach, that gives heavier consideration to Scriptural paradox, Christian mysticism, and the transcendence of God beyond human bounds of thought, to which we might all agree.

HisGrace
Apr 29th 2008, 09:43 PM
I would say that Jesus is the gospel and nothing else. Calvinism or any other doctrine named after man isn't even a close second. ;)I agree. That would be the same as reading a handbook by L Ron Hubbard to learn about Scientology or the Bible of Mary Baker Eddy re Christian Science, instead of turning to the Bible. Let the Holy Spirit guide you, not man.

9Marksfan
Apr 30th 2008, 08:34 AM
Calvin preferred to call himself a Biblicist, as do I, though I think both Ďsidesí would probably think of themselves as aligning along Scriptural grounds. I think the clearer (or more basic) arguments would be presented as Augustinianism (Calvinism) vs Pelagianism (Arminianism),

Yes, that probably is a better definition - the Reformation focussed consideration of theological ideas which were indeed formulated several centuries before.


Molinism, which I find just as flawed as Arminianism, at least gives a valiant effort toward reconciling the two disparate views which have presented such a troubling conundrum for Godís one Church over the course of its history. If thereís to be some common resolution betwixt Calvinism and Arminianism (both of which have most excellent Christian pedigrees of support from spiritual heroes any Christian would admire), itís probably to be found in a more Eastern Orthodox approach, that gives heavier consideration to Scriptural paradox, Christian mysticism, and the transcendence of God beyond human bounds of thought, to which we might all agree.

Can you give us a summary of Molinism? I've not come across it before. Is it a bit like Amyraldianism?

9Marksfan
Apr 30th 2008, 08:35 AM
I agree. That would be the same as reading a handbook by L Ron Hubbard to learn about Scientology or the Bible of Mary Baker Eddy re Christian Science, instead of turning to the Bible. Let the Holy Spirit guide you, not man.

But how do you KNOW the Holy Spirit is guiding you? Doesn't the same Spirit provide teachers as gifts to the church?

Brother Mark
Apr 30th 2008, 01:08 PM
But how do you KNOW the Holy Spirit is guiding you? Doesn't the same Spirit provide teachers as gifts to the church?

Yes! But there is much in life not recorded in scripture. John said that if all the works Jesus had done were written in a book, it would be too big for the world to contain! Yet, Jesus said he only did what the Father told him to do. Were all his actions strictly found in the OT? No! He heard God. So our doctrine is bound in the scriptures. We learn many valuable principles. But God can and does speak to us today concerning things we should do.

9Marksfan
Apr 30th 2008, 03:00 PM
Yes! But there is much in life not recorded in scripture. John said that if all the works Jesus had done were written in a book, it would be too big for the world to contain! Yet, Jesus said he only did what the Father told him to do.

What's your point? Don't you believe the Scriptures are sufficient for us to know all we need to about God, Christ, ourselves and how we should live?


Were all his actions strictly found in the OT? No! He heard God. So our doctrine is bound in the scriptures. We learn many valuable principles.

But not all of them?!?


But God can and does speak to us today concerning things we should do.

Beyond what Scripture teaches?

HisGrace
Apr 30th 2008, 03:10 PM
But how do you KNOW the Holy Spirit is guiding you? Through reading the scriptures and letting them speak to you. If a thought won't let you go, you know it is the Holy Spirit


Doesn't the same Spirit provide teachers as gifts to the church? Yes, but I don't get your point.

grit
Apr 30th 2008, 03:27 PM
Both Amyraldism and Molinism approach the issues of God’s omniscience - His timeless and all-encompassing knowledge - and man’s freedom of choice as key to properly understanding seemingly dissonant Scripture passages and presentations of the being of God and the position of man.

Amyraldism is sometimes commonly equated with a 4-point Calvinism - with a view toward dismissing the “limited atonement” (or, more properly described as a particular atonement of those individuals whom God predestined for salvation – that Christ’s blood completely saves every individual to whom it is applied) of the traditional 5-point Calvinist T.U.L.I.P., in favour of a “hypothetical universalism”, with an understanding that Christ’s atoning sacrifice in redemption universally applies to every human, but on a condition of saving faith.

Amyraut taught that God wills the salvation of all people on the condition that they believe, and so without the condition of a saving faith (prompted by the Holy Spirit) the salvation procured by Christ is of no particular avail, even though God in one sense wills it – that there exists a twofold will of God in foreknowledge and predestination, a universal will and a conditional will. Amyraut considered himself a true Calvinist rightly explaining details Calvin was less clear in explaining. However, many Calvinists then and now disagree, and see Amyraldism as a compromise seeking to synthesize important points of Calvinism, especially the efficacious nature of Christ’s payment for sin (a true redemption and reconciliation with God), with the Arminian view of an unlimited atonement of every human being.

On God’s knowledge and will, Amyraut emphasized that man, as man, cannot wholly know the mind of God, or at least not that part of His will that is unconditional and particular – that man cannot know just who is elect or reprobate. Man can only know God’s conditional and universal will, that all men be saved. Amyraut thus sought to explain that God’s knowledge regarding man’s salvation is somewhat hidden from our understanding in a paradoxical twofold nature of divine will – that all be saved, but only some are elected toward that end.

Molinism was designed as more of a complete compromise with the Arminian understanding of man and human free will. Molina’s view of man might be said to be essentially Arminian, though there are some flavours of it that attempt to lean more toward a Calvinistic view of man as fallen and incapable without God’s grace. However, as pertaining to God, the sovereignty of God is a difficult point for Arminianists to navigate without granting man some godlike status over his Supreme Maker. Most Arminians would love to be counted as also believing in the supremacy of God, as a necessary aspect of God’s being – that God is indeed King and Sovereign, just not a tyrant forcing man’s will. Molina sought to reconcile an understanding of human free will with the Calvinistic emphasis of God’s sovereign majesty over all His creation. He did this by trying to repackage our human understanding of God’s eternal knowledge, or omniscience.

In Amyraldism God’s knowledge and will are thought of as twofold (conditional and unconditional, or universal and particular, with the unconditional and particular as beyond our human understanding).

In Molinism God’s knowledge is described as threefold – a natural knowledge of necessary truths (e.g., A cannot be both A and non-A at the same time, in the same way, at the same place), a free knowledge of dependant contingent truths (truths which are dependant on God to will and bring about, like the Earth and its rotation around the sun – it doesn’t have to be, but is because God wills it and acts to make it so), and a middle knowledge of independent contingent truths (things that are contingently true without God being the primary cause of them). This third kind of knowledge is at the heart of Molinism and is what Molinists call middle knowledge.

Calvinists claim the Scriptures describe God as a planner, as One who determines and decrees what will come to pass. Arminians describe God as a fore-knower of what will come to pass, that He foresees what man will do, and acts accordingly. Molinists describe God as knowing all possibilities of what will come to pass, and acting accordingly toward the most favourable outcome as it relates to man’s salvation.

The key verse Molinists use is Matthew 11:23: “And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day” (ESV).

The Molinist claims that in this example, God knows what is contingently true and independent of God's will, namely that the people of Sodom would have responded in such a way that they would have remained until today, had the contingent counterfactual of seeing Christ’s display of “mighty works” been presented to them. That is, God not only foreknows factual events that will take place (as the Arminians emphasize, over against the Calvinist assertion of God’s planning of them), He also knows all possibilities of what might be but will, in fact, not be – all possible worlds and events, so to speak, even though some are counterfactuals that will never take place.

For the Molinist this middle knowledge led God to create a world, out of all possible worlds, in which the greatest number of humans would eventually choose to be saved. Molina would claim God did this in full sovereignty, while preserving man’s future free choice. Molinism distinguishes itself from Calvinism by affirming that God is not the primary cause of salvation, which it asserts is a matter of man's choice, but also departs from Arminianism because of an emphasis on the role of God's sovereignty in salvation. However, Calvinists would say that Molinism fails to uphold that God is sovereign over all things, and, like Arminianism, that it denies the historic Christian orthodox positions of original sin (and man’s total inability to reconcile with God by his own choice), and particular atonement (that Christ's blood is completely efficacious, or effective toward its decreed purpose, since it applies to people elect of God for salvation).

I find Molinism to be a valiant and scholarly effort at reconciling various distinctives of Christian Scripture as expressed in Calvinism and Arminianism, but, from a Calvinist perspective, it essentially is a reforumlation of Arminianism regarding man's salvation. For the Calvinist, God is either sovereign or He is not. If He is sovereign, He is not subject to anything He has made - He is the King and Lord of all, including anything man might will regarding Him. If He is not sovereign, then He cannot be logically thought of as Almighty God, for He would be subject to the will of man over Him. Arminians surely frame it in different terms with their own Scriptural references and points of emphasis. I think by and large it's all a matter of perspective - of looking at the same paradoxical truth of Scripture from various points of reference and emphasis. Few intend to be a heretic, disparage Gospel truth, or in any way diminish a Scriptural understanding of God and the glory due Him.

9Marksfan
Apr 30th 2008, 03:54 PM
Through reading the scriptures and letting them speak to you. If a thought won't let you go, you know it is the Holy Spirit

Good - glad we're agreed on that!


Yes, but I don't get your point.

My point is, what if we find a concept - like election or predestination - referred to in Scripture and we really struggle to get to the bottom of it? If God has gifted great men like Calvin or Augustine or Edwards with understanding and insight, is it really so wrong for us to delve into their insights into the word, as teachers gifted by God, to derive further understanding? If they were led by the Spirit to acheive insight into these deep things, can't the same Spirit lead us into further truth through their Spirit-enabled teaching? I'm not saying they're infallible - or like Rome that we should treat them like the Fathers as equally authoritative with the word - but when their teaching lines up with the word - why not accept it? When it doesn't, reject it - "hold fast to that which is good, reject what is evil".

Brother Mark
Apr 30th 2008, 04:21 PM
My point is, what if we find a concept - like election or predestination - referred to in Scripture and we really struggle to get to the bottom of it? If God has gifted great men like Calvin or Augustine or Edwards with understanding and insight, is it really so wrong for us to delve into their insights into the word, as teachers gifted by God, to derive further understanding? If they were led by the Spirit to acheive insight into these deep things, can't the same Spirit lead us into further truth through their Spirit-enabled teaching? I'm not saying they're infallible - or like Rome that we should treat them like the Fathers as equally authoritative with the word - but when their teaching lines up with the word - why not accept it? When it doesn't, reject it - "hold fast to that which is good, reject what is evil".

Sure we can do that! Wesley has some great things for study as well :P

9Marksfan
Apr 30th 2008, 08:54 PM
Sure we can do that! Wesley has some great things for study as well :P

Agreed! But one must read with discernment! :P

DAS
May 2nd 2008, 09:26 PM
I'm Neither, But I line up closer to the Arminians.

Revinius
May 3rd 2008, 03:07 AM
I'm Neither, But I line up closer to the Arminians.

I was always of the opinion Arminianism/Palagius taught heretically. Augustine was on the money in denouncing them.

CFJ
May 3rd 2008, 08:19 AM
I've been saved in 1987 without a Bible, without going to any Church and without having Christian friends or any other direct influence, except God Himself, working in a sovereign way expressing His free grace. At the time my knowledge about doctrine was zero. The first study that I've done when buying my first Bible in 1992, was to find out, how did God save me? My own understanding of how I was saved, was that of free grace (predestination), without anyone influencing me at the time.

At the moment the most astonishing event to my mind, is what is happening in the Muslim world. These people have dreams about/of Jesus and they know it is Christ their Saviour. They then start looking for answers and many of them are converted. You can read more about this..., here (http://www.jesusvisions.org/). I guess you would understand my position on this and also why I'm so astonished and interested in what is happening with Muslims at the moment, because God is working in a sovereign way expressing His free grace.

As time went by I've learned about Calvinism and later about Armenianism. Must say, when confronted with free will the first time, I could not understand a dime about this reasoning and have thought of it as a heresy. However, as time have passed, I've been confronted by free will through a very dear brother in Christ. We've reasoned about this issue and I've found that both of us were lacking understanding, of each other's position on this. However, I've known his heart and through his heart, he opened a passage to my own reasoning. In 2002 I've discovered Bibledatabase and through this forum, I've tried to discover the secret in different opinions on this matter, because I've learned through my friend and this forum, that God use our choices too, when bringing us to Him.

To this point, this is what I've discovered, though my guess would be that I still know nothing yet. When reasoning about God and with God and to God, one find that there are only 2 sphere's or domains, in which we are able to understand the things we experience, namely the earthly sphere expressing our freedom and the heavenly sphere expressing our limitations.

The challenge is to find the link, where earthly freedom and heavenly limitations meet each other. The link will always be the cross, but we don't always acknowledge this fact. In every single thing we can think of, there is an earthly parallel for the heavenly reality. There are types and anti-types. There are for instance, 2 types of marriages (the type and anti-type), 2 types of prisons, 2 types of baptisms, 2 types of sins, 2 types of gifts, etc...

We normally focus on one or the other and when we cannot find the link where these realms CROSS, we differ from each other. Unfortunately, I don't have the ability to express myself and obviously understanding every concept in every type, but I will try and explain my views in the next post. I believe it is mostly our understanding, hindering us to be one complete body in Christ. Understanding Christ, comes through the heart and not doctrine, but the heart will keep doctrine in tact.

If you ask me, which one would I choose between Calvinism and Armenianism, I would still choose Calvinism, but for different reasons when first discovering this. Though I must say that I hate this labelling in the Christian sphere, it is divisive and I've never understand who Jesus is, through human perceptions to start with. My simple understanding is that putting God in complete control, is still the savest option, if these issues are too difficult to understand for you, as illustrated with the last 3 questions beneath. If you just put God in complete control, you can trust Him, He knows what He is doing!

As I see it, there is good merits for free will, provided that it is meant for our earthly freedom. Calvinists many a time miss this very important point, but continious questions will force anyone to draw a line for human/earthly freedom in heavenly limitations, for instance;

- why is it that certain people use there free will to choose for God and others never makes this choice?
- is there something good in certain people to make this choice, which is absent in those who don't?
- if there is something good in certain people, how can one define this "good"?

9Marksfan
May 3rd 2008, 11:26 PM
I've been saved in 1987 without a Bible, without going to any Church and without having Christian friends or any other direct influence, except God Himself, working in a sovereign way expressing His free grace. At the time my knowledge about doctrine was zero. The first study that I've done when buying my first Bible in 1992, was to find out, how did God save me?

So you're saying you were saved for five years in a country where the Bible is freely available and you didn't feel the urge to buy one or read one for yourself?


My own understanding of how I was saved, was that of free grace (predestination), without anyone influencing me at the time.

It's great to hear you say that, but a mystery that you weren't immediately drawn to the Bible......what happened next?


As I see it, there is good merits for free will, provided that it is meant for our earthly freedom. Calvinists many a time miss this very important point, but continious questions will force anyone to draw a line for human/earthly freedom in heavenly limitations, for instance;

- why is it that certain people use there free will to choose for God and others never makes this choice?Because God has regenerated their wills and they now have the desire and the will to choose Christ - before that they were dead in trespasses and sins. So their will wasn't really free at all.

- is there something good in certain people to make this choice, which is absent in those who don't?No - in our flesh there dwells no good thing - none of us is righteous, no not one.

- if there is something good in certain people, how can one define this "good"?There isn't so it's pointless to try to define it. Sounds like your free will friend is a Pelagian - that teaching is heretical. Your original hunch was right - go back to it.

Christiana
May 4th 2008, 12:07 AM
There is a wealth of good information on this thread. Thank you all.

I studied scripture for several years before even discovering Armenian or Calvinism's points. After discovering Calvinism, I did realize I leaned more to being a Calvinist.

I do agree that predestination & freewill work together for God's purpose. I don't discount Armenian at all.

I do believe it is possible to be called by God without scripture reading or friends in the family of Christ. I was called very slowly over several years, from a very young child & had very little knowledge of scripture or even who the Apostles were besides the first Four Gospels which two of the names happened to be my brother's first & middle name so I only knew two other gospels by my brother repeatedly telling me their names.;)

One day I just believed wholeheartedly in Christ & hungered & thirsted for His Truths over all things. My heart desired to follow Him & obey Him daily & I still desire to. That was 11 years ago. I can't fully explain my transformation. All I do solidly know is that the Holy Spirit is very capable in leading all in to God's Truths & that you need no other's to teach you. This, I found out later, is scriptural.:)

In Roman's Chapter 8, it teaches of election being just because God chose it & not to question who He chose as His own over others. It isn't about goodness just God's will, which I believe to be of vital importance.

9Marksfan
May 4th 2008, 12:13 AM
There is a wealth of good information on this thread. Thank you all.

I studied scripture for several years before even discovering Armenian or Calvinism's points. After discovering Calvinism, I did realize I leaned more to being a Calvinist.

I do agree that predestination & freewill work together for God's purpose. I don't discount Armenian at all.

I do believe it is possible to be called by God without scripture reading or friends in the family of Christ. I was called very slowly over several years, from a very young child & had very little knowledge of scripture or even who the Apostles were besides the first Four Gospels which two of the names happened to be my brother's first & middle name so I only knew two other gospels by my brother repeatedly telling me their names.;)

One day I just believed wholeheartedly in Christ & hungered & thirsted for His Truths over all things. My heart desired to follow Him & obey Him daily & I still desire to. That was 11 years ago. I can't fully explain my transformation. All I do solidly know is that the Holy Spirit is very capable in leading all in to God's Truths & that you need no other's to teach you. This, I found out later, is scriptural.:)

In Roman's Chapter 8, it teaches of election being just because God chose it & not to question who He chose as His own over others. It isn't about goodness just God's will, which I believe to be of vital importance.

Welcome to the Forum, Christiana! What a wonderful first post! :pp

Christiana
May 4th 2008, 12:18 AM
Thank you 9Mark'sFan! Good to be here!:)

CFJ
May 4th 2008, 02:54 PM
So you're saying you were saved for five years in a country where the Bible is freely available and you didn't feel the urge to buy one or read one for yourself?


It's great to hear you say that, but a mystery that you weren't immediately drawn to the Bible......what happened next?

I've backslided after 2 months, after being saved in 1987. The "honeymoon feeling" kept me alive after meeting Christ, but for obvious reasons, if you don't have a Bible (the spoken Word), it would never last. I've learned this the hard way, when God have had mercy on me after 5 years and send someone to give me the urge to buy a Bible in 1992. Since then I've never looked back... praise God!





[/LIST]Because God has regenerated their wills and they now have the desire and the will to choose Christ - before that they were dead in trespasses and sins. So their will wasn't really free at all.

- is there something good in certain people to make this choice, which is absent in those who don't?No - in our flesh there dwells no good thing - none of us is righteous, no not one.

- if there is something good in certain people, how can one define this "good"?There isn't so it's pointless to try to define it. Sounds like your free will friend is a Pelagian - that teaching is heretical. Your original hunch was right - go back to it.

Marksfan, seems like you misunderstood the purpose of my questions (sorry if I've given the wrong impression here), which were aimed at someone believing in free will, but this is my own understanding also. However, I would not call free will a heresy...

9Marksfan
May 4th 2008, 03:57 PM
I've backslided after 2 months, after being saved in 1987. The "honeymoon feeling" kept me alive after meeting Christ, but for obvious reasons, if you don't have a Bible (the spoken Word), it would never last. I've learned this the hard way, when God have had mercy on me after 5 years and send someone to give me the urge to buy a Bible in 1992. Since then I've never looked back... praise God!

That's great to hear! I backslid almost immediately, sad to say - partly because of the fear of man and partly because my father thought Baptists were as bad as JWs and BANNED me from going to their services! I was 18, but didn't know any better - uni was just around the corner and, once I was there, no looking back!


Marksfan, seems like you misunderstood the purpose of my questions (sorry if I've given the wrong impression here), which were aimed at someone believing in free will, but this is my own understanding also.

Yes, I did misunderstand them - sorry - it was because you'd said that you thought the free will argument was a good one.
However, I would not call free will a heresy...[/quote]

9Marksfan
May 4th 2008, 03:59 PM
I've backslided after 2 months, after being saved in 1987. The "honeymoon feeling" kept me alive after meeting Christ, but for obvious reasons, if you don't have a Bible (the spoken Word), it would never last. I've learned this the hard way, when God have had mercy on me after 5 years and send someone to give me the urge to buy a Bible in 1992. Since then I've never looked back... praise God!

That's great to hear! I backslid almost immediately, sad to say - partly because of the fear of man and partly because my father thought Baptists were as bad as JWs and BANNED me from going to their services! I was 18, but didn't know any better - uni was just around the corner and, once I was there, no looking back!


Marksfan, seems like you misunderstood the purpose of my questions (sorry if I've given the wrong impression here), which were aimed at someone believing in free will, but this is my own understanding also.

Yes, I did misunderstand them - sorry - it was because you'd said that you thought the free will argument was a good one.


However, I would not call free will a heresy...

OK, there are varying degrees - I was assuming that your friend would have answered your questions with a "yes" - that would have been a Pelagian viewpoint viz that our wills aren't so tainted by sin that they're unwilling to come to Christ - Pelagius really taught that man isn't that bad and salvation really becomes a bit DIY!

DAS
May 4th 2008, 07:08 PM
I was always of the opinion Arminianism/Palagius taught heretically. Augustine was on the money in denouncing them.

I said I wasn't an Arminian but that I was closer to them than Calvinists. And Augustine never said anything about Jacob Arminias since Augstine die 1000 years before he was born. However, Both Palagius and Augustine where heritics.

No doubt someone is upset I called Augustine a heretic, but baptism is a work and he believed you were saved by baptism. He was also responcible for the apocrapha being accepted, though that doesn't make him a heretic, it's still bad.

Revinius
May 4th 2008, 11:43 PM
I said I wasn't an Arminian but that I was closer to them than Calvinists. And Augustine never said anything about Jacob Arminias since Augstine die 1000 years before he was born. However, Both Palagius and Augustine where heritics.

No doubt someone is upset I called Augustine a heretic, but baptism is a work and he believed you were saved by baptism. He was also responcible for the apocrapha being accepted, though that doesn't make him a heretic, it's still bad.

You dont think you should be baptised in the spirit? sounds pretty heretical. :rofl:

DAS
May 7th 2008, 02:29 AM
You dont think you should be baptised in the spirit? sounds pretty heretical. :rofl:
Well, He believed in salvation by WATER BAPTISM.

HisGrace
May 7th 2008, 02:51 AM
Well, He believed in salvation by WATER BAPTISM.Baptism by water won't get you into heaven. Baptism by the Holy Spirit will.

Jesus said to his disciples -Acts 1:4 Do not leave Jerusalem until the Father sends you the gift he promised, as I told you before. 5 John baptized with water, but in just a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”

Before the ascension of Jesus -
Acts 1:7 He replied, “The Father alone has the authority to set those dates and times, and they are not for you to know. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you. And you will be my witnesses, telling people about me everywhere—in Jerusalem, throughout Judea, in Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

Jesus never baptized and Paul only water baptized a handful of people.

John 4:2 although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples.

1 Cor. 1:13 Has Christ been divided into factions? Was I, Paul, crucified for you? Were any of you baptized in the name of Paul? Of course not! 14 I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 for now no one can say they were baptized in my name. 16 (Oh yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas, but I don’t remember baptizing anyone else.) 17 For Christ didn’t send me to baptize, but to preach the Good News—and not with clever speech, for fear that the cross of Christ would lose its power

Conclusion - baptism by water doesn't bring salvation. It is used as a symbolic cleansing. Symbolism doesn't get you into heaven.

Revinius
May 7th 2008, 04:38 AM
Well, He believed in salvation by WATER BAPTISM.

Ok so he got one thing wrong? Does that denounce all that he says about everything? No. In fact the guy got considerable joy from his walk with God and his awesome work on the trinity still has repurcussions today. I am sure you were wrong about something at one stage in your walk? I used to believe women were subordinate to men, does that make me a lifelong heretic? No, because views change, only God stays the same.

HisGrace
May 7th 2008, 03:10 PM
I used to believe women were subordinate to men, does that make me a lifelong heretic? No, because views change, only God stays the same. You keep using the word heretic. I believe that is a bit strong. I would say it would be more like a difference of opinion. In some cases it may merely be a misenterpretation. A heretic is one who has a dissenting view about a doctrine, dissenting meaning to disagree with the doctrine of an established or orthodox Church.

We shouldn't legalize the Bible. I am not against baptism, but because I have different views, it doesn't make me a heretic. Christians have different views about Christmas, Easter and Sabbath. They aren't heretics if they don't believe the way we think they should. I believe it is impossible for a true born-again Christian to be a heretic.

Revinius
May 7th 2008, 03:39 PM
You keep using the word heretic. I believe that is a bit strong. I would say it would be more like a difference of opinion. In some cases it may merely be a misenterpretation. A heretic is one who has a dissenting view about a doctrine, dissenting meaning to disagree with the doctrine of an established or orthodox Church.

We shouldn't legalize the Bible. I am not against baptism, but because I have different views, it doesn't make me a heretic. Christians have different views about Christmas, Easter and Sabbath. They aren't heretics if they don't believe the way we think they should. I believe it is impossible for a true born-again Christian to be a heretic.

I didnt call augustine a heretic. Please reference your question to the person who did ;)

HisGrace
May 7th 2008, 04:45 PM
Originally Posted by Revinius
You dont think you should be baptised in the spirit? sounds pretty heretical.


I used to believe women were subordinate to men, does that make me a lifelong heretic? No, because views change, only God stays the same. Looks like you addressed yourself as a heretic at one time.

Revinius
May 7th 2008, 06:08 PM
Looks like you addressed yourself as a heretic at one time.

Its a question, i did not state whether i was a heretic, i asked whether what i believed for a fleeting moment of eternity made me a heretic. There is a big difference.

holyrokker
Aug 4th 2008, 04:40 AM
Closer to Arminianism, but don't consider my theology to be Arminian

Revinius
Aug 4th 2008, 01:49 PM
Closer to Arminianism, but don't consider my theology to be Arminian

Ok that's wierd... isn't your theology your view?

sasaint
Aug 8th 2008, 02:23 PM
In some areas, I was predestined to be Arminian. In others, I choose to be Calvinist. :P

:lol: May I quote you? :lol:

Rhyfelwr
Aug 21st 2008, 11:07 PM
Yay I just tipped it to 21-20 for the Calvinists.

Its the point of perserverance in faith that really tips it for me. Because having been saved I do not believe that it could be possible to reject Christ. People who appear to were probably never saved in the first place. God's greatness if infinite, and once you truly accept it then nothing can turn you away from it.

Plus I seem to be by nature a stereo-typical Calvinist Scotsman. Having read about Calvin I seem to think like him, and be very like him in character. So it's no surpise that I share his views on faith.

Calvin and Cromwell are my two historical rolemodels.

9Marksfan
Aug 22nd 2008, 10:18 AM
Yay I just tipped it to 21-20 for the Calvinists.

Its the point of perserverance in faith that really tips it for me. Because having been saved I do not believe that it could be possible to reject Christ. People who appear to were probably never saved in the first place. God's greatness if infinite, and once you truly accept it then nothing can turn you away from it.

Plus I seem to be by nature a stereo-typical Calvinist Scotsman.

Excelentl! Another one! Althiugh at first I thought you were Welsh?!?


Having read about Calvin I seem to think like him, and be very like him in character. So it's no surpise that I share his views on faith.

Calvin and Cromwell are my two historical rolemodels.

Two amazing men who changed the course of the history of the modern world - Cromwell more than we realise - the first republican!

Nikos
Aug 22nd 2008, 11:11 AM
Calvinism is a false doctrine and not found anywhere in the Scripture. Arminianism is closer to what the Bible teaches. Calvinists believe you are saved before you are saved which is not in the Bible.

9Marksfan
Aug 22nd 2008, 11:16 AM
Calvinism is a false doctrine and not found anywhere in the Scripture.

Completely untrue. There are dozens of verses.


Arminianism is closer to what the Bible teaches.

I don't believe so. Quote me just one verse that teaches that God has given man the freedom (ie ability) to choose Him (btw, commands to choose will not suffice).


Calvinists believe you are saved before you are saved which is not in the Bible.

I agree it is not in the Bible - I don't know anyone that believes that - like Arminians, we believe you are saved when you believe in Christ.

Rhyfelwr
Aug 22nd 2008, 03:04 PM
Excelentl! Another one! Althiugh at first I thought you were Welsh?!?

I come from the Strathclyde region of Scotland which traditionally populated by Bretons rather than Gaels, hence the name. I even managed to mispell it though, it should by Rhyfelwyr - caused a little confusion logging in the first time.:blush:


Two amazing men who changed the course of the history of the modern world - Cromwell more than we realise - the first republican!

Indeed. I am so tired of hearing what a tyrant he was - the Independent faction of the parliament which he headed was very tolerant to all Protestant groups.

BadDog
Aug 23rd 2008, 06:16 PM
OK, this post is to correct my earlier "oops." I was wondering who adheres to Arminianism and who adheres to Calvinism. I myself am more of an Arminian, but I view those with more Calvinistic views as my brothers/sisters despite petty ideological differences.MPG,

Like Road Warrior said, you need another category (or two). I personally could not respond to this poll since I am neither, and both! Arminianism is actually an off-shoot from Calvinism. You can't simply say either-or. Most Christians are neither, FYI. There are a wide range of views on that line between Arminianism and Calvinism, and actually Arm. and Cal. are pretty close together on that spectrum.

Take care,

BD

Elijah Lau
Dec 11th 2010, 06:37 PM
let's bring the old topic alive.............

i have an senario here:

There is a rich man, has plenty of money, resources, food, people, and everything. He can almost do everything. But he saw a poor man staving, no food, hunger. And the rich man refuse to provide food to the poor man, at the end, the poor man died.

Could Jesus act like this rich man when He saw someone dying?

Calvin's teaching seems highlighting God's Authorithies and control over all things.
just like
【Romans 9:15】For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” (ESV)

But, at the same time, Calvin put the responsibility of salvation unto God's shoulders, and not the responsibility of man. If God is the one and the only one to decide the salvation, then what is the meaning of His judgement on those people to go to hell since He is the one who fully responsible for the salvation? He judge His own work?

I prefer to make the senario like this:
The rich man try his best to provide food and help to the dying man, but the dying man reject his help and say "Are you giving me poison? I DON'T WANT!" And the poor man died, without receiving the food from the rich man.

God is going to judge those reject His salvation, just like what it is written in Book of Revelation.

RogerW
Dec 14th 2010, 09:13 PM
It is not a freedom from making choices, but a freedom to make them.

Exactly RK...I agree! But tell me how is this freedom obtained...naturally or supernaturally?

ProjectPeter
Dec 14th 2010, 11:47 PM
Thread is closed guys.,.. I started a new one off this one. My bad for not closing it. It is too old and many in the thread are no longer here.