Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Can Calvinism and Arminianism be reconciled?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Can Calvinism and Arminianism be reconciled?

    Originally posted by Mathetes View Post
    No.
    And that is a problem I have with Calvinist. They change the word world to mean "elect".

    Yes, but in order to fulfill the law perfectly on our behalf, in His role as savior.
    Does Jesus love the ones whom the Father does not love?

    The passage I quoted does. First of all, a distinction is made between Jacob and Esau. The passage goes on to distinguish between those on whom God has mercy and those whom he has raised up for a purpose other than salvation. Yes, the two are mutually exclusive.
    No they are not. One is an emotion and the other is not. One can hate and love at the same time.

    It doesn't say that He loves all people without exception. It says that He loves the world.
    The world is all inclusive. That's why he said "world" instead of elect.

    But God also IS justice, and He IS wrath, and He IS ___________ [insert attribute here]. He does not have those qualities, since in that case He would consist of composite parts, which implies imperfection. He IS those attributes.
    Of course God is just and He is holy. But he is not wrath. He experiences wrath. But he doesn't "have" love. He IS love.
    Matt 9:13
    13 "But go and learn what this means: ' I DESIRE COMPASSION,AND NOT SACRIFICE,' for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
    NASU

    Comment


    • Re: Can Calvinism and Arminianism be reconciled?

      Originally posted by Brother Mark View Post
      And that is a problem I have with Calvinist. They change the word world to mean "elect".
      Or we understand it rightly to be not as all-inclusive as Arminians suppose it to be. Jesus made a distinction between the "world" and His disciples:

      I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. (John 17:9)

      That should also answer your next question...

      Does Jesus love the ones whom the Father does not love?
      No they are not. One is an emotion and the other is not. One can hate and love at the same time.
      That distinction, of course, is your own. Even if it were true about human hate and love, though, I'm not so sure that that is true of God. At any rate, the Romans passage describes love and hate as mutually exclusive. God has mercy on some but not on others, all in accordance with his sovereignty. He doesn't have mercy on all. Paul draws a bold, unmistakable line between those whom God loves and those whom He hates. If God loved and hated people at the same time, then Paul's distinction would not be true.

      Of course God is just and He is holy. But he is not wrath. He experiences wrath. But he doesn't "have" love. He IS love.
      To say that he experiences wrath is really just another way of saying that he has wrath, just like someone who experiences grief has grief, or someone who experiences joy has joy. But that just begs the question: How can God have distinct parts that make up His whole being, since that would imply imperfection? You and I are made up of distinct, composite parts, such as heart, lungs, liver, eyes, and all our other physical components. Each of those parts by itself is lesser than the whole you, since all the parts must be together to make up your total physical being. The whole is greater than the parts. That's why I am having trouble with your description of God's attributes here. You describe God as a being who is divisible, made up of composite parts. Doing that, though, is dragging Him to the level of the creature.
      Take the gospel quiz: http://www.gospelquiz.org
      Blog: http://bereanbailey.wordpress.com

      Comment


      • Re: Can Calvinism and Arminianism be reconciled?

        Originally posted by Bandit View Post
        ...Where does the bible say that no one comes to God? And if no one comes to Him, then why are we in disagreement, for are we not all then headed to destruction? And if some are not headed for destruction, then some must have sought after God, and if so, then the statement that "none seek after God" cannot be literally true. (Perhaps there is a different understanding for such verses.)

        My understanding of scripture is that we are given a new nature after we respond to God, not before.
        Originally posted by Mathetes View Post
        If no one seeks for God, then no one comes to God--apart from his grace, of course.

        I brought up that verse, as I recall, to indicate human nature. Since nobody seeks after God, ...
        Hello Mathetes,

        I have seen where you state that "nobody seeks after God", but which scripture references do you have in mind? Romans 3? I didn't see where you made a particular scripture reference.

        Comment


        • Re: Can Calvinism and Arminianism be reconciled?

          Originally posted by Bandit View Post
          Hello Mathetes,

          I have seen where you state that "nobody seeks after God", but which scripture references do you have in mind? Romans 3? I didn't see where you made a particular scripture reference.
          Romans 3:10-18:

          "None is righteous, no, not one;
          no one understands;
          no one seeks for God.
          All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
          no one does good,
          not even one."
          "Their throat is an open grave;
          they use their tongues to deceive."
          "The venom of asps is under their lips."
          "Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness."
          "Their feet are swift to shed blood;
          in their paths are ruin and misery,
          and the way of peace they have not known."
          "There is no fear of God before their eyes."
          Take the gospel quiz: http://www.gospelquiz.org
          Blog: http://bereanbailey.wordpress.com

          Comment


          • Re: Can Calvinism and Arminianism be reconciled?

            Originally posted by Mathetes View Post
            This I agree with. That is why I often ask people to first define what they mean by "free will" when discussing these issues. The vast majority of people believe that "free will" means that the human will is completely free, but that is false. Man's will is free externally in that nothing outside of man forces him to do this or that. God does not show up at Christians' doors on Sunday morning and force them to go to church, neither does the devil force them to commit sin. So the will is free in an external sense. But internally, the will is in bondage to sin.
            I'm glad you agree, I suppose.

            Not sure about all of this. Can this be inferred from the Scriptures?
            I wouldn't call it inferrence; but if you're looking for copious simple proof-texting, you'll have to dig much deeper than merely the letter which killeth. Try spending a decade compiling every such reference and the Greek word studies; then praying through them according to Ephesians 1 while fasting for months at a time. It's not inferrence. Being a didaskalos (Eph. 4) is fairly important, too.

            Man is totally depraved, not just his soul. That is what total depravity means: All of man's faculties are fallen.
            So said Calvin, et al. His Institutes certainly aren't scripture. I'm not Arminian, either. Both sides are ultimately flotsum flushed from the deep. The real target hasn't been hit yet. And unless you are the exception, I doubt you can thoroughly account for the condition and functionality of man's faculties; especially if the Institutes is your source.

            A. Calvinism
            B. Arminianism
            C. None of the Above

            Final answer.

            Comment


            • Re: Can Calvinism and Arminianism be reconciled?

              Originally posted by Mathetes View Post
              Or we understand it rightly to be not as all-inclusive as Arminians suppose it to be. Jesus made a distinction between the "world" and His disciples:

              I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. (John 17:9)
              Of course he did. We are no longer of the world when we are saved. He prayed for his disciples. He died for the world, i.e. the ungodly.

              That should also answer your next question...
              It didn't. Does Jesus love those the Father doesn't love?

              That distinction, of course, is your own. Even if it were true about human hate and love, though, I'm not so sure that that is true of God. At any rate, the Romans passage describes love and hate as mutually exclusive. God has mercy on some but not on others, all in accordance with his sovereignty. He doesn't have mercy on all. Paul draws a bold, unmistakable line between those whom God loves and those whom He hates. If God loved and hated people at the same time, then Paul's distinction would not be true.
              God said he loved the whole world. Then he wrote there are some he hates. He loves and hates them.

              To say that he experiences wrath is really just another way of saying that he has wrath, just like someone who experiences grief has grief, or someone who experiences joy has joy. But that just begs the question: How can God have distinct parts that make up His whole being, since that would imply imperfection? You and I are made up of distinct, composite parts, such as heart, lungs, liver, eyes, and all our other physical components. Each of those parts by itself is lesser than the whole you, since all the parts must be together to make up your total physical being. The whole is greater than the parts. That's why I am having trouble with your description of God's attributes here. You describe God as a being who is divisible, made up of composite parts. Doing that, though, is dragging Him to the level of the creature.
              He experiences the emotion of wrath. He IS love. That's why John went to the trouble, as prompted by the Holy Spirit to write "God is love". Scripture doesn't say God is wrath. Love is not an attribute of God. It's who and what He IS.
              Matt 9:13
              13 "But go and learn what this means: ' I DESIRE COMPASSION,AND NOT SACRIFICE,' for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
              NASU

              Comment


              • Re: Can Calvinism and Arminianism be reconciled?

                Originally posted by Bandit View Post
                ...
                My understanding of scripture is that we are given a new nature after we respond to God, not before.
                Originally posted by Mathetes View Post
                ... That is why your statement...[above]...is incorrect ...
                I don't see anywhere in scripture where a person is converted before repentance. I see commands everywhere saying things like, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt. 3:2 and 4:17), and "[God] now commands all men everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30). But I don't see the order calvinists claim: that conversion precedes repentance.

                Comment


                • Re: Can Calvinism and Arminianism be reconciled?

                  Nobody seems to see the inane irony in two opposing theological systems based primarily on the function of one of man's/God's soul faculties, but neither bothers with a revelation understanding of man's/God's constitution relating to the soul overall and its intra-personal functionality and interrelation between God and man.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Can Calvinism and Arminianism be reconciled?

                    Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
                    Nobody seems to see the inane irony in two opposing theological systems based primarily on the function of one of man's/God's soul faculties, but neither bothers with a revelation understanding of man's/God's constitution relating to the soul overall and its intra-personal functionality and interrelation between God and man.
                    Some do. But how can you discuss the spirit of a dead man when you can't get past some basic principles? For instance, one cannot properly learn multiplication if he cannot understand addition.
                    Matt 9:13
                    13 "But go and learn what this means: ' I DESIRE COMPASSION,AND NOT SACRIFICE,' for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
                    NASU

                    Comment


                    • Re: Can Calvinism and Arminianism be reconciled?

                      Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
                      I wouldn't call it inferrence;
                      I would. To infer means to find all the clues regarding a topic, compile them all, and then formulate a declaration based on all that evidence--IOW, to conclude from evidence. The doctrine of the Trinity, for example, was inferred because there is not one single place in Scripture with the heading "The Trinity" and a short, concise definition. The doctrine was instead articulated after many years of painstaking grappling with all the relevant texts of Scripture, and that by many different people.

                      but if you're looking for copious simple proof-texting,
                      I am not looking for such. Why this even entered your mind is beyond me.

                      you'll have to dig much deeper than merely the letter which killeth. Try spending a decade compiling every such reference and the Greek word studies; then praying through them according to Ephesians 1 while fasting for months at a time."
                      I definitely believe in doing theology systematically, but let's face it, on a discussion forum you can't expect people to do the extensive work you described above. It's just not the medium for it.

                      Being a didaskalos (Eph. 4) is fairly important, too.
                      Indeed it is, provided that such a person really is one, truly called by God to teach the Church.

                      So said Calvin, et al. His Institutes certainly aren't scripture.
                      Neither are your posts.

                      I'm not Arminian, either. Both sides are ultimately flotsum flushed from the deep. The real target hasn't been hit yet.
                      So say you. You are not the final arbiter of this matter, though. Perhaps you should consider yourself a contributor to the discussions instead of the master teacher who is above everyone else?
                      Take the gospel quiz: http://www.gospelquiz.org
                      Blog: http://bereanbailey.wordpress.com

                      Comment


                      • Re: Can Calvinism and Arminianism be reconciled?

                        Originally posted by Brother Mark View Post
                        Indeed. It took a while for me to accept the desert though. Much focus today is on education instead of revelation and that directly impacts the message preached and the power in which it is preached.


                        Same here. I haven't read much of Watchmen Nee but that book is one of the books of his that are on my list of books to read. (Yea, that was the one I was referring to. I just couldn't remember the title of it.) I rarely read books anymore. When I was first saved, I loved reading Charles Spurgeon. Later I read a few books by Devern Fromke. Mr. Fromke's books should be read by almost all believers, IMO, who desire to go all the way with God. But nothing, NOTHING, can beat reading the scriptures and having God open our eyes. I see books as milk because the good authors, receive revelation from God, digest it, then put it in a book in such a way I can get that revelation too. Isn't milk predigested food that is given to us for growth? Meat is not so much a subject matter, (though certainly that is part of it) but rather, it is getting food directly from the Lord Himself.
                        I hadn't considered it quite from that perspective. Good stuff. I intend to read Fromke, based on our convos.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Can Calvinism and Arminianism be reconciled?

                          Originally posted by Bandit View Post
                          I don't see anywhere in scripture where a person is converted before repentance. I see commands everywhere saying things like, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt. 3:2 and 4:17), and "[God] now commands all men everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30). But I don't see the order calvinists claim: that conversion precedes repentance.
                          In John 1:12-13 we are told that people are born again not of their own will but of God. So their conversion is not because of their choice but because of God's will to regenerate them. But someone might still say, "An unregenerate person could repent before being born again." But Romans 8:7 clearly says that the mind set on the flesh cannot submit to God's laws. Anyone who is not born again is certainly someone whose mind is set on the flesh. If someone cannot submit to God's laws, how could he possibly submit to the command to repent?
                          Take the gospel quiz: http://www.gospelquiz.org
                          Blog: http://bereanbailey.wordpress.com

                          Comment


                          • Re: Can Calvinism and Arminianism be reconciled?

                            Originally posted by Bandit View Post
                            It is here where I think we begin to diverge. If I understand you, you are saying that man does not have the inherent ability to respond to God (i.e., man has no power to choose). You also seem to be saying that God effectively makes the human choice for us. If so, then you are saying that man really doesn't have a choice. I do not believe that any "change in will" is necessary before repentance.
                            ...
                            Originally posted by Mathetes View Post
                            Correct. Man is dead in sin. He cannot submit to God's laws, and in his flesh he cannot please God (Romans 8:7).
                            ...
                            For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. 8Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. (Romans 8:7)

                            If people whose minds are set on the flesh--and that is certainly everyone before conversion--cannot submit to God's law and cannot please Him, how could they possibly be able to repent?

                            Hello Mathetes,

                            Here is another area where calvinists and Arminians disagree. It appears calvinists understand Romans 8:7 as saying that it is impossible for a person to repent and change his ways. But this is not how I, and many others, understand it.

                            In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said, "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other."[Matt. 6:24] This text says nothing of not being able to switch masters, just that it is impossible to serve both simultaneously. The point being made in Romans 8:5-8 is similar. As verse 8 summarizes, “So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” Do notice that it says that those who are presently in the flesh (presently focused upon worldly things) cannot please God. This passage does not say that it is impossible for a person to change their focus.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Can Calvinism and Arminianism be reconciled?

                              Originally posted by Mathetes View Post
                              ...If you think that no change in will is necessary before repentance, then what you are effectively saying is that the will is corrupted by sin, that it is not fallen. Is that what you believe?
                              ...
                              As I have stated before, I do not believe in concept of "total depravity" as most calvinists would use the term. You are free to define "corrupted" and "fallen" as you choose, but I may or may not agree with those definitions. (And right now I really don't know what you mean by them.)

                              Comment


                              • Re: Can Calvinism and Arminianism be reconciled?

                                Originally posted by Mathetes View Post
                                ... the Arminian doctrine of salvation also rests entirely upon their particular doctrine of man.
                                Actually, I would say it is calvinism which is based upon a "particular doctrine of man".

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X