Different Deities in B/A: Calvinist God vs. Arminian God

[MrJim]

The way each are presented they look like very different Gods.

It's one thing to discuss such things as mode of baptism or tongues or something like that. Discussing God's role in salvation via the calvinist/arminian arguement actually presents two different Gods.

Agree/disagree?

[HumbleMan]

I don't profess to know as much as I should about Calvinism, but from what I've read and studied, I tend to think it's more a human misunderstanding about God's role in salvation.

[MrJim]

I don't profess to know as much as I should about Calvinism, but from what I've read and studied, I tend to think it's more a human misunderstanding about God's role in salvation.

I would agree with you.

However it is presented-particularly among the more dogmatic among us-it gives different views of Gods that work in very different ways in the salvation of man.

Different strategies/different tactics/different results/different Gods.

I wouldn't be bothered so much if the calvinist approach wasn't presented as the only right way. As a former calvinist (guilty of this myself) and current arminian (though I've not read more than 100 words Jake ever wrote) I would not declare that I am absolutely right. I believe there is a lot of mystery here we don't know.

So when it is presented it is generally presented as the true way and the only way-just as dogmatic as saying calvinism is right and catholicism is wrong.

The calvinist baptists have a far different God than the anabaptists and arminian baptists.

[HumbleMan]

I would agree that in theology, the two camps seem to have different Gods. The Calvinists one who (it seems) is only interested in certain of His creations, and the Arminian one who wants to reconcile with all His creations.

I only have an issue with the two Gods thing because it seems to cast aspersions on one camps relation with God/salvation.

[eldermike]

The way each are presented they look like very different Gods.

It's one thing to discuss such things as mode of baptism or tongues or something like that. Discussing God's role in salvation via the calvinist/arminian arguement actually presents two different Gods.

Agree/disagree?
I think God knows we don't fully understand Him. I disagree.

[mlqurgw]

Agree, as I believe it has been seen from some of the discussions I have participated in here.

[arunma]

Menno, aren't you going a bit far in saying that Calvinists and Arminians worship different gods?

[Flynmonkie]

The way each are presented they look like very different Gods.
It's one thing to discuss such things as mode of baptism or tongues or something like that. Discussing God's role in salvation via the calvinist/arminian argument actually presents two different Gods.

Agree/disagree?
Disagree - they are both wrong and both right ;) Just both incomplete theory IMHCO because anything that is this confusing is not of God. If they married, got rid of the junk they would be perfect. “Calarmism” As I just mentioned in another thread both are theory, not necessarily doctrine. (Unless you get into the hyper realm) Both serve the same God!

To me this is compared to saying “Because I go to a Baptist Church – my Methodist friend, or other denomination does not serve the same God?” Silly!

I would say more like two different opinions on Gods Character.

[MatthewPoole]

The way each are presented they look like very different Gods.

It's one thing to discuss such things as mode of baptism or tongues or something like that. Discussing God's role in salvation via the calvinist/arminian arguement actually presents two different Gods.

Agree/disagree?

3 Words for ya Pal...

WHAT A CROCK!

Anyone who's studied Calvin and his history, KNOWS that John Calvin was a former CATHOLIC Priest, who brought his Catholic teachings with him, and tried using them in the Protestent Christian World. and his sucessors brought ALL of his Teachings into what is known as the TULIP doctrine. Futher more, Calvin simply repeated the Teachings of the people before him, who were, Roman Catholic leaders.

My Question to you and those who follow Johnny Calvin, What did the Vaudos people, and the Albigenses, Waldensians and those like them believe? where they Calvinist?

Further more doesn't the Bible say?:

For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. (1 Timothy 2:3-6 KJV)

Who can Argue with that?

MP

[HumbleMan]

Have too much coffee today, MP? :) It may suprise you, but I agree with you about the doctrines of Limited Atonement and Irresistable Grace.

[MatthewPoole]

Have too much coffee today, MP? :) It may suprise you, but I agree with you about the doctrines of Limited Atonement and Irresistable Grace.

No... just get my undies in a knot, when I hear calvinists, saying nonsense like that...

Nice to see we are on the same team. ;) :thumbsup: :wave:

MP
:preach:

[Joykins]

I think it's probably wise to avoid the "2 different Gods" phrase as it generally ends up being insulting to someone.

Disagreement on some key characteristics of God--and I think the difference between (non-hyper) Calvinism and Arminianism is more a difference of degree than kind--does not mean that God somehow becomes 2 (or would that be 6 :scratch: )

[Imblessed]

The way each are presented they look like very different Gods.

It's one thing to discuss such things as mode of baptism or tongues or something like that. Discussing God's role in salvation via the calvinist/arminian arguement actually presents two different Gods.

Agree/disagree?

I think in order for each of the sides to try to make their points, they tend to go to extremes of one kind or another.

I've heard calvinists say arminians make a mockery of God by making themselves the "final say" in salvation. It's a little harsh, I think. Most arminians don't do that at all.

I've heard arminians claim that calvinists think we are all robots, without any say in anything. Also a little harsh.

Except for the hypers on both sides, we are alot closer in theology than one may think.

I've no real issues with a person who believes in 'free will'. However, I will defend my belief in the Doctrines of Grace, especially in the light of some of the ignorant and mean spirited remarks that get made.

I've also heard ignorant and mean spirited remarks made by calvinists. It is, unfortunately something that gets people's hackles up, and we(both sides) tend to go off the handle.

But 2 "different" Gods? I don't think so.

I know some of my fellow calvinist will disagree with me, though! :P

[arunma]

I think in order for each of the sides to try to make their points, they tend to go to extremes of one kind or another.

I've heard calvinists say arminians make a mockery of God by making themselves the "final say" in salvation. It's a little harsh, I think. Most arminians don't do that at all.

I've heard arminians claim that calvinists think we are all robots, without any say in anything. Also a little harsh.

Except for the hypers on both sides, we are alot closer in theology than one may think.

I've no real issues with a person who believes in 'free will'. However, I will defend my belief in the Doctrines of Grace, especially in the light of some of the ignorant and mean spirited remarks that get made.

I've also heard ignorant and mean spirited remarks made by calvinists. It is, unfortunately something that gets people's hackles up, and we(both sides) tend to go off the handle.

But 2 "different" Gods? I don't think so.

I know some of my fellow calvinist will disagree with me, though! :P

I don't disagree. There is no question about it: all theologically orthodox Christians worship the same God, including Calvinists and Arminians.

[mesue]

The way each are presented they look like very different Gods.

It's one thing to discuss such things as mode of baptism or tongues or something like that. Discussing God's role in salvation via the calvinist/arminian arguement actually presents two different Gods.

Agree/disagree?
Since I don't understand the whole Armenian vs Calvin thing, and don't particularly see the need to at this point in my life, nor have the desire t6o understand.
My God is the God of the Bible. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are named, but not the god of Calvin nor the god of the Armenians.
These are men. They may have good things to offer in the way of Biblical truths but they are not the end all. Why go to what they have to say?
God gave the Holy Spirit to all that accept Jesus as Savior. Go to God. What does He have to say in His word?
Why such a debate?

[Imblessed]

Since I don't understand the whole Armenian vs Calvin thing, and don't particularly see the need to at this point in my life, nor have the desire t6o understand.
My God is the God of the Bible. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are named, but not the god of Calvin nor the god of the Armenians.
These are men. They may have good things to offer in the way of Biblical truths but they are not the end all. Why go to what they have to say?
God gave the Holy Spirit to all that accept Jesus as Savior. Go to God. What does He have to say in His word?
Why such a debate?

There were many things in the bible I just didn't get for the longest time. They seemed as contradictions to me, or verses that didn't seem to fit other verses.

When I heard the Doctrines of Grace explained( or TULIP, or calvinism here on the boards) quite a few of those things were finally explained, or understood by me.

That's the reason I have the calvinist icon, not because I adhere only to Calvin's teaching(in truth I've read very little Calvin), but because it lets others know that I'm a believer in the Doctrines of Grace. There's no Doctrines of Grace icon, unfortunately! LOL The TULIP icon saves me from explaining myself to alot of people, and let's people know from where I'm coming from in my interpretation of scripture, so to speak.

I try hard not to fight about it, as I don't particularly have a problem with arminians(or free willer's), but I do try to defend the Doctrines of Grace if I feel they are being misrepresented, or slandered. And I don't start threads against arminianism, because I don't feel it's particularly edifying.

But by reading reformed writers, I get a better understanding of the Bible. God has given knowledge to many a great man, and I don't see a problem with learning from them. But I do try to make sure what they are teaching lines up with scriptures, and from my view, the Doctrines of Grace do.

[MrJim]

3 Words for ya Pal...

WHAT A CROCK!

Anyone who's studied Calvin and his history, KNOWS that John Calvin was a former CATHOLIC Priest, who brought his Catholic teachings with him, and tried using them in the Protestent Christian World. and his sucessors brought ALL of his Teachings into what is known as the TULIP doctrine. Futher more, Calvin simply repeated the Teachings of the people before him, who were, Roman Catholic leaders.

My Question to you and those who follow Johnny Calvin, What did the Vaudos people, and the Albigenses, Waldensians and those like them believe? where they Calvinist?

Further more doesn't the Bible say?:

[/size]

Who can Argue with that?

MP

^_^ :P

I love it!

I'm not calvinist anymore hoss. My question still stands.

[MrJim]

But 2 "different" Gods? I don't think so.

I know some of my fellow calvinist will disagree with me, though! :P

Well I guess we'll see...

[arunma]

God gave the Holy Spirit to all that accept Jesus as Savior. Go to God. What does He have to say in His word?
Why such a debate?

True are the words of God. But I suppose the debate exists because we can't agree on how to properly interpret God's words. Personally, I think we should praise him for the simple fact that our debates are over trivial issues, rather than things that would threaten Christian orthodoxy.

[Joykins]

Perhaps we should see the Arminianism vs. Calvinism debate as a dialectic, rather than 2 completely opposing viewpoints of God which, when we hold them, should be defended at all costs. This tension--between the idea that God calls all and repentance comes from the penitent, and between the idea that God calls some people for special missions and "hardens" others--is present in the Bible; we've all read the passages.

Since I actually do have a dog in this fight, I'll stop now, but you get the idea ;)

[mesue]

There were many things in the bible I just didn't get for the longest time. They seemed as contradictions to me, or verses that didn't seem to fit other verses.

When I heard the Doctrines of Grace explained( or TULIP, or calvinism here on the boards) quite a few of those things were finally explained, or understood by me.

That's the reason I have the calvinist icon, not because I adhere only to Calvin's teaching(in truth I've read very little Calvin), but because it lets others know that I'm a believer in the Doctrines of Grace. There's no Doctrines of Grace icon, unfortunately! LOL The TULIP icon saves me from explaining myself to alot of people, and let's people know from where I'm coming from in my interpretation of scripture, so to speak.

I try hard not to fight about it, as I don't particularly have a problem with arminians(or free willer's), but I do try to defend the Doctrines of Grace if I feel they are being misrepresented, or slandered. And I don't start threads against arminianism, because I don't feel it's particularly edifying.

But by reading reformed writers, I get a better understanding of the Bible. God has given knowledge to many a great man, and I don't see a problem with learning from them. But I do try to make sure what they are teaching lines up with scriptures, and from my view, the Doctrines of Grace do.
So, are you saying that you'll allow a man to do the work of the Holy Spirit? I don't get it. I really don't. I could never quite grasp either view, yet I have no problem with the scripture God has given to me to understand. I haven't found contradictions in His word.
I have no problem learning from learned men but to place my whole trust in men more than God seems rather Corinthian to me. Can you imagine? "I am of Paul" "I am of Appolos" "I am of Calvin" I am of ... an Armenian persuasion"
Just who came up with the Armenian way of thinking?
I, mesue, am of Jesus. Just give me Jesus.

[Dmckay]

If you want to heat things up around here all you need to do is mention Calvinism and Arminianism in the same post. It seems guaranteed to raise boold pressures and temperatures.

No I don't think that there are two different G-ds being spoken about or worshipped in the two camps. I believe that the difference or problem lies in the fact that most Christians today have not really learned all that much about the G-d they serve. Theology is considered too dry or too hard for most laymen to even consider taking a condensed—one Doctrine a week in Sunday School class, much less wade through a tome like Charnock's The Existence and Attributes of G-d. Most want to focus on their one favorite attribute and ignore all of the rest. They don't realize that one of the things that makes G-d, G-d is the perfect balance of His divine Attributes.

Historically, the teachings of Jacob Arminius were denounced as a revival of the heresy of Pelagius in an updated form. For those not familiar with Pelagius, his heresy was that he believed that G-d would not demand perfection of His people unless it was possible for them to do it under their own power. Or, in other words, choosing to live a life free of sin and thus earning their way into heaven. Arminius, at least was smart enough to realize that man couldn't ever earn righteousness worthy of entry of to heaven under one's own power. His variation on Pelagius' theme was to say that Jesus died to make atonement for all mankind, but despite being Sovereign Lord over creation, and not desiring any to perish, but all to come to salvation, He sits in heaven wringing His hands hoping that depraved mankind will make a free-will choice for a salvation that their natural state keeps them from even realizing. You can choose to be saved, you can choose to go to hell, you can even choose to place your life in the Lord's hands and take it back any time you want.

When you know and understand as will as finite man can, the glory of the Attributes of G-d, and their perfect balance, the whole Calvin v. Aminius debate looses much of its steam and heat.

[Dmckay]

Oh, by the way, for the Baptist poster who was SOOOO dogmatic with his "What a Crock" about T.U.L.I.P. and the Catholic teachings of Calvin, here is a little something for you to research and think about:

WERE EARLY BAPTISTS CALVINISTS?
Where does this leave Baptists? Were early Baptists Calvinists or have they always been more Arminian in their doctrine of salvation. Our research will center on several key questions, which we shall seek to answer one at a time.
Those questions are as follows:
1. Were Baptists in their early history ever Calvinists?
2. If yes, when did Baptists lose their Calvinism?
3. If yes, why did Baptists lose their Calvinism?
4. Who were some of the great Baptist Calvinists?
Were Baptists in Their Early History Calvinists? The answer to this first question comes early and with ease. Modern Baptists in America trace their heritage to the early English Baptists of the Reformation period. These early forerunners were divided into two groups-the General Baptists and the Particular Baptists. The General Baptists were not as Calvinistic, and certainly did not believe in a particular atonement. They believed in a general atonement, that is, that the death of Christ had a general design towards all men. The Particular Baptists believed in a limited atonement.
Second, we find that these Particular Baptists of the seventeenth century were the more influential of the two groups. Their Calvinism was reflected in two confessions of faith, the First London Confession of 1644 and the Second London Confession of 1689.
We find strong and clear statements on election in each of them as follows:
And touching his creature man, God had in Christ before the foundation of the world, according to the good pleasure of his will, foreordained some men to eternal life through Jesus Christ, to the praise and glory of his grace, leaving the rest in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of his Justice.
First London Confession, 1644
By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory some men and Angels are predestinated, or fore-ordained to Eternal Life, through Jesus Christ, to the praise of his glorious grace; others being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of his glorious justice. These Angels and Men thus predestinated, and foreordained are particularly, and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain, and definite, that it cannot be either increased, or diminished. Those of mankind that are predestinated to life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret Counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love; without any other thing in the creature as a condition or cause moving him thereunto.
Second London Confession, 1689
Beyond even English history, we find that Baptists in early America shared the same viewpoint as evidenced in their greatest confession of faith, the Philadelphia Confession of Faith. In fact, this confession was pretty much a reproduction of the Second London Confession, except for a few extra categories. But as far as the subject of divine election, it read exactly the same.
The widespread influence of this Philadelphia Confession was evidenced by a statement found in one very reliable source. That source stated that, “Throughout the South it shaped Baptist thought generally and has perhaps been the most influential of all confessions” (Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists, Volume I, p. 308).
Thus the question, “Were Baptists in their early history Calvinists?” has to be answered with a strong and definite “Yes!”
When and Why Did Baptists Lose Their Calvinism?
These two questions are so closely related that if we discover the answer to one we will also uncover the other. But the answer to these two questions is not easy to find.
After pouring over dozens of books on Baptist history, and after giving it much thought and meditation, the answer was uncovered. Even then it can not be stated in a short and simple manner. To state it in summary fashion would be as follows: Baptists lost their Calvinism sometime in the past one hundred years due to the influence of the two great awakenings and the events which accompanied them.
To elaborate, Baptists were strong Calvinists in their early history in America as evidenced in the already mentioned Philadelphia Confession of Faith. This confession would have to be dated in the early part of the eighteenth century, perhaps about 1725.
When the first Great Awakening of 1740 (which by the way was a Calvinistic movement) exploded on the scene of early American history, Baptists were not involved in it. Baptists became involved in it as members of the established churches, who had experienced revival and renewal, left to join Baptist churches. These individuals were known as Separates, and they brought to the Baptist churches the spirit of the awakening, which was good, but they also brought some dangerous tendencies—a distrust of the established clergy, a view of the immediate illumination of the Holy Spirit, etc.
The excesses of this first great awakening were dangerous and damaging to Baptist life in America. Baptists began to move in the direction of a spirit of the anti-theological or non-theological in their attitudes and thinking. They became very pietistic, with strong appeal to the emotions. They came to undervalue ministerial education. They became somewhat anti-education and anti-historical. They began to fear creeds and confessions of faith. Up to this time confessions of faith and even catechisms were used by Baptists without question or apology.
When the second Great Awakening of about 1830 struck, Baptists were already in the middle of the modification of some of their thinking, with a modified Calvinism beginning to develop. Though Calvinism was still very strong, tendencies continued and even other tendencies were birthed which were to become a further threat to the remaining influence of Calvinism. Pietism was primary, while doctrinal aspects were secondary. Individualism in life began to reign, as opposed to corporate concerns being primary. Strong opposition to confessions developed.
This is not to say that Baptists fled their Calvinistic heritage at this point of history. It is to say that some tendencies, not all of them bad, began to develop, which if carried to an extreme could become very detrimental to their doctrinal heritage.
To summarize, the Calvinism of Baptists was under constant and direct attack in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, first from the revivalism of the Separates, then by Methodist Arminianism, and also from the Free Will Baptist movement, and finally from Charles G. Finney. Having embraced revivalism and its tendencies after the first great awakening, and having been suddenly vaulted to great prominence and influence among the people and the religious scene in America, Baptists were very interested in keeping their newly acquired religious leadership and in keeping their movement growing. As time wore on, the remnants of their Calvinism were still strong in some places, though modified. But even that amount of Calvinism became more difficult to defend before the simple, uneducated, common-sense man or even the rational, educated, philosophically trained man. Instead of continuing to hold and defend their Calvinistic theology, they strained their Calvinistic theological framework to accommodate the new religious mood of the day.
The change was slow, and Calvinism continued to be held and defended by some even into the twentieth century. But by the middle of that century, Calvinism was all but dead among Baptists, except for a weakened definition of the fifth point. Baptists of past history called the fifth point “the perseverance of the saints.” Baptists of the middle years of the twentieth century called it “The eternal security of the believer.”
One final point must be made. Sometime just past the middle of the twentieth century, a revival of Calvinism among Baptists began, and it appears to be continuing and growing today.
Who Were Some of the Great Baptist Calvinists?
This was not a difficult question to answer. History abounds with great Baptists who were Calvinists. The following is a partial list:
1. Isaac Backus, New England Baptist born 1724.
2. John Leland, New England Baptist born 1754.
3. James P. Boyce, founder and first president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.
4. J.L. Dagg, an early Southern Baptist theologian.
5. P.H. Mell, president of the Southern Baptist Convention for seventeen years, longer than any other president ever served.
6. Adoniram Judson, born in 1788, was the first foreign missionary to go forth from the United States.
7. Charles H. Spurgeon, the great English preacher and pastor of the nineteenth century.
Calvinism, a doctrinal system first systematized to combat the Arminian heresy’s threat to the early church was the official position of the “Church” pretty much from the time of Augustine. Many Baptist preachers and teachers today will still describe themselves as “four” or “four and a half” point Calvinists.
As observed in the previous study all five points of Calvinism are interconnected and flow logically out of the previous point. Because one is true the others are both true and necessary. If any one point is untrue or removed from consideration the others must also fall.
The “Church” in general, and Baptists in particular have left the original, traditional doctrinal position on soteriology for a watered-down position which appears easier for the unsaved to accept. Numbers and results have become the most important things in the eyes of most churches. A church measures its impact on the community not on the basis of changed lives and true growth in the Lord, but by the number of “decisions” or baptisms the church can boast.

Better watch where you throw those stones, they aren't as accurate a weapon as the Sword of the Lord and a little Baptist History research.

[MatthewPoole]

Again, I say a Crock.....

Here's some real info on Calvinism:

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/calvinismdebate.html

Audio of the above sermon..:

http://www.wayoflife.org/streaming/audio/calvinism-debate.html

and of Spurgeon:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=DVXA%2CDVXA%3A2005-14%2CDVXA%3Aen&q=site%3Awww.wayoflife.org+Spurgeon&btnG=Search

I stand by what I've read of John Calvin... and I'll read my Bible. and Be a Bible'ist...

-MP

:preach:

[MrJim]

Menno, aren't you going a bit far in saying that Calvinists and Arminians worship different gods?

I don't know. Consider

Case 1:

Talking to a friend about Christianity. God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes on Him shall not perish but have everlasting life. This is a God that loves the world-all encompassing-not willing that any should perish. And He sent His Son to die for you-repent, and all who call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Case 2:

Talking to a friend about Christianity. God so loved the world [well, really just the elect],...what, who are the elect? Oh, they are the people that God has already selected from before time to be with Him forever in heaven. It's right here in Ephesians and Romans. No, you can't do anything to be elect, see, it's like a lottery-God just sort of picks a name out of a hat, so to speak, and then maybe you won or maybe He just created you knowing that in your sin you will just eventually spend eternity in fiery torment-'cause see that's all we deserve. Me, oh sure, I'm elect [bless God], and you can be elect too if you repent of your sin-well, yeah, I know I just said you can't "do" anything to be elect but see this is just how God wanted to let people know the gospel...

So which God is the God of scripture? The One that wants man to repent of his sin, and turn to Him to be cleansed and reborn? He loved us so much that He sent Christ to die to redeem us?

Or the One that is sitting on His throne, pulling names out of hat and just "playing" with these...people that are created only to be put into a burning pit and whose only guilt is to be born into a doomed race?

No, I don't think it's a bit much to think we are dealing with two different Gods.

**[Dmckay-please, I've heard the calvinist line "you just aren't educated enough" line for a lot of years, used it myself when I was converted to calvinism in the early '90s. While there are lots of thick books out there and lots of teachers out there I have found there are intelligent men (and ladies too) on both sides of the arguement.]

[Flynmonkie]

Menno, I don't think that is what he meant. I can admit I could use more education. It is really just mental gymnastics more than anything. Actually, I am not really sure your analogy really represents the TULIP, however it does get confusing like this when relayed by certain Calvinists. What I would like to see is an agreeable discussion point by point. But there are so many variations to each – it never seems to happen.

I would like to understand it – because I cannot stand the division it causes and the misinformation about the true gospel that comes out of it. Just when I think I have it all cornered – bam- someone comes along and throws a monkey wrench into the equation.

[Dmckay]

**[Dmckay-please, I've heard the calvinist line "you just aren't educated enough" line for a lot of years, used it myself when I was converted to calvinism in the early '90s. While there are lots of thick books out there and lots of teachers out there I have found there are intelligent men (and ladies too) on both sides of the arguement.]
Please, where did I say or imply that? By saying that most Christians today don't understand G-d? That isn't some trite "Put-down" line, it's true. For most people today if asked to describe their concept of G-d you are either going to get a description of a supernatural Santa Claus, or the Old Testament picture of a vengeful Jehovah.

Try this little experiment yourself, the next 10 Christians you encounter during your daily life (unless they happen to be Elders in your church or theologians) ask them to name and briefly describe what each of the attributes of G-d are. I would be surprised if half of them can name and describe even five. Don't you think that since we have surrendered our lives to the control and service of our Deity that we should at the very least know a little something about Him. Most of the errors that I handle on a daily basis in lifestyle, Bible understanding and even family relationships stem from a misunderstanding of G-d and how and why He does things the way He does.

Our whole approach to interpreting the Scriptures revolves in large part around our understanding the G-d from whom the Scriptures came to us. I don't believe in knowledge for knowledge's sake alone. I no longer teach in a Bible College or seminary setting because I truely believe that knowledge without wisdom is arrogance. Too many of the Professors that I know have become so "heavenly-minded" that they are no earthly good. They remind me of the stories of the middle-ages of the priests sitting around debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, while their flock were dying in ignorance and starvation.

Or perhaps you think that my "you aren't educated enough" attitude was including the post on Baptists and Calvinism. First, I AM NOT a Calvinist!!! Never have been, probably never will be. I have more to do with my time than to spend hours on end reading through Calvin's Institutes or commentaries. I learned Greek and Hebrew specifically so that I wouldn't be dependent upon the teachings and possible errors of others. The first time I realized what a mistake this could be was reading a commentary on Revelation by John Walvoord. I found a glaring error between something he said and the Old Testament verse he cited. I realized then that either he hadn't actually written what was in this portion of his book, or he had never read the passage that he cited because it said his statement was in error.

I included that portion on Baptists and Calvinism (and it was written from the wrong viewpoint of equating T.U.L.I.P. with Calvinism) because one of the respondents implied that the view was to be rejected because it was Catholic in origin. That Was the Crock! T.U.L.I.P. and Catholicism couldn't possibly be more different in their views of soteriology. Baptists historically in the United States were predominately in agreement with all 5 points of T.U.L.I.P. until the late 1800s.

[Joykins]

What I really don't understand is, what the virtue is of believing in Calvinism.

You can get all the beneficial doctrines elsewhere, and from our point of view we make decisions and are accountable for our actions to God regardless of whether they've been predestined or not. We all agree that God can pour out his grace without measure, predestine our actions, guide our lives, harden our hearts, and forgive our sins according to his good pleasure; however, the gospel message and particularly the incarnation seem to indicate that God does not always choose to act like WE think a sovereign God should.

The only distinctive that TULIP-style Calvinism seems to give is the teaching that God specifically condemns (other) people which leads to a proud and uncharitable spirit in too many.

[Flynmonkie]

Dmckay well said. Can we sticky that post? :thumbsup:

[Dmckay]

What I really don't understand is, what the virtue is of believing in Calvinism.


The only distinctive that TULIP-style Calvinism seems to give is the teaching that God specifically condemns (other) people which leads to a proud and uncharitable spirit in too many.
Unfortunately, all to often that is the attitude that some take. However, for myself and most of the 5-pointers I know it is truely humbling that G-d would want and use me for any reason. That amazes me even more than that my wife has put up with me for almost 30 years now. All we are told is that G-d has His reasons for what He has done, it isn't for anything special that He has seen in any one of us. And that is truely, "Amazing Grace."

[mlqurgw]

Unfortunately, all to often that is the attitude that some take. However, for myself and most of the 5-pointers I know it is truely humbling that G-d would want and use me for any reason. That amazes me even more than that my wife has put up with me for almost 30 years now. All we are told is that G-d has His reasons for what He has done, it isn't for anything special that He has seen in any one of us. And that is truely, "Amazing Grace."I might add that understood properly it is the most humbling thing in the world. It puts sinners in the dust at the feet of the Savior just like the leper in LK. 5:12 saying Lord if you will you can make me whole.

[DeaconDean]

Anyone who's studied Calvin and his history, KNOWS that John Calvin was a former CATHOLIC Priest, who brought his Catholic teachings with him, and tried using them in the Protestent Christian World.
[/size]

MP

John Calvin was born in 1509. He died in 1564. John Calvin was the son of a lawyer. He was born in Noyon, Picardy and was therefore a Frenchman. Calvin developed a love for scholarship and literature.

In 1523 he went to the University of Paris where he studied theology.

In 1528 he went to Orleans to study Law, and one year later Calvin went to Bourges also to study Law.

Calvin was pressurised by his father to study Law but in 1531 his father died giving Calvin the freedom to resume his religious studies.

In the same year that his father died, Calvin went to the College de France in Paris to study Greek. This college was noted for its Humanistic approach to learning. In fact, all the colleges that Calvin attended had Humanistic leanings and it was only natural that this influenced Calvin. He became an admirer of Erasmus.

At some point between 1528 and 1533 he experienced a "sudden conversion" and grasped Protestantism. "God subdued my soul to docility by a sudden conversion" was how Calvin described this experience.

Many historians look on the time from 1531 to 1533 as being the key time as this was the first time that he had been free from his father’s ‘shackles’. Calvin was highly critical of the abuses in the French Catholic church but he never doubted that he was God’s chosen instrument in the spiritual regeneration of the world.

At this time in France his ideas would have been heretical especially after the Day of the Placards incident when Francis I felt personally threatened by the Protestants and joined with the Sorbonne and the Parlément of Paris to hunt out heretics. Calvin lived at a dangerous time for heretics and in 1533 he fled Paris. In the following year 24 heretics were burned at the stake. For three years (1533 to 1536) he roamed France, Italy and Switzerland.

In 1536 the first edition of "Institutes of the Christian Religion" was published in Basle. It was revised on a number of occasions and the final edition was published in 1559. This book was a clear explanation of his religious beliefs. The later versions expanded on how his church should be organised.

In July 1536, Calvin went to Geneva which became the centre of his work. He had been trying to go to Strasbourg but the spread of the Habsburg-Valois Wars made him detour to Geneva where a fiery Protestant called Guillaume Farel persuaded him to stay.

Geneva was a French-speaking Swiss city. At the time of Calvin’s arrival the city was struggling to achieve independence against two authorities who were trying to exercise control over Geneva. The first was the Dukes of Savoy and the second was the Bishop of Geneva. Geneva was not yet part of Switzerland (not until 1815) and the city allied with the cantons of Bern and Fribourg against Savoy. The bishop fled Geneva and Savoy was defeated in 1535.

In May 1536 the city adopted religious reform:

1) monasteries were dissolved

2) Mass was abolished

3) Papal authority renounced

But within Geneva itself a struggle took place between those who wanted mild reform (such as no compulsory church attendance) and those who demanded radical reform such as Calvin and Farel. The split was deeper than this however. The mild reformers were called the Libertines and they wanted magistrates firmly in control of the clergy. Calvin wanted a city controlled by the clergy - a theocracy. In 1538, the Libertines won the day and Farel and Calvin fled the city and went to Strasbourg.

From 1538 to 1541 Calvin stayed in Strasbourg. Here he learned a lot about the ideas of Martin Bucer; a moderate Protestant reformer from Germany. Calvin was especially interested in Bucer’s ideas on ecclesiastical organisation.

In 1540 Calvin attended a Catholic/Protestant conference at Hagenau and in the following year he attended similar conferences at Worms and Regensburg.

In September 1541 Calvin returned to Geneva after the Libertines had fallen from power in 1540. It took Calvin 14 years before he could fully impose his version of liturgy, doctrine, organisation of the church and moral behaviour.

Calvin’s services were plain and simple. He placed great importance on the sermon. His sermons were very logical and learned. Though he himself liked music, he distrusted its use in religious services believing that it distracted people from the matter in hand - the worship and the seeking knowledge of God. Musical instruments were banned from churches - though congregational singing was permitted and this proved to be both popular and an effective way of ‘spreading’ the message. All matters relating to worship came from the Scriptures - so psalms took the place of hymns in services.



Church government






In 1541, added by the city council, Calvin drew up the Ecclesiastical Ordinances. He rejected the organisation of the Medieval Church as contrary to the New Testament. He wanted a church modelled on the church in Apostolic times. There were to be no bishops. All ministers were equal. They had to preach, administer the sacraments and look after the spiritual welfare of the people. Moral discipline was also upheld by the ministers - but they were helped by the elders.

The elders were civilian (laymen) who lived within the congregation and who were elected by the city council. Calvin was not keen on this but it provided a link between the Church and state. The elders and deacons (also laymen who looked after the relief of the poor were subject to popular appointment and in that respect they introduced an important element of democracy into the church. All officers in the church belonged to the consistory and if there was a power struggle between the ministers and the laymen the outcome of that power struggle determined whether the church became Erastian (i.e. followed the way Erasmus wished a church to go) or the state would become theocratic i.e. the church controlled all aspects of life. Eventually Geneva became theocratic.

Calvin was a strong believer in behaving as God wished. Immorality was severely condemned but to begin with the consistory was not an effective body. It only started to be so when the number of appointed ministers was greater than the elders. Also in 1555, the city council gave the consistory the right to excommunicate offenders. Only after this date was a strict moral code imposed and every sin was made a crime e.g. no work or pleasure on a Sunday; no extravagance in dress. If you were excommunicated you were banished from the city. Blasphemy could be punished by death; lewd singing could be punished by your tongue being pierced.

Calvin believed that the church and state should be separate but the consistory tried moral and religious offenders. Two members of the consistory, accompanied by a minister, visited every parish to see that all was well and that people could see that they were being checked on. The state had to obey the teachings of the church, according to Calvin, and once he had managed to ensure this power, he felt confident enough to shut down taverns - though this was actually done by magistrates - and replace them with "evangelical refreshment places" where you could drink alcohol but this was accompanied by Bible readings. Meals (in public) were preceded by the saying of grace. Not surprisingly these were far from popular and even Calvin recognised that he had gone too far and the taverns were re-opened with due speed!!

Was Calvin totally supported in Geneva? It must be remembered that he was introducing a very disciplined code to the city and that this code effectively controlled peoples lives. There were those who opposed Calvin and he was never totally secure until he had the support of Geneva’s most important families. These 1,500 men had a right to elect the city council which governed the city’s 13,000 people. Many felt angered that their privacy was being trespassed on and though a moral code to maintain standards was accepted, Calvin saw it going all the way so that everybody in the city was affected - a view not shared by everyone. This changed in favour of Calvin when a Spanish scholar called Michael Servetus came to Geneva in 1553. He questioned the validity of the Trinity which is central to all Christianity. The Libertines sided with Servetus to ‘get’ at Calvin and but his trial and burning as a heretic gave Calvin the opportunity to target the Libertines who fled Geneva. In May 1555, the Libertines attempted a take-over of Geneva which was a disaster. The ringleaders were caught and executed and this success further strengthened Calvin’s hand.



What were Calvin’s beliefs ?






Calvinism was based around the absolute power and supremacy of God.

The world was created so that Mankind might get to know Him. Calvin believed that Man was sinful and could only approach God through faith in Christ - not through Mass and pilgrimages.

Calvin believed that the New Testament and baptism and the Eucharist had been created to provide Man with continual divine guidance when seeking faith.

In Calvin’s view, Man, who is corrupt, is confronted by the omnipotent (all powerful) and omnipresent (present everywhere) God who before the world began predestined some for eternal salvation (the Elect) while the others would suffer everlasting damnation (the Reprobates).

The chosen few were saved by the operation of divine grace which cannot be challenged and cannot be earned by Man’s merits. You might have lead what you might have considered a perfectly good life that was true to God but if you were a reprobate you remained one because for all your qualities you were inherently corrupt and God would know this even if you did not. However, a reprobate by behaving decently could achieve an inner conviction of salvation. An Elect could never fall from grace.

However, God remained the judge and lawgiver of men. Predestination remained a vital belief in Calvinism.


http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/John_Calvin.htm

Where does it say John Calvin was a catholic?

[Joykins]

Unfortunately, all to often that is the attitude that some take. However, for myself and most of the 5-pointers I know it is truely humbling that G-d would want and use me for any reason. That amazes me even more than that my wife has put up with me for almost 30 years now. All we are told is that G-d has His reasons for what He has done, it isn't for anything special that He has seen in any one of us. And that is truely, "Amazing Grace."

I can agree with all of that without being a 5-pointer, though...

[Imblessed]

So, are you saying that you'll allow a man to do the work of the Holy Spirit? I don't get it. I really don't.

I'm sure you did not mean that to be offensive, but i could not help taking offense. I re-read my post and I just cannot see how you would come to that conclusion .

I could never quite grasp either view, yet I have no problem with the scripture God has given to me to understand. I haven't found contradictions in His word. I wish God had given me that ability to just read His word and understand completely what it says, but alas, I just am not that smart.
I have no problem learning from learned men but to place my whole trust in men more than God seems rather Corinthian to me. Can you imagine? "I am of Paul" "I am of Appolos" "I am of Calvin" I am of ... an Armenian persuasion" Do believe I specifically said that I do not follow only Calvin, and have in fact read very little of Calvin, or any of the reformers, or church fathers, or any theologan for that matter. I am a fiction reader, and just don't enjoy reading non-fiction, or theology. Yet, I have been blessed by those that I have gotten around to reading.

It sounds so simple to say "oh, just read the bible, and you will understand all you need to know. No need to read anything else." But how do you think all the heresies got into the church? How do you think they got refuted? Why are there so many different view on the bible?

Why did the early church need Elders and Deacons? to teach and guide the new believers!

While we should be careful not to let learning exclipse all else about our christianity, learning about God is still essential. We are commanded to grow in our maturity, get off milk and get on meat.

[Dmckay]

John Calvin was born in 1509. He died in 1564. John Calvin was the son of a lawyer. He was born in Noyon, Picardy and was therefore a Frenchman. Calvin developed a love for scholarship and literature.

In 1523 he went to the University of Paris where he studied theology.

In 1528 he went to Orleans to study Law, and one year later Calvin went to Bourges also to study Law.

Calvin was pressurised by his father to study Law but in 1531 his father died giving Calvin the freedom to resume his religious studies.

In the same year that his father died, Calvin went to the College de France in Paris to study Greek. This college was noted for its Humanistic approach to learning. In fact, all the colleges that Calvin attended had Humanistic leanings and it was only natural that this influenced Calvin. He became an admirer of Erasmus.

At some point between 1528 and 1533 he experienced a "sudden conversion" and grasped Protestantism. "God subdued my soul to docility by a sudden conversion" was how Calvin described this experience.

Many historians look on the time from 1531 to 1533 as being the key time as this was the first time that he had been free from his father’s ‘shackles’. Calvin was highly critical of the abuses in the French Catholic church but he never doubted that he was God’s chosen instrument in the spiritual regeneration of the world.

At this time in France his ideas would have been heretical especially after the Day of the Placards incident when Francis I felt personally threatened by the Protestants and joined with the Sorbonne and the Parlément of Paris to hunt out heretics. Calvin lived at a dangerous time for heretics and in 1533 he fled Paris. In the following year 24 heretics were burned at the stake. For three years (1533 to 1536) he roamed France, Italy and Switzerland.

In 1536 the first edition of "Institutes of the Christian Religion" was published in Basle. It was revised on a number of occasions and the final edition was published in 1559. This book was a clear explanation of his religious beliefs. The later versions expanded on how his church should be organised.

In July 1536, Calvin went to Geneva which became the centre of his work. He had been trying to go to Strasbourg but the spread of the Habsburg-Valois Wars made him detour to Geneva where a fiery Protestant called Guillaume Farel persuaded him to stay.

Geneva was a French-speaking Swiss city. At the time of Calvin’s arrival the city was struggling to achieve independence against two authorities who were trying to exercise control over Geneva. The first was the Dukes of Savoy and the second was the Bishop of Geneva. Geneva was not yet part of Switzerland (not until 1815) and the city allied with the cantons of Bern and Fribourg against Savoy. The bishop fled Geneva and Savoy was defeated in 1535.

In May 1536 the city adopted religious reform:

1) monasteries were dissolved

2) Mass was abolished

3) Papal authority renounced

But within Geneva itself a struggle took place between those who wanted mild reform (such as no compulsory church attendance) and those who demanded radical reform such as Calvin and Farel. The split was deeper than this however. The mild reformers were called the Libertines and they wanted magistrates firmly in control of the clergy. Calvin wanted a city controlled by the clergy - a theocracy. In 1538, the Libertines won the day and Farel and Calvin fled the city and went to Strasbourg.

From 1538 to 1541 Calvin stayed in Strasbourg. Here he learned a lot about the ideas of Martin Bucer; a moderate Protestant reformer from Germany. Calvin was especially interested in Bucer’s ideas on ecclesiastical organisation.

In 1540 Calvin attended a Catholic/Protestant conference at Hagenau and in the following year he attended similar conferences at Worms and Regensburg.

In September 1541 Calvin returned to Geneva after the Libertines had fallen from power in 1540. It took Calvin 14 years before he could fully impose his version of liturgy, doctrine, organisation of the church and moral behaviour.

Calvin’s services were plain and simple. He placed great importance on the sermon. His sermons were very logical and learned. Though he himself liked music, he distrusted its use in religious services believing that it distracted people from the matter in hand - the worship and the seeking knowledge of God. Musical instruments were banned from churches - though congregational singing was permitted and this proved to be both popular and an effective way of ‘spreading’ the message. All matters relating to worship came from the Scriptures - so psalms took the place of hymns in services.



Church government






In 1541, added by the city council, Calvin drew up the Ecclesiastical Ordinances. He rejected the organisation of the Medieval Church as contrary to the New Testament. He wanted a church modelled on the church in Apostolic times. There were to be no bishops. All ministers were equal. They had to preach, administer the sacraments and look after the spiritual welfare of the people. Moral discipline was also upheld by the ministers - but they were helped by the elders.

The elders were civilian (laymen) who lived within the congregation and who were elected by the city council. Calvin was not keen on this but it provided a link between the Church and state. The elders and deacons (also laymen who looked after the relief of the poor were subject to popular appointment and in that respect they introduced an important element of democracy into the church. All officers in the church belonged to the consistory and if there was a power struggle between the ministers and the laymen the outcome of that power struggle determined whether the church became Erastian (i.e. followed the way Erasmus wished a church to go) or the state would become theocratic i.e. the church controlled all aspects of life. Eventually Geneva became theocratic.

Calvin was a strong believer in behaving as God wished. Immorality was severely condemned but to begin with the consistory was not an effective body. It only started to be so when the number of appointed ministers was greater than the elders. Also in 1555, the city council gave the consistory the right to excommunicate offenders. Only after this date was a strict moral code imposed and every sin was made a crime e.g. no work or pleasure on a Sunday; no extravagance in dress. If you were excommunicated you were banished from the city. Blasphemy could be punished by death; lewd singing could be punished by your tongue being pierced.

Calvin believed that the church and state should be separate but the consistory tried moral and religious offenders. Two members of the consistory, accompanied by a minister, visited every parish to see that all was well and that people could see that they were being checked on. The state had to obey the teachings of the church, according to Calvin, and once he had managed to ensure this power, he felt confident enough to shut down taverns - though this was actually done by magistrates - and replace them with "evangelical refreshment places" where you could drink alcohol but this was accompanied by Bible readings. Meals (in public) were preceded by the saying of grace. Not surprisingly these were far from popular and even Calvin recognised that he had gone too far and the taverns were re-opened with due speed!!

Was Calvin totally supported in Geneva? It must be remembered that he was introducing a very disciplined code to the city and that this code effectively controlled peoples lives. There were those who opposed Calvin and he was never totally secure until he had the support of Geneva’s most important families. These 1,500 men had a right to elect the city council which governed the city’s 13,000 people. Many felt angered that their privacy was being trespassed on and though a moral code to maintain standards was accepted, Calvin saw it going all the way so that everybody in the city was affected - a view not shared by everyone. This changed in favour of Calvin when a Spanish scholar called Michael Servetus came to Geneva in 1553. He questioned the validity of the Trinity which is central to all Christianity. The Libertines sided with Servetus to ‘get’ at Calvin and but his trial and burning as a heretic gave Calvin the opportunity to target the Libertines who fled Geneva. In May 1555, the Libertines attempted a take-over of Geneva which was a disaster. The ringleaders were caught and executed and this success further strengthened Calvin’s hand.



What were Calvin’s beliefs ?






Calvinism was based around the absolute power and supremacy of God.

The world was created so that Mankind might get to know Him. Calvin believed that Man was sinful and could only approach God through faith in Christ - not through Mass and pilgrimages.

Calvin believed that the New Testament and baptism and the Eucharist had been created to provide Man with continual divine guidance when seeking faith.

In Calvin’s view, Man, who is corrupt, is confronted by the omnipotent (all powerful) and omnipresent (present everywhere) God who before the world began predestined some for eternal salvation (the Elect) while the others would suffer everlasting damnation (the Reprobates).

The chosen few were saved by the operation of divine grace which cannot be challenged and cannot be earned by Man’s merits. You might have lead what you might have considered a perfectly good life that was true to God but if you were a reprobate you remained one because for all your qualities you were inherently corrupt and God would know this even if you did not. However, a reprobate by behaving decently could achieve an inner conviction of salvation. An Elect could never fall from grace.

However, God remained the judge and lawgiver of men. Predestination remained a vital belief in Calvinism.


http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/John_Calvin.htm

Where does it say John Calvin was a catholic?
Thank you for the informtion on Calvin. It has been quie some time since I studied Calvin in my first year of Bible College. I knew that T.U.L.I.P. was anathama to the teaching if the RCC, but I couldn't rememer his earlier years and training.

[MrJim]

I might add that understood properly it is the most humbling thing in the world. It puts sinners in the dust at the feet of the Savior just like the leper in LK. 5:12 saying Lord if you will you can make me whole.

Do you mean it puts the elect sinners in the dust at the feet of the Savior?

[arunma]

Do you mean it puts the elect sinners in the dust at the feet of the Savior?

I suppose that this is true. But remember that sinners who aren't among the elect will still openly reject God. I fully believe in the five points of Calvinism, but I disagree with the way Calvin worded his theology. I do not think that a person who isn't among the elect will ever come to any sort of faith in Christ, because it is impossible to have true faith in Christ and to be condemned.

[Flynmonkie]

You might have lead what you might have considered a perfectly good life that was true to God but if you were a reprobate you remained one because for all your qualities you were inherently corrupt and God would know this even if you did not. :eek: :confused: However, a reprobate by behaving decently could achieve an inner conviction of salvation. An Elect could never fall from grace.
[/font]

It is statements like these that make me want to stay as far away from Calvin’s teaching as possible.

Only two perceptions come out of this statement. Either God is a puppet master and we have no freedom (which can lead to all sorts of heresies)

Or God is inept in leading one in life who IS earnestly seeking. So in essence nullifies the next sentence.

Speaking of the next sentence again - where is God in that equation? A Reprobate can behave decently true to God and still achieve an “inner conviction”? So another words those that seek God, and work at it “might” just feel saved but they are not? IOW IF you lived a life true to God – you might not still get to heaven – This is truly sick. :sick: Where in the world are Gods promises in this statement? :doh: But an “Elect” can never fall from Grace? :mad: Boy, you are treading on thin ice here. Of course my favorite “Quench not the spirit”, comes to mind… not to mention very clear and pointed scripture of Gods Promise of guidance when we do not understand but hold dear to our faith. But what glares even more brightly than that – is the arrogance that one could take anywhere in scripture the assumption of Gods handling of another’s heart condition. Something is inherently wrong with treating Faith like one big “science” project – thesis and all.

So the woman teacher I had in 4th grade was correct. Because I was a rape baby and fatherless, I had to pay for the sins of my parents – therefore in Dut 23:2 when it said that I cannot enter the church for many generations that is correct – I need to work harder than most because I already have strikes against me. I might not ever be saved! She is nuts and whomever believes this is nuts too. I am not going to beat around the bush on that.

Lord have Mercy on those that speak this garbage – I mean this with all sincerity from the very bottom of my heart. Our God is Love, you must first understand this (which is the point – that point has never changed) however, Our God is just. There are consequences to action. This is not just – this is just a truly disgusting display of mans arrogance of the need to possess “head knowledge” without any regard to the heart – or balance with the Spirit (Discernment).

It is one thing to come to that understanding that we are nothing without God, yet another to beat someone down with the Gospel. SO I guess with this statement I have changed my mind – If this is truly how Calvin’ists believe I guess I do understand mennos plight that we serve two Gods. Or at least a VERY big difference of opinion the size of the ocean.

[mlqurgw]

Do you mean it puts the elect sinners in the dust at the feet of the Savior?Not really. While only elect sinners will be found there it should put all sinners there.

[MrJim]

I suppose that this is true. But remember that sinners who aren't among the elect will still openly reject God. I fully believe in the five points of Calvinism, but I disagree with the way Calvin worded his theology. I do not think that a person who isn't among the elect will ever come to any sort of faith in Christ, because it is impossible to have true faith in Christ and to be condemned.

So John 3:16 really means

"God so loved the world [well, really just the elect] that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever [well, really not "whosoever"--just the lucky predestined that God chose-and it really is luck since God is not a respecter of persons and there is nothing you can do one way or another except just be grateful if you are selected-so think "lottery"] believes upon Him [but really you don't believe-you are irresistably drawn to God and have no choice in the matter-it's not a decision that you will do-rather it's just the end result of divine intervention] should not perish [unlike the rest of humanity that was simply created-lost the lottery draw--which God knew also before they were born that they would also perish in this world to spend eternity in the fiery pit because of simply being born with Adam's sin-no second chance-no forgiveness-sorry, you are dead in your sin and God made NO WAY OUT, that is unless you get drawn in the elect lottery] but have eternal life [that you can spend with God thanking Him that He arbitrarily selected you--too bad about the neighbor, and my sister, and dad, guess they never had a chance, sorry about the fiery pit thing but He's God and needs to extract His pound of flesh because you were so bad]."

What it comes down to...that is why I contend that the calvinist God is different from the arminian God

[MatthewPoole]

(Alot of useless info snipped)

Where does it say John Calvin was a catholic?

Granted, He wasn't a Priest, I thought I'd read that he was... perhaps not. But it is known that he STILL brought alot of RCC's Legalism and mindset with him, He was a part of the Roman Catholic Church. As a young man, He was. Don't be blinded by the Pro-Calvinist Smokescreen... read the TRUTH!

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=DVXA,DVXA:2005-14,DVXA:en&q=site:www%2Ewayoflife%2Eorg+john+Calvin+

Read the acticles... see what sources they quote, the TRUTH is there, just read it... that's what's WRONG with people today, THEY DON'T READ! Or they read books that TELL them what they WANT to hear!

MP
:preach:

[eldermike]

What quality do we have that other men are missing? If I choose God but some other person rejects Him what part of me was superior to this other poor soul? Is He stupid? Is intellect the issue? Is he heartless? Did God make him without a heart? What do we have that makes us so superior? It is better to be saved than lost, right? So are we just better people?

[MrJim]

What quality do we have that other men are missing? If I choose God but some other person rejects Him what part of me was superior to this other poor soul? Is He stupid? Is intellect the issue? Is he heartless? Did God make him without a heart? What do we have that makes us so superior? It is better to be saved than lost, right? So are we just better people?

We accepted and received. Others rejected.

Far different than the alternative: God received and rejected.

Now what'll be said is that this is "works" and we'll sit in heaven saying "Boy I'm glad I was smarter than my neighbor and repented" but I don't think that is the heart of the redeemed. However at least we can say they had the opportunity and rejected it as opposed to NEVER having the opportunity at all. Calvinists put forth a God that creates life specifically for them to spend eternity in the pit with NO chance of redemption. Double Predestination baby! Ya can't have one without the other (learned that one from RC Sproul). Remember the title in Chosen for God?:

"Double Double Toil and Trouble: Is Predestination Double?" :sigh:

[Flynmonkie]

What quality do we have that other men are missing? If I choose God but some other person rejects Him what part of me was superior to this other poor soul? Is He stupid? Is intellect the issue? Is he heartless? Did God make him without a heart? What do we have that makes us so superior? It is better to be saved than lost, right? So are we just better people?
I wouldn't say Christians are "superior". We are taught that God is no respecter of persons. Nothing we do makes a difference other than choice. I wouldn't say anyone is missing anything - the difference I can see is that we seek. WE make that choice – Hebrews 11:1. I believe we are all given the capability to do this various or any given time in our lives. Each might have this happen differently, however, I believe we all have this capability. I believe God gives His understanding in His way, not necessarily in a way we could understand for others, or even that we could ever put it into our own words. But our role here has nothing to do with judging in this manner (and I believe scripture is explicit about this) - our role here is to simply share Gods Love and Justice in a manner in which it was shown to us through His son guided by the Spirit. God would not make something so difficult for us to understand. It is not in His nature and defies His promises. Whosoever, All, etc.. would never have been said if this were not truth.

Ezekiel 18:32
For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies,” says the Lord GOD. “Therefore turn and live!”

Ezekiel 33:11
Say to them: ‘As I live,’ says the Lord GOD, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?’


All indicate we have a choice to make.

[eldermike]

I wouldn't say Christians are "superior". We are taught that God is no respecter of persons. Nothing we do makes a difference other than choice. I wouldn't say anyone is missing anything - the difference I can see is that we seek. WE make that choice – Hebrews 11:1. I believe we are all given the capability to do this various or any given time in our lives. Each might have this happen differently, however, I believe we all have this capability. I believe God gives His understanding in His way, not necessarily in a way we could understand for others, or even that we could ever put it into our own words. But our role here has nothing to do with judging in this manner (and I believe scripture is explicit about this) - our role here is to simply share Gods Love and Justice in a manner in which it was shown to us through His son guided by the Spirit. God would not make something so difficult for us to understand. It is not in His nature and defies His promises. Whosoever, All, etc.. would never have been said if this were not truth.

Ezekiel 18:32
For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies,” says the Lord GOD. “Therefore turn and live!”

Ezekiel 33:11
Say to them: ‘As I live,’ says the Lord GOD, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?’


All indicate we have a choice to make.

This is all well and good but the question remains. If we sought God and others do not are we just better, smarter or quicker on the uptake, what is it about us that made us make this superior judgement of something so important?

[eldermike]

We accepted and received. Others rejected.

Far different than the alternative: God received and rejected.

Now what'll be said is that this is "works" and we'll sit in heaven saying "Boy I'm glad I was smarter than my neighbor and repented" but I don't think that is the heart of the redeemed. However at least we can say they had the opportunity and rejected it as opposed to NEVER having the opportunity at all. Calvinists put forth a God that creates life specifically for them to spend eternity in the pit with NO chance of redemption. Double Predestination baby! Ya can't have one without the other (learned that one from RC Sproul). Remember the title in Chosen for God?:

"Double Double Toil and Trouble: Is Predestination Double?" :sigh:

It matters not if it's the heart of the redeemed or not, what I am asking is: Is my lost bother just not quite up to our standards, are we just better than him even when we were in his lost condition?

[eldermike]

This is not quite as simple as seems to be. I came to understand this over a long time of study. To understand Calvin you have to begin where He began, with mankinds condition. You can't understand this from the redeemed position. If man has to be redeemed then he's lost, if he's lost he's not going to find the door. This is about man, talking about it as if it's about God is standing it on it's head.

[HumbleMan]

This is all well and good but the question remains. If we sought God and others do not are we just better, smarter or quicker on the uptake, what is it about us that made us make this superior judgement of something so important?

Do we seek independently of any outside stimuli, or are our minds and hearts piqued by hearing the gospel? Is how the gospel presented relative to our accepting Christ? Or is proclaiming the gospel an effort in futility?

[eldermike]

Do we seek independently of any outside stimuli, or are our minds and hearts piqued by hearing the gospel? Is how the gospel presented relative to our accepting Christ? Or is proclaiming the gospel an effort in futility?

Some will respond, just as Jesus said that some heard Him. We are called to spread the gospel.

[Flynmonkie]

This is all well and good but the question remains. If we sought God and others do not are we just better, smarter or quicker on the uptake, what is it about us that made us make this superior judgment of something so important?
:)
No, I feel it is none of our business to know this or even to contemplate. Or better phrased this is for God to know alone. Where in scripture are we taught to “compare” ourselves to others in the first place? There is no possible way to "know" the answer to this question other than there is nothing "specific" about us that makes us different. We are all totally depraved without God. IOW without that act of faith, there can be no change. But I believe scripture is clear that we are all given the ability to incorporate that act. Why do people need to separate the two things? Why do people feel this cannot be possible? Being depraved does not have to do with IF we have the ability to have faith. IMHCO. However it does have everything to do with change. People can be good and not be of God. It is that act of faith that makes a difference. Once you have committed to that act – God takes over from there (in a sense) providing everything you need in sanctification process.

We are treated equally by God based on His knowledge of our personal growth and heart condition. But the issue seems to be- IS there a difference? Not at this level. I believe we are equally infused with the ability to make this choice. We are all sinful, responding to Gods call, or not, at whatever given time in our lives is not something I think we could put a finger on. But we should always remember He first Loved US. Any decision He makes is flavored with His love and His justice. Do we believe that He has promised that He handles others equally as He handles those whom do not believe? We would have to take into assumption another’s heart condition in this matter (again off limits unless clearly in scripture). I do understand where you are coming from - but why do we need to worry of these things? Why ask such a question? Is it not clear in scripture that we are to work out our "own" salvation? This means to me how God deals with others is not my business other than to figure out how in this world God wishes to use me in sharing His will for all. But that is not what I see this “theory” stating. It literally states some were predestined to Hell while others Heaven. This is an awful-awful thing to say. It deters the gospel and this makes me very angry. It angers me because of the stumbling block it creates for babes and seasoned Christians alike.

To me this is like asking which is better - male or female? We are both equal in Gods eyes, yet we are constructed differently. People are not constructed the "same" we are all different. God not only graced us with salvation but also with the ability to make this choice of faith. We owe it all to Him for sure. The only difference I can see is that people have resisted this. But again if you are basing these comments on the thought that what God wants God Gets (Gods Will) – then I think there is where the basis of misunderstanding lies. God wants good for us, but He also has given this decision to us. I had a Theology teacher tell me once “Think about it this way, what would be the point of creation if God willed everything into being?’ His point is that even with handing over this part of “control” to us, even then – He is supreme, and is glorified”. What would be the point of creating people that He makes to choose Him, or that they of their own God given “will” make that decision? This has always haunted me. Once you have that basis of thought – it becomes much easier to understand the “whys”. And those we do not understand – I believe we are taught to chalk up to something God doesn’t want us meddling in – or we are not at the maturity level for this understanding. I am willing to admit this could be me. I also know clearly in scripture when people do not want to listen we are to shake the dust off our feet. I don’t know. But the ability has to be there for us to be instructed in this manner. But there are some certainties in the gospel. God wants all to come to Him; He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked! NO PLEASURE. It Hurts Him, however those that do not come to Him – there is no special sort of treatment that had been given to them. He has warned them. There is nothing in scripture that shows me that God predestined some to salvation and some dammed to hell? All somehow are equally given an ability to do so or a choice to make. Sounds a bit elementary with all these big words flying around. But I truly feel it is that simple.

I tell you I have never been more tested in my faith than the thoughts of Calvin'ists outlook on God. I never sat in the Arm camp, because I just do not agree with the points other than we are given the ability to choose. I have a tendency to lean in the Calvin direction, but these are issues I cannot accept. When I read this, my thoughts are screaming ‘Get God out of a box’ because it truly is limiting to spiritual growth.

[daveleau]

The way each are presented they look like very different Gods.

It's one thing to discuss such things as mode of baptism or tongues or something like that. Discussing God's role in salvation via the calvinist/arminian arguement actually presents two different Gods.

Agree/disagree?

I take them to be two flawed extremes of interpretations of God's attributes. They both come from the same place- Scripture. I find Arminian beliefs to be mostly contrary to the overall evidence in Scripture. I also find Calvinism to have serious flaws in its interpretation of Scripture. I believe a happy medium leaning towards Calvinism resides in Scripture. I do not think they are two Gods, since the evidence comes from the same place. I just believe they are flawed interpretations.

[MrJim]

It matters not if it's the heart of the redeemed or not, what I am asking is: Is my lost bother just not quite up to our standards, are we just better than him even when we were in his lost condition?

Why hasn't your brother or my two brothers chosen Christ? That I do not know. Mine have been shown the way and have chosen to go away from it. That is their decision and yet there is still hope for they aren't dead.

Again, this is a far different thing than to say that God, in His foreknowledge predestined me to salvation and them to perdition with no hope at all. It would have been better for them to have never been born-for they stood no chance at all.

A person is in hell by their own decision--not because they were born into a cancerous diseased race. HA it would be better to be born a dog than an image of God if the end result is a guaranteed trip to the pit.

As was said in "TULIP" thread-Christ came to die for His people-which is different than saying He died so that "whosoever" believes will not perish.

Why did I choose God? Another mystery-all Glory to God, His Son and Spirit.

[Joykins]

Do we seek independently of any outside stimuli, or are our minds and hearts piqued by hearing the gospel? Is how the gospel presented relative to our accepting Christ? Or is proclaiming the gospel an effort in futility?

From the chapter after the Calvinists' favorite one...

Romans 10:9-15

[eldermike]

:)
No, I feel it is none of our business to know this or even to contemplate. Or better phrased this is for God to know alone. Where in scripture are we taught to “compare” ourselves to others in the first place? There is no possible way to "know" the answer to this question other than there is nothing "specific" about us that makes us different. We are all totally depraved without God. IOW without that act of faith, there can be no change. But I believe scripture is clear that we are all given the ability to incorporate that act. Why do people need to separate the two things? Why do people feel this cannot be possible? Being depraved does not have to do with IF we have the ability to have faith. IMHCO. However it does have everything to do with change. People can be good and not be of God. It is that act of faith that makes a difference. Once you have committed to that act – God takes over from there (in a sense) providing everything you need in sanctification process.

We are treated equally by God based on His knowledge of our personal growth and heart condition. But the issue seems to be- IS there a difference? Not at this level. I believe we are equally infused with the ability to make this choice. We are all sinful, responding to Gods call, or not, at whatever given time in our lives is not something I think we could put a finger on. But we should always remember He first Loved US. Any decision He makes is flavored with His love and His justice. Do we believe that He has promised that He handles others equally as He handles those whom do not believe? We would have to take into assumption another’s heart condition in this matter (again off limits unless clearly in scripture). I do understand where you are coming from - but why do we need to worry of these things? Why ask such a question? Is it not clear in scripture that we are to work out our "own" salvation? This means to me how God deals with others is not my business other than to figure out how in this world God wishes to use me in sharing His will for all. But that is not what I see this “theory” stating. It literally states some were predestined to Hell while others Heaven. This is an awful-awful thing to say. It deters the gospel and this makes me very angry. It angers me because of the stumbling block it creates for babes and seasoned Christians alike.

To me this is like asking which is better - male or female? We are both equal in Gods eyes, yet we are constructed differently. People are not constructed the "same" we are all different. God not only graced us with salvation but also with the ability to make this choice of faith. We owe it all to Him for sure. The only difference I can see is that people have resisted this. But again if you are basing these comments on the thought that what God wants God Gets (Gods Will) – then I think there is where the basis of misunderstanding lies. God wants good for us, but He also has given this decision to us. I had a Theology teacher tell me once “Think about it this way, what would be the point of creation if God willed everything into being?’ His point is that even with handing over this part of “control” to us, even then – He is supreme, and is glorified”. What would be the point of creating people that He makes to choose Him, or that they of their own God given “will” make that decision? This has always haunted me. Once you have that basis of thought – it becomes much easier to understand the “whys”. And those we do not understand – I believe we are taught to chalk up to something God doesn’t want us meddling in – or we are not at the maturity level for this understanding. I am willing to admit this could be me. I also know clearly in scripture when people do not want to listen we are to shake the dust off our feet. I don’t know. But the ability has to be there for us to be instructed in this manner. But there are some certainties in the gospel. God wants all to come to Him; He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked! NO PLEASURE. It Hurts Him, however those that do not come to Him – there is no special sort of treatment that had been given to them. He has warned them. There is nothing in scripture that shows me that God predestined some to salvation and some dammed to hell? All somehow are equally given an ability to do so or a choice to make. Sounds a bit elementary with all these big words flying around. But I truly feel it is that simple.

I tell you I have never been more tested in my faith than the thoughts of Calvin'ists outlook on God. I never sat in the Arm camp, because I just do not agree with the points other than we are given the ability to choose. I have a tendency to lean in the Calvin direction, but these are issues I cannot accept. When I read this, my thoughts are screaming ‘Get God out of a box’ because it truly is limiting to spiritual growth.

Good Post!

In Ex 6, (I think) God said He would make us His people and be our God. In John 17, Jesus thanked the Father for giving him who he has given and those that will be given to him. I am convinced that I did not choose God. :wave:

Just a couple of thoughts:
Grace = getting what we do not deserve.
Mercy = not getting what we do deserve.

If human nature is designed to find God then Grace is simply prewiring man to find God but not making it easy enough for everyone to do it or wiring some better than others.

[eldermike]

Why hasn't your brother or my two brothers chosen Christ? That I do not know. Mine have been shown the way and have chosen to go away from it. That is their decision and yet there is still hope for they aren't dead.

Again, this is a far different thing than to say that God, in His foreknowledge predestined me to salvation and them to perdition with no hope at all. It would have been better for them to have never been born-for they stood no chance at all.

A person is in hell by their own decision--not because they were born into a cancerous diseased race. HA it would be better to be born a dog than an image of God if the end result is a guaranteed trip to the pit.

As was said in "TULIP" thread-Christ came to die for His people-which is different than saying He died so that "whosoever" believes will not perish.

Why did I choose God? Another mystery-all Glory to God, His Son and Spirit.

"Whosoever believes" is not clearly a decision of man in this scripture, it's an idea applied to the meaning of the scripture, right or wrong.

If your reasons for your choice of God is a mystery to you, then how is it clear to you that it was not simply God?

[MrJim]

"Whosoever believes" is not clearly a decision of man in this scripture, it's an idea applied to the meaning of the scripture, right or wrong.

If your reasons for your choice of God is a mystery to you, then how is it clear to you that it was not simply God?

"Simply God" as in He just selected my out of the human race and not my neighbor? I can be satisfied with mystery. I cannot be satisfied with finding some really weird genocidal God that creates Man with no choice knowing they will be in the pit without a chance and without hope. I can live with the God that says "Whosoever calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved" (and I don't mean "whosoever" = "elect".) giving man the free-will/choice/decision to follow Him.

[eldermike]

"Simply God" as in He just selected my out of the human race and not my neighbor? I can be satisfied with mystery. I cannot be satisfied with finding some really weird genocidal God that creates Man with no choice knowing they will be in the pit without a chance and without hope. I can live with the God that says "Whosoever calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved" (and I don't mean "whosoever" = "elect".) giving man the free-will/choice/decision to follow Him.

Full circle:wave: I understand your heart in the matter, but you still have not dealt with a really huge problem. If all men have this free will what good quality do you have that others are missing, a quality that allowed you to see it and those other flawed beings to miss it? To me it's boasting, to you it's something you don't deal with other than it's in God's hands, somehow removing your superior abilities and the flaws in others from the issue.

But it's ok to stop here, another lap around the barn is not necessary.

Blessings to you brother:wave:

[MrJim]

Full circle:wave: I understand your heart in the matter, but you still have not dealt with a really huge problem. If all men have this free will what good quality do you have that others are missing, a quality that allowed you to see it and those other flawed beings to miss it? To me it's boasting, to you it's something you don't deal with other than it's in God's hands, somehow removing your superior abilities and the flaws in others from the issue.

But it's ok to stop here, another lap around the barn is not necessary.

Blessings to you brother:wave:

I'd like to think I've learned enough to say "I don't know". Mystery is a mysterious thing-thanks for being a good sport!

[HumbleMan]

I don't think it's boasting, but rather acceptance. No one seeks God purely on their own but rather we seek HIm when we have come to a point that we need Him.The call of salvation is always present, but I don't discount people's personal experiences/external factors in their shaping their willingness to accept Christ.

Christ (or Grace) is a gift from God. He put it on the table. It's up to us to either accept it or reject it.

[MrJim]

I don't think it's boasting, but rather acceptance. No one seeks God purely on their own but rather we seek HIm when we have come to a point that we need Him.The call of salvation is always present, but I don't discount people's personal experiences/external factors in their shaping their willingness to accept Christ.

Christ (or Grace) is a gift from God. He put it on the table. It's up to us to either accept it or reject it.

Well that's how I see it. It's like being in a pit someone has lowered a rope and drags you up. You don't boast-look how smart I am that I grabbed the rope-ya holler down the pit "Grab on before it's too late!"

[Flynmonkie]

There is an understanding that we have that we seek God because God first loved us. We choose God because God first chose us. (All of us) I believe this is what Eldermike is getting at in the statement below? (Please correct me if I am wrong here because I am a bit lost otherwise on the direction of this conversation?!?)

So in other words, if why you believe is a mystery. How do you know it isn’t God? You believe because God has allowed you to believe. As Eldermike states God Graced us – or gave us something we did not “deserve” it was a gift. He could have created us without this ability but as you say, I agree, he did not. As I stated earlier we are all given that ability of the act of faith. I can throw you that rope – but you have to decide to take it or not. It is the same with God – God has thrown that rope to you the same as your brother and others… But you chose to take it. So your brother, or friend or anyone else has the same ability to do this – but they have – for whatever reason we might not ever know- at this time --chosen not to. But we know for certainty God is Good, and Just and no question in my mind He is offering that line to them in a manner that they can and will understand. He promises. (This is why I get so pushy about knowing Gods promises, or certainties if we know them it becomes more difficult to be fooled)

If your reasons for your choice of God is a mystery to you, then how is it clear to you that it was not simply God?

[mesue]

I'm sure you did not mean that to be offensive, but i could not help taking offense. I re-read my post and I just cannot see how you would come to that conclusion .

I didn't mean it to be offensive and I wasn't directing this towards you explicitly.

I wish God had given me that ability to just read His word and understand completely what it says, but alas, I just am not that smart.

Now, should I be offended? I'm not, because I'm sure you didn't direct this at me explicitly.
Do believe I specifically said that I do not follow only Calvin, and have in fact read very little of Calvin, or any of the reformers, or church fathers, or any theologan for that matter. I am a fiction reader, and just don't enjoy reading non-fiction, or theology. Yet, I have been blessed by those that I have gotten around to reading.
I love fiction, as well, but just don't have time. The choices ... Novel? Bible? I have to pick my Bible.


It sounds so simple to say "oh, just read the bible, and you will understand all you need to know. No need to read anything else." But how do you think all the heresies got into the church? How do you think they got refuted? Why are there so many different view on the bible?

Pride and the need to justify sin brings about heresy. If it were that simple to understand biblical doctrine we would not need God. And yet the things we ask to be revealed in prayer,to have understanding on, He reveals. Unless we have need to understand another precept first.

Isaiah 28:9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
Isaiah 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line;


Why did the early church need Elders and Deacons? to teach and guide the new believers!

Yes! And I am no longer new. I'm not old, nor do I hold all the awswers (I'm not God) but I am called to have a ready answer.

While we should be careful not to let learning exclipse all else about our christianity, learning about God is still essential. We are commanded to grow in our maturity, get off milk and get on meat.

And we get this by studying scripture. The Holy Spirit is the one who teaches.
Again ...

Isaiah 28:9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
Isaiah 28:10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line;


Proverbs 2:6 For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding
and
Ephesians 3:4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
Ephesians 3:5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

Be blessed :hug:
I have to go now.

[JPPT1974]

I don't think it's boasting, but rather acceptance. No one seeks God purely on their own but rather we seek HIm when we have come to a point that we need Him.The call of salvation is always present, but I don't discount people's personal experiences/external factors in their shaping their willingness to accept Christ.

Christ (or Grace) is a gift from God. He put it on the table. It's up to us to either accept it or reject it.

Christ is a gift from God
We can either accept Him or reject Him
It ain't boasting at all
If we do boast, let us "boast" in humility and in humbleness
Accept Him as the call and only way to salvation.

[MrJim]

There is an understanding that we have that we seek God because God first loved us. We choose God because God first chose us. (All of us) I believe this is what Eldermike is getting at in the statement below? (Please correct me if I am wrong here because I am a bit lost otherwise on the direction of this conversation?!?)

So in other words, if why you believe is a mystery. How do you know it isn’t God? You believe because God has allowed you to believe. As Eldermike states God Graced us – or gave us something we did not “deserve” it was a gift. He could have created us without this ability but as you say, I agree, he did not. As I stated earlier we are all given that ability of the act of faith. I can throw you that rope – but you have to decide to take it or not. It is the same with God – God has thrown that rope to you the same as your brother and others… But you chose to take it. So your brother, or friend or anyone else has the same ability to do this – but they have – for whatever reason we might not ever know- at this time --chosen not to. But we know for certainty God is Good, and Just and no question in my mind He is offering that line to them in a manner that they can and will understand. He promises. (This is why I get so pushy about knowing Gods promises, or certainties if we know them it becomes more difficult to be fooled)

They say that the reprobate cannot even grab the rope. It's "works" if they do. They are dead in their sin.

Created for destruction-better that they'd never been born. I noted in the "Who will be saved thread" that I would have never had children if I truly believed calvinism--what if they weren't lucky enough to be elect? Created for destruction. HA I read somewhere that those in hell should be grateful to have been created to experience life (even though that time is a drop in a bucket compared to an eternal punishment in hell/lake of fire).

Don't know how the "calvinist" believes on death of children-are all children destined to die automatically elect--maybe they are or maybe they aren't?

Tangled webs...

[Flynmonkie]

They say that the reprobate cannot even grab the rope. It's "works" if they do. They are dead in their sin.


If this is truly what they are saying. You are correct - it is wrong. I do not believe that we are born incapable of grabbing that rope - that is compared to the analogy of tying me to a chair and telling me to do my job--- or else.

I can however agree with the TULIP supporter that explained it in this manner:

We have to give credit to God for this ability at some point. So therefore if God allows us this ability (lets say at birth) then of course without that allowance - we would be incapable. We could not grab that rope without a God given ability. Absolutely.

See I think sometimes somewhere this theory is relayed muddled by mans lack of good communication, and other times I think those people that do communicate Tulip correctly – don’t really get it totally either and have no idea and actually something else takes over and they get it right in explanation but never realizing that is not what they are explaining, then there are those such as that quote above that totally sends me on a rant. Hands are still up on this one. I would just stay away from any of it.. ‘Lest I be led into sin! I actually have posts way back in the beginning two years ago that are literally pages and pages of round and round conversation. A couple threads in fact where they tried to explain it to me. To this day I have the same opinion as I did then. Interestingly enough each explaniation left each of the definitions of the T.U.L.I.P completely elusive. :scratch:

[MrJim]

We have to give credit to God for this ability at some point. So therefore if God allows us this ability (lets say at birth) then of course without that allowance - we would be incapable. We could not grab that rope without a God given ability. Absolutely.


Are you kidding? Of course God has the credit. He sent His Son to die for us and provide redemption that we could become the children of God.

This has been fun, though I'm a bit disappointed in the calvinist folks. The scripture is brimming with verses that should have been tossed into the fray. My "I don't have an answer" favorite is:

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

Yeah, that one more so than the Eph & Rom passages really sticks in my craw:P

I say there is much mystery here. I do believe somewhere in the hands of God there is something to the election thing. However I still believe that Jesus came to seek and save the lost, not the elect.

I've had enough...

[strengthinweakness]

The only distinctive that TULIP-style Calvinism seems to give is the teaching that God specifically condemns (other) people which leads to a proud and uncharitable spirit in too many.

About the subject of the thread, I do not believe that most Calvinists and most Arminians worship "different Gods." They have different understandings of the exact extent of God's sovereignty, and of some of the mechanics of salvation, but orthodox, evangelical Arminians and Calvinists both believe that God is omniscient, omnipresent, imminent, and immutable. They also both affirm the Biblical teaching of the Trinity. They both believe that God saves sinners who repent of sin and trust in Jesus Christ as Savior from their sins and Lord of their lives. Finally, they both believe that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, and that salvation is not "mediated" by any established church. Therefore, to my understanding, they both essentially worship the same God, although they have disagreements about His sovereignty and some of the details of salvation. I do think that the disagreements are important. First, they concern revealed truth, which is, by definition, important. Second, what one believes about these issues can have a real, genuine impact on one's Christian life. However, I do not think the disagreements between most Calvinists and most Arminians are so great as to mean that they actually worship different Gods.

Joykins, regarding your statement above, most Calvinists do not believe that God "specifically condemns" other people. There are some exceptions, but most Calvinists do not hold to such a belief. Most Calvinists believe the following-- all unsaved people are at emnity with God. They are God-hating rebels. In order to display His mercy, He saves some rebels (not due to anything good in them). In order to display his justice, He simply leaves other rebels as they already are (not because they are any worse than those who are saved by God). He doesn't "specifically condemn" them. He leaves them in their wickedness, which they already love.

About your statement that Calvinism leads to a "proud and uncharitable spirit in too many," I disagree. Sin is what leads to this spirit. If I were to follow your line of thinking though, I could just as easily say that the implications of Arminianism lead to a "proud and uncharitable spirit in too many," as I have met Arminians who speak harshly and arrogantly of non-Christians, who (according to Arminian logic) do not use their "free will to choose God" as well and as wisely as Christians supposedly do.

As for proud, uncharitable Calvinists, they are simply inconsistent with what they claim to believe. Calvinism teaches (only because the Bible teaches) that salvation is by grace-- God's completely unmerited favor--, which means that those who are saved have absolutely no right to boast and/or think themselves "superior" than those who are not saved. Calvinists who boast in themselves, or think themselves "superior" to unsaved people, simply do not understand the implications of what they claim to believe.

Christians who believe that unsaved, "enslaved-to-sin" people are able to freely choose God (i.e. Arminians) always ask why Calvinists can't just accept the "clear teaching of the Bible," rather than following the "understandings and teachings of men." Calvinists ask the very same question of those who believe in "free will" though, as most Calvinists are convinced by Scripture that what they believe is correct. It is not as though only Calvinists hold to a "theology." Non-Calvinists have just as much of a "theology," and Calvinists sincerely think that it does not reflect what the Bible teaches on certain issues. The Protestant Reformers were all closer to Calvinism in their theology (as they were convinced that the Bible truly taught what eventually came to be known as "Calvinism") than the majority of evangelical Protestant Christians today, who (consciously or unconsciously) hold to theologies of free will, election, the atonement, and the "resistability" of God's grace, that are actually closer to the historic teachings of the Catholic Church! Amazing but true. Therefore, Calvinists could easily ask most most modern evangelicals, "Why do you follow the teachings of the Catholic Church on so many issues, rather than the 'clear teachings of the Bible'?" ;)

[arunma]

What he said.

[Joykins]

Joykins, regarding your statement above, most Calvinists do not believe that God "specifically condemns" other people. There are some exceptions, but most Calvinists do not hold to such a belief. Most Calvinists believe the following-- all unsaved people are at emnity with God. They are God-hating rebels. In order to display His mercy, He saves some rebels (not due to anything good in them). In order to display his justice, He simply leaves other rebels as they already are (not because they are any worse than those who are saved by God). He doesn't "specifically condemn" them. He leaves them in their wickedness, which they already love.

My perception (which is admittedly influenced by a lot of Calvinists posting on CF rather than the Calvinists I know IRL who are usually quite nice) is that Calvinist beliefs about the sovereignty of God just seem a bit "off" about the nature of God's love (and God IS love, as per I John):

1. God is so sovereign that we can't come to him unless he specifically calls us. We can do nothing about it and play no part in it, it is pure random mercy and grace of God if it happens to us.

2. God is so sovereign that man could not fall unless God allowed it. Nevertheless God allowed everyone to be condemned by default that way.

3. God is so sovereign that if he wished to save everyone he would, but since not everyone gets to be saved then he must not want everyone to come to him.

THe conclusion is that God only wants a few people to be saved and the rest condemned because he has complete control over the whole thing. So God must not love everyone.

Once you are sure that you are one of the ones God loves and has saved (due to no merit of your own) some people find it too easy to be proud and uncharitable toward others based on this. Of all the nasty posts on CF, the nastiest I have seen (and, incidentally, had directed at me personally) were from Calvinists sporting tulip icons. This is a terrible witness.

On the other hand, the Calvinists who sport cross icons or KJV Baptist icons have been mostly civil and nice. Just something I have noticed.

The Protestant Reformers were all closer to Calvinism in their theology (as they were convinced that the Bible truly taught what eventually came to be known as "Calvinism") than the majority of evangelical Protestant Christians today, who (consciously or unconsciously) hold to theologies of free will, election, the atonement, and the "resistability" of God's grace, that are actually closer to the historic teachings of the Catholic Church! Amazing but true. Therefore, Calvinists could easily ask most most modern evangelicals, "Why do you follow the teachings of the Catholic Church on so many issues, rather than the 'clear teachings of the Bible'?" ;)

I don't have a problem with that, though. ;)

[strengthinweakness]

[/size][/font]

My perception (which is admittedly influenced by a lot of Calvinists posting on CF rather than the Calvinists I know IRL who are usually quite nice) is that Calvinist beliefs about the sovereignty of God just seem a bit "off" about the nature of God's love (and God IS love, as per I John):

1. God is so sovereign that we can't come to him unless he specifically calls us. We can do nothing about it and play no part in it, it is pure random mercy and grace of God if it happens to us.

2. God is so sovereign that man could not fall unless God allowed it. Nevertheless God allowed everyone to be condemned by default that way.

3. God is so sovereign that if he wished to save everyone he would, but since not everyone gets to be saved then he must not want everyone to come to him.

THe conclusion is that God only wants a few people to be saved and the rest condemned because he has complete control over the whole thing. So God must not love everyone.

Once you are sure that you are one of the ones God loves and has saved (due to no merit of your own) some people find it too easy to be proud and uncharitable toward others based on this. Of all the nasty posts on CF, the nastiest I have seen (and, incidentally, had directed at me personally) were from Calvinists sporting tulip icons. This is a terrible witness.

On the other hand, the Calvinists who sport cross icons or KJV Baptist icons have been mostly civil and nice. Just something I have noticed.


Joykins, regarding your perception that Calvinists believe God is "so sovereign that that we can't come to Him unless He specifically calls us," true Calvinists believe (because the Bible teaches it) that God calls everyone. However, as Scripture also states, "Many are called (or "invited" in the NIV), but few are chosen." (Matthew 22:14) Therefore, God does not only "call" the elect. As for who will actually "come to God" in the sense of being saved though, Scripture emphatically says: "No man can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:44) Now, the Greek word that is rendered as "draw" in that verse actually means something more along the lines of "drag" or "compel." The fact is, from what the Bible tells us, no person wants to or is able to come to God and obey Him until God changes his/her heart from one of stone to one of flesh (Ezekiel 11:19-20, 36:26, 27). The particular verses refer to God changing the hearts of His people (collectively, as a whole, not necessarily individually) in Israel, but the principle of the verses is true for any of God's chosen, or "elect" people, in any time. Saved people love God because He has changed their hearts. No unsaved person naturally wants to come to God. "There is no one who understands, no one who seeks God." (Romans 3:11) Biblically speaking, for a person to even be able, much less want to come to God, God must first draw ("drag" or "compel" in the Greek) that person. (John 6:44 again) We love our sin too much to come to God unless He compells us. That's the "Calvinist's truth," because it is the Biblical truth. God's mercy and grace are never "random," though, to use your word. They are always in accordance with his purpose, which we are in no place to question or challenge. (Romans 9:11-13, 18-24).

On your second point, you say that Calvinists believe that "God is so sovereign that man could not fall unless God allowed it." Actually, every Christian believes that man could not have fallen unless God had allowed it. Obviously, God allowed it, because man did fall. Arminians believe that this Fall merely "weakened" man's will, and that the human will is still sufficiently "free enough" ("good" enough?) to choose to come to Christ. The above verse from John 6 states otherwise (and therefore, Calvinists believe otherwise), but I digress! :) As to the second part of your point, everyone is under condemnation (prior to being saved, that is, for individual sinners) after the Fall, because everyone is born a sinner, and all people sin actively, as soon as they are conscious of right and wrong.

Regarding your third point, about God not wishing everyone to be saved, and your conclusion, that God does not love everyone, consider again the Biblical fact that only those who are "drawn" (dragged or compelled) by God can come to Him. Think about the fact that clearly, all people do not come to God. Most people do not want to come to Him. Now, if only those who are "drawn" (compelled) by Him can come to Him, and clearly, all people do not come to Him, simply put, He is not purposing that all people be saved. Scripture does speak of his being "patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish but everyone to come to repentance," but keep in mind that this verse (2 Peter 3:9) is in the context of a letter specifically written for fellow Christians, to encourage, comfort, and exhort them. The "you" in the verse is intended to refer to Christians, not