Is Calvinism or Arminianism Biblical?

[Daniels]

Is Calvinism or Arminianism Biblical?
One of the most perplexing problems for the teacher of God's Word is to explain the relationship between the doctrine of election and the doctrine of salvation by grace. These two doctrines are widely debated by conservative Christians who divide themselves into to opposing camps, the "Calvinists" and the "Arminians." To understand the problem let us look at the various positions held, the terms used, a brief history of the matter, and then present a biblical solution that correctly addresses the issue and that avoids the unbiblical extremes of the Calvinists and the Arminians.

Calvinism
John Calvin, the Swiss reformer (1509-1564) a theologian, drafted this system in Soteriology (study of salvation) that bears his name. The term "Calvinism" refers to doctrines and practices that stemmed from the works of John Calvin. The tenants of modern Calvinism are based on the works of Calvin that have been expanded by his followers. These beliefs became the distinguishing characteristic of the Reformed churches and some Baptists. Calvinism is often called the "Doctrine of Grace" which is a contradiction, because Calvinism denies God's grace to most of mankind.

Simply stated, this view claims that God predestined or elected some to be saved and others to be lost. Those elected to salvation are decreed by God to receive salvation and cannot "resist God's grace." However, those that God elected to be lost are born condemned eternally to the Lake of Fie and He will not allow them be saved.

http://www.bible-truth.org/election.htm (http://www.bible-truth.org/election.htm)

[Daniels]

I from India , my mother tongue is not english, but learning here in CF a lot of spiritual truths and benefited.

[arunma]

Daniel, it seems to me that Calvinism is the inescapable conclusion of reading the Scriptures. I would suggest reading Romans 9:11, in which it is said that God chose Jacob over Esau before either was born, so that they could do nothing either good or bad. God's purposes of election and predestination are made clear by this simple statement. There are very many Scriptures which testify to the truth of Calvinistic doctrine, but to me this one stands out.

I from India , my mother tongue is not english, but learning here in CF a lot of spiritual truths and benefited.

Very interesting. I am also Indian, actually. Anyway, I'm glad we can help.

[Daniels]

Thank you.

[HamletsChoice]

Is Calvinism or Arminianism Biblical?


Calvinism

[Zacharias]

Arminianism: I willed to be saved.
Calvinism: God willed that I be saved.
Arminianism: My faith got me God's grace.
Calvinism: God's grace got me faith.
Arminianism: I have faith therefore God saved me.
Calvinism: God saved me therefore I have faith.
Arminianism: God called everyone. Some took him up on His offer, other didn't.
Calvinism: God called His sheep. They heard His voice and followed Him.
Arminianism: God's will is only as strong as man's will.
Calvinism: God's will is the will.

[Iosias]

John Calvin, the Swiss reformer (1509-1564)

Calvin was French not Swiss. :)

Calvinism is often called the "Doctrine of Grace" which is a contradiction, because Calvinism denies God's grace to most of mankind.

:doh: I would point you to The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, Documented (http://www.amazon.com/Five-Points-Calvinism-Defended-Documented/dp/0875528279/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-1220490-0160661?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1186070044&sr=8-1) :)

[Strong in Him]

Well the only thing that I know about Arminianism is that they believe that Christ died for everyone, which is definitely Scriptural. This belief is where the "4 alls" of Methodism come from;

All need to be saved.
All may be saved.
All may know themselves to be saved.
All may be saved to the uttermost.

These weren't actually penned by John Wesley, but he taught them.

[Strong in Him]

I've just noticed - I probably shouldn't be in this forum. Sorry :sorry: I thought I was in a different one.

[cygnusx1]

Well the only thing that I know about Arminianism is that they believe that Christ died for everyone, which is definitely Scriptural. This belief is where the "4 alls" of Methodism come from;

All need to be saved.
All may be saved.
All may know themselves to be saved.
All may be saved to the uttermost.

These weren't actually penned by John Wesley, but he taught them.

that is because Wesley was an Arminian , and a reactionary one at that.

"All men may be saved" sounds good but is not true !

There are those who scripture speaks of as "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." 2 Tim 3:7

if they are NEVER able to come to a knowledge of the truth even though they be ever learning , then the possibility of them being saved is ZERO.

[Iosias]

Well the only thing that I know about Arminianism is that they believe that Christ died for everyone, which is definitely Scriptural.


Actually it is wholly unfounded in Scripture and exceptionally blasphemous.

All need to be saved.


True

All may be saved.


False

All may know themselves to be saved.

False

All may be saved to the uttermost.

False

[Strong in Him]

Actually it is wholly unfounded in Scripture and exceptionally blasphemous.

I don't know if I should be joining in debates in this forum, but seriously, how come?

Christ died for sinners, (Romans 5:8), all of us have sinned, (Romans 3:23) so he died for us all. There are several Scriptures which say this; John 3:16 - whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life; 2 Corinthians 5:15 -Christ's love compels us because we are convinced that one died for all; 1 Corinthians 15:22 - for as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive; 2 Peter 3:9 - He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish. (And there are no doubt others too, but it's nearly 1a.m and I shouldn't have started this.)

Not everyone will accept God's gift of eternal life - some may never get to hear it, but of those who do, some will put off making a decision, believing they have lots of time, and some will refuse to make that decision or consider Christ's claims. Of the latter, some may later repent and be saved by the Grace of God and through the prayers of others.

[Zacharias]

Christ died for sinners, (Romans 5:8), all of us have sinned, (Romans 3:23) so he died for us all. There are several Scriptures which say this; John 3:16 - whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life; 2 Corinthians 5:15 -Christ's love compels us because we are convinced that one died for all; 1 Corinthians 15:22 - for as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive; 2 Peter 3:9 - He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish. (And there are no doubt others too, but it's nearly 1a.m and I shouldn't have started this.)

John 3:16 ...God so loved [agape] the world...
Romans 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved [agape], but Esau have I hated.
God did not unconditionally love everyone. If "world" meant all people, God lied.

Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
Obviously this does not mean that all will be going to heaven.

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any [tis] should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Tis means: a certain, a certain one, some, some time, a while.

Romans 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; ) 12 It was said unto her, The elder F35 shall serve the younger. 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. 15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. 17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. 19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted F36 to destruction: 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?



I suggest you read Romans 9. :)

[bradfordl]

Good job, Freak. Context, context, context!

[Elderone]

I've just noticed - I probably shouldn't be in this forum. Sorry :sorry: I thought I was in a different one.

You may think it was an accident your being in this forum, it wasn't. God directed you here to become involved in the discussion of this thread, to learn more about what the Bible teaches and why Arminianism is error.

Ask as many questions as you wish, and we will do our best to answer them.

[arunma]

John 3:16 ...God so loved [agape] the world...
Romans 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved [agape], but Esau have I hated.
God did not unconditionally love everyone. If "world" meant all people, God lied.

There is further justification for this view. It says,
In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. (St. Luke 2:1)
Yet it is clear that not every human in the world was registered, but only those to whom registration applied. I'm not familiar with the Greek words employed, but assuming that English translations are faithful, it would appear that "the world" doesn't refer to everyone.

[Strong in Him]

You may think it was an accident your being in this forum, it wasn't. God directed you here to become involved in the discussion of this thread, to learn more about what the Bible teaches and why Arminianism is error.

Ask as many questions as you wish, and we will do our best to answer them.

Thank you for your kindness, but I do not actually believe that it is in error. I have just been admitted as a local preacher in the Methodist church after 4 years training, and would not have made the promises I did if I did not believe that salvation is for all. In fact, I'm not sure that I'd want to preach at all if I believed in a God who could make humans in his own image but then only choose a few of them to be with him in heaven and receive forgiveness and eternal life. That means he would send some to hell because they hadn't accepted Jesus as their Saviour - knowing that they never had a chance to accept Jesus as their Saviour because they hadn't been chosen to do so. He would be condemning them for something they couldn't do. Is that what a loving heavenly father would do? Is it honest and just?

[Zacharias]

Is that what a loving heavenly father would do? Is it honest and just?

The Bible shows that God is honest and just. He doesn't lie. And He's sending people to hell for their sins.

Romans 9:18 Therefore hath he [God] mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
God has saved His elect. God has damned the non-elect.

Romans 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved [agape], but Esau have I hated.
God did not unconditionally love everyone. If "world" meant all people, God lied.

[Strong in Him]

God did not unconditionally love everyone. If "world" meant all people, God lied.

Well then the Scripture lied when it says that God is love. Is it love to create someone in your image and then condemn them for not being saved, when you know that you've already decided that they won't be saved?

If an earthly father rejected his child when he/she was born, immeditely cutting them out of his will, and letting them do what they wanted because he had disowned them and no longer cared; no doubt there'd be an outcry, and people would quite reasonably ask what was the point of having the child in the first place.

Maybe "the world" in Luke 2 means something different from "the world" of John 3, but we can't really use this as a basis to say that God only chose to save a few of his creation.

[Zacharias]

Well then the Scripture lied when it says that God is love. Is it love to create someone in your image and then condemn them for not being saved, when you know that you've already decided that they won't be saved?

If an earthly father rejected his child when he/she was born, immeditely cutting them out of his will, and letting them do what they wanted because he had disowned them and no longer cared; no doubt there'd be an outcry, and people would quite reasonably ask what was the point of having the child in the first place.

Maybe "the world" in Luke 2 means something different from "the world" of John 3, but we can't really use this as a basis to say that God only chose to save a few of his creation.

Both used the greek word "kosmos". :)

[Strong in Him]

Both used the greek word "kosmos". :)

Maybe, but that doesn't change my views, or answer the question of why God would create people only to condemn them eternally. As I said, Scripture says all have sinned, and Christ died for sinners. I don't really see how he could have died for some sinners but not others, nor do I see that Scripture supports this.

But I think I'm going to leave this debate. I can't debate if Calvinism is biblical because I don't know much about it (nor do I want to), and even with Arminianism, there may be more to it than just "Christ died for all". I am serving God in the Methodist church - if that makes me Arminian, and unscriptural in some people's eyes, then so be it.

[Beoga]

Well then the Scripture lied when it says that God is love. Is it love to create someone in your image and then condemn them for not being saved, when you know that you've already decided that they won't be saved?
No it is not loving for God to demonstrate his wrath upon a wicked sinner. You must show though, by the statement that "God is love" that this means that God loves everyone without exception in the same way or with the same kind of love. Is it really loving for a husband to love his neighbors wife in the same way he loves his own wife?

If an earthly father rejected his child when he/she was born, immeditely cutting them out of his will, and letting them do what they wanted because he had disowned them and no longer cared; no doubt there'd be an outcry, and people would quite reasonably ask what was the point of having the child in the first place.


Not all people are God's children. By nature an unbeliever is a child of wrath. It is only those that express faith in Christ that have the right to be called children of God (John 1:12-13).

[Elderone]

Maybe, but that doesn't change my views, or answer the question of why God would create people only to condemn them eternally. As I said, Scripture says all have sinned, and Christ died for sinners. I don't really see how he could have died for some sinners but not others, nor do I see that Scripture supports this.

But I think I'm going to leave this debate. I can't debate if Calvinism is biblical because I don't know much about it (nor do I want to), and even with Arminianism, there may be more to it than just "Christ died for all". I am serving God in the Methodist church - if that makes me Arminian, and unscriptural in some people's eyes, then so be it.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but if you ever have the need to investigate Gods plan of predestination this book is one of the best.

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/41QG0T14B6L._BO2,204,203,200_PIlitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg

[Iosias]

I don't know if I should be joining in debates in this forum, but seriously, how come?

Mods will move this to "Debate with a Calvinist" if they deem it appropriate to do so. :)

Christ died for sinners, (Romans 5:8), all of us have sinned, (Romans 3:23) so he died for us all.

Context determines meaning. Romans 5 is a key chapter which shows the idea of Surety or Headship. In verse 12 we read "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:". Now this illustrates that Adam was the federal head of the human race. When Adam sinned we all sinned in him and so "through the offence of one many be dead". The seed of Adam are dead through being born in sin and conceived in iniquity.


However Christ is the second Adam. Now "as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." (verses 18 and 19)

This is teaching that the seed of Adam were condemned by their head but the seed of Christ are saved by their head. Hence the "all"s ought be interpreted as regards their head. The seed of Adam is every humanbeing but the seed of Christ is a subset of that. I hope that is clear. :)


There are several Scriptures which say this;

Correction, "There are several Scriptures which appear to say this" ;)

John 3:16 - whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life;

"Whosoever believes" but who will believe? Only those God has given the gift of faith to (Eph 2:8).

2 Corinthians 5:15 -Christ's love compels us because we are convinced that one died for all;

May I suggest this (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%201/section_39.htm)?

1 Corinthians 15:22 - for as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive;

Again this ought be interpreted according to Heads as is Romans 5.

2 Peter 3:9 - He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish. (And there are no doubt others too, but it's nearly 1a.m and I shouldn't have started this.)

May I suggest John Owen:

"See, then, of whom the apostle is here speaking. “The Lord,” saith he, “is long-suffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish.” Will not common sense teach us that us is to be repeated in both the following clauses, to make them up complete and full, — namely, “Not willing that any of us should perish, but that all of us should come to repentance?” Now, who are these of whom the apostle speaks, to whom he writes? Such as had received “great and precious promises,” chap. i. 4 (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/bible/asv.iiPet.1.html#iiPet.1.4), whom he calls “beloved,” chap. iii. 1 (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/bible/asv.iiPet.3.html#iiPet.3.1); whom he opposeth to the “scoffers” of the “last days,” verse 3 (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/bible/asv.iiPet.3.html#iiPet.3.3); to whom the Lord hath respect in the disposal of these days; who are said to be “elect,” Matt. xxiv. 22 (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/bible/asv.Matt.24.html#Matt.24.22). Now, truly, to argue that because God would have none of those to perish, but all of them to come to repentance, therefore he hath the same will and mind towards all and every one in the world (even those to whom he never makes known his will, nor ever calls to repentance, if they never once hear of his way of salvation), comes not much short of extreme madness and folly. Neither is it of any weight to the contrary, that they were not all elect to whom Peter wrote: for in the judgment of charity he esteemed them so, desiring them “to give all diligence to make their calling and election sure,” chap. i. 10 (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/bible/asv.iiPet.1.html#iiPet.1.10); even as he expressly calleth those to whom he wrote his former epistle, “elect,” chap. i. 2 (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/bible/asv.iPet.1.html#iPet.1.2), and a “chosen generation,” as well as a “purchased people,” chap. ii. 9 (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/bible/asv.iPet.2.html#iPet.2.9). I shall not need add any thing concerning the contradictions and inextricable difficulties wherewith the opposite interpretation is accompanied (as, that God should will such to come to repentance as he cuts off in their infancy out of the covenant, such as he hateth from eternity, from whom he hideth the means of grace, to whom he will not give repentance, and yet knoweth that it is utterly impossible they should have it without his bestowing). The text is clear, that it is all and only the elect whom he would not have to perish.” http://www.ccel.org/ccel/owen/deathofdeath.i.x.iv.html

[Iosias]

Maybe, but that doesn't change my views, or answer the question of why God would create people only to condemn them eternally.

Proverbs 16:4 "The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil."


Romans 9:21-23 "Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory"

I would point you to John Gill's The Cause of God and Truth (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/gills_archive.htm#5):

CHAPTER 1. OF REPROBATION - A VINDICATION OF.
Introduction (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%202/chapter1/chap01_intro.htm)
SECTION 1. - Proverbs 16:4 (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%202/chapter1/chap01_section01.htm)
SECTION 2. - John 12:39, 40 (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%202/chapter1/chap01_section02.htm)
SECTION 3. - 1 Peter 2:8 (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%202/chapter1/chap01_section03.htm)
SECTION 4. - Jude 1:4 (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%202/chapter1/chap01_section04.htm)
SECTION 5. - Revelation 13:8 (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%202/chapter1/chap01_section05.htm)

SECTION 1.- Of Reprobation (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%203/section_01.htm)

I would also point you to :

Our Approach to the Doctrine of Predestination (http://www.prca.org/articles/predestination/predestination_1.html) by Rev. Herman Hoeksema
Spiritual and Carnal Children (http://www.prca.org/articles/predestination/predestination_2.html) by Rev. Herman Hoeksema
Separation Between Twin Brothers (http://www.prca.org/articles/predestination/predestination_3.html) by Rev. Herman Hoeksema
Founded in God's Good Pleasure Alone (http://www.prca.org/articles/predestination/predestination_4.html) by Rev. Herman Hoeksema
The Righteousness of God's Sovereign Mercy (http://www.prca.org/articles/predestination/predestination_5.html) by Rev. Herman Hoeksema
Of God's Sovereign Mercy (http://www.prca.org/articles/predestination/predestination_6.html) by Rev. Herman Hoeksema
God's Absolute Sovereignty in Predestination (http://www.prca.org/sermons/romans9.19-21.html) by Rev. Herman Hoeksema
The Potter and the Clay (http://www.prca.org/articles/predestination/predestination_7.html) by Rev. Herman Hoeksema
Who Art Thou, O Man? (http://www.prca.org/articles/predestination/predestination_8.html) by Rev. Herman Hoeksema
God's Drawing and Man's Responsibility (http://www.prca.org/whosoever_will/chapter12.html) by Rev. Herman Hoeksema
God's Sovereign Dealings (http://www.prca.org/articles/predestination/predestination_9.html) by Rev. Herman Hoeksema
Long-suffering and Forbearance (http://www.prca.org/articles/predestination/predestination_10.html) by Rev. Herman Hoeksema

[McWilliams]

This book, this edition is such a great life changing one!The Sovereignty of God (Unabridged)Author: A.W. Pink Description: Arthur W. Pink Pink (d. 1953) is noted for his independent thinking. He was so well read, and had such a photographic memory, that he could give you the page and column in a host of reference works and commentaries. This book shocked the Christian world in 1919 when he first published it. He fiercely defends the sovereignty of God, and all the cognate doctrines such as the Doctrines of Grace. It is THE book to give to those just after conversion, and a prime book to give to anyone who defends the free will of man. Pink was a Baptist preacher who held pulpits in England, America, and Australia. His early training was in scientology. His conversion was instant, and complete dedication to the cause of God and truth quickly became evident. This early book by Pink lays Scripture end to end to prove God's control over all persons and events. It is uncompromising, and as such it raises the hackles on the necks of many new students of this doctrine. Persons who knew Pink seldom objected to anything he taught, because he could literally quote hundreds of verses of Scripture verbatim on the subject under discussion. This book may be overwhelming, but it is certain that its many printings have been used of God to convince people of His sovereignty. His doctrinal belief is that that God both elects and reprobates, as Romans 9:21-23 clearly teaches. It is an important stone to guide the steps of those who are not yet convinced of God's absolute sovereignty over all persons and events.Publisher: Baker Books ISBN#: 0801070880 Binding: PaperbackPage Count: 272 Availablility: Usually ships the same business day.Regular Price: $12.99 Our Price: $9.99Join the Monergism Revolution

[xapis]

I can't debate if Calvinism is biblical because I don't know much about it (nor do I want to)...

I, too, am sorry you feel this way, dear sister. I was quite taken aback by the Calvinist doctrines the first time I encountered them. But I took a different approach than you. I did want to debate them. You can read my "conversion" story here: http://www.graceforums.com/topic.php?id=486#p3082

I pray you'll reconsider learning more about the Reformed doctrines of grace and the sovereignty of God. You can always ask questions in "Ask a Calvinist", as opposed to "confrontational" debating, and I'm sure the folks there will be happy to help.

Shalom.

[bradfordl]

I have just been admitted as a local preacher in the Methodist church after 4 years training,
A woman preacher? What do you do with scripture like this?:

I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. (1Ti 2:12)
Don't like it, so you reject it? Hmmmm. You also say:In fact, I'm not sure that I'd want to preach at all if I believed in a God who could make humans in his own image but then only choose a few of them to be with him in heaven and receive forgiveness and eternal life.Which only proves beyond a doubt that you worship a god of your own making, not the God of scripture. This is crass idolatry. Repent and submit yourself to almighty God, flee the synagogue of Satan in which you have attached yourself to idols. The God of scripture is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and your rebellious opinions are but immaterial chaff before Him. If He does not grant you repentance of your idolatrous rebellion, you will have only eternal torment to look forward to.

What will it be? Will these words engender a repentant reaction in your heart? Or will it cause an ungodly anger to rise up and further cement your haughty rejection of the truth of God's word?

We'll see.

[heymikey80]

that is because Wesley was an Arminian , and a reactionary one at that.

"All men may be saved" sounds good but is not true !

There are those who scripture speaks of as "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." 2 Tim 3:7

if they are NEVER able to come to a knowledge of the truth even though they be ever learning , then the possibility of them being saved is ZERO.
Wesley is in the Arminian camp; but it's not exactly the same. And fortunately it's not the Pelagian camp either. It's kind of a "splitter-upper", accepting Total Inability, but then fixing it with prevenient grace.

Let's not sell people short who may well see some of the truth of Calvinism, and yet blanch at some of its tougher points to understand. With time there may come more understanding. That was certainly the case with me.

My grandmother was Methodist, and never raised an objection to my growing and shifting to Calvinism. She was always pleased with my conversations with her on these matters, too. Methodism is both a doctrine and a culture in her parts. The Methodist culture was very amenable to Calvinists contributing.

My current church holds quite a few similarities there, too. Maybe we're Whitfield Methodists, I dunno.

[FreeinChrist]

I moved this (as requested by a member) so the discussion can continue. : )

[heymikey80]

Maybe, but that doesn't change my views, or answer the question of why God would create people only to condemn them eternally.
I think Freak4J may have soft-sold those answers in a prior quotation from Scripture? They do seem to answer your question pointblank.You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory Rom 9:19-23
As I said, Scripture says all have sinned, and Christ died for sinners. I don't really see how he could have died for some sinners but not others, nor do I see that Scripture supports this.
Jesus had no problem limiting His statements this way.
Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends Jn 15:13
But I think I'm going to leave this debate. I can't debate if Calvinism is biblical because I don't know much about it (nor do I want to), and even with Arminianism, there may be more to it than just "Christ died for all". I am serving God in the Methodist church - if that makes me Arminian, and unscriptural in some people's eyes, then so be it.
As long as you can look at Scripture like Rom 9:19-23 with a straight face, my sister. God bless.

[ghs1994]

Arminianism: I have faith therefore God saved me.
Calvinism: God saved me therefore I have faith.


I have a question about this statement.

Romans 10:17 says that faith comes by hearing the Word of God.

If faith comes by hearing of the Word, how then can someone only have faith after being saved? If it is by grace thru faith that we become saved, how can we not have faith prior to being saved? If it is by faith that we become saved, how can we not have faith before becoming saved?

I'm curious then, does God declare in scripture that we have faith before we become saved, or does scripture state we only have faith after we are saved?

I only ask for understanding, I do lean towards the Calvinist camp and do completely reject the Arminian teaching.

[ghs1994]

Well then the Scripture lied when it says that God is love. Is it love to create someone in your image and then condemn them for not being saved, when you know that you've already decided that they won't be saved?

If an earthly father rejected his child when he/she was born, immeditely cutting them out of his will, and letting them do what they wanted because he had disowned them and no longer cared; no doubt there'd be an outcry, and people would quite reasonably ask what was the point of having the child in the first place.

Maybe "the world" in Luke 2 means something different from "the world" of John 3, but we can't really use this as a basis to say that God only chose to save a few of his creation.

Something to think about, God had made from Adam to Noah, in His image. Praise God for His grace that He did not wipe out everyone, but only the select few who found favor in His eyes. God destroyed even those made in His image. Yet, this is still the same loving God you and I both know.

[ghs1994]

Maybe, but that doesn't change my views, or answer the question of why God would create people only to condemn them eternally.

Romans 9:19-23 explain why God has created some for glory and some for destruction. Those chosen for destruction were chosen that God's grace might show even greater thru them to those who would receive His glory. Romans 9 also says that it is not of him who runs or wills, but of God who shows mercy.

Remember when Jesus had said to His disciples, "Have I not chosen you, and yet one of you is a devil."

Understand, Judas was chosen for that which was to come to pass, it wasn't some random mistake that Jesus was betrayed by him when it had been prophesied thru the OT.

Then the 11 were chosen for glory, to go and preach the Gospel.

Hope this helps you. :)

[Zacharias]

I have a question about this statement.

Romans 10:17 says that faith comes by hearing the Word of God.

If faith comes by hearing of the Word, how then can someone only have faith after being saved? If it is by grace thru faith that we become saved, how can we not have faith prior to being saved? If it is by faith that we become saved, how can we not have faith before becoming saved?

I'm curious then, does God declare in scripture that we have faith before we become saved, or does scripture state we only have faith after we are saved?

I only ask for understanding, I do lean towards the Calvinist camp and do completely reject the Arminian teaching.

Hi ghs1994! :wave: Faith does come by hearing the Word of God. However not everyone that hears the Word of God will have faith. Only those whom God has predestined unto adoption. :)

Ephesians1:4-5 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

[heymikey80]

I have a question about this statement.

Romans 10:17 says that faith comes by hearing the Word of God.

If faith comes by hearing of the Word, how then can someone only have faith after being saved? If it is by grace thru faith that we become saved, how can we not have faith prior to being saved? If it is by faith that we become saved, how can we not have faith before becoming saved?
Mmm. Can we break open the subject of "saved" for a moment? There are different aspects of salvation that occur in different ways.

The specific aspect of "being saved" that we're talking about is New Birth or in modern terms, "regeneration".

So your question would change a bit to, '"If faith comes by hearing of the Word, how then can someone only have faith after being " born again?' Is that the question you're asking?

If so, it's fairly apparent what's happening there. God speaks, and things happen. The world gets created; life returns to dead people; lepers are healed. All creation submits to His rule when He commands. Those who in right faith submit to His command in the Gospel are the same way, they've been reborn by the Holy Spirit, renewed to life by His command.
I'm curious then, does God declare in scripture that we have faith before we become saved, or does scripture state we only have faith after we are saved? Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God 1 Jn 5:1
The verse is not well translated in versions outside the ESV, largely because "is born of God" in modern English is equivalent to saying someone "is being born". But in Greek this isn't the case. "is born [perfect tense]" means the person "is a born person"; that is, sometime in the past you were born, and that's why you're the way you are today.those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. Rom 8:30
This emphasizes that the people God calls by His Gospel are also justified by it and glorified by it; that is, they are saved. This internal call or "summons" is the same as the command of the Gospel to believe on Christ. The people God actually calls internally are the people He justifies as righteous in His sight.
Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says "Jesus is accursed!" and no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except in the Holy Spirit 1 Cor 12:3.
This verse points out that the Holy Spirit is required for saying truthfully, "Jesus is Lord." Someone who calls on the Lord Jesus in faith is doing so by the Holy Spirit. Granted, the view here has been argued differently, that Paul is only talking about people speaking in tongues or prophesying. It's still a fairly convincing argument -- are we saying we in our corrupt natures can do something that no other spirit in corruption can do? That only the Holy Spirit can do?


The implications of Ephesians 2:8-10 in translation seem to state directly that faith is a gift of God. Actually the verse says that all of salvation is a gift of God -- including faith. But that verse is tough to argue because in translation it seems to say the truth one way, which can be argued against. And when the truth is argued-against in debate it seems to listeners as if the verse actually denies it. :sigh:

It's arguable that New Birth is not the same as receiving the Holy Spirit (as in John 20 or 1 Cor 12). So ... keep that in mind, we're not so bold as to demand the Holy Spirit's work in gifts and such among us is the exact same thing as His birthing us anew (cf Jn 3:3-8). To me the Spirit is on display among the people of faith; but the Spirit births us to life, whereby we're justified by faith.

[cygnusx1]

it's interesting to note men in scripture ask "what must I do to be saved ? "

but none asks "what must I do to be born-again? "

if descisional regeneration were true , we would see men asking and being told just what to do....... instead ;

“The wind blows where it wills, and you can hear the sound it makes, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes; so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” (John 3:8)


and




KJV: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. John 1:13


and

'So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him that runs, but of God who shows mercy' [Rom. 9:16].

[heymikey80]

it's interesting to note men in scripture ask "what must I do to be saved ? "

but none asks "what must I do to be born-again? "
Yeah. And it really sounds just as nonsensical in Greek as it sounded to Nicodemus. "You want me to get born? Again? er, how's that work?"
"C'mon, it's no surprise. As I said, you have to be born from the Spirit."

I feel this was a shortened version, the highlights of a lengthy conversation Jesus had with Nico. I would just love to get some concept for how this discussion progressed the way that it did. It'd probably answer many questions for me at least.

[thelasttrumpet]

Greetings to all my partialist brothers and sisters (both "Calvinists" and "Arminians"):

Hope this isn't considered "trolling," but I couldn't help but put in my 2 cents here ;)

Someone wrote:



...it seems to me that Calvinism is the inescapable conclusion of reading the Scriptures. I would suggest reading Romans 9:11, in which it is said that God chose Jacob over Esau before either was born, so that they could do nothing either good or bad. God's purposes of election and predestination are made clear by this simple statement.

It is my understanding of scripture that God's purpose of election (as well as "predestination") has absolutely nothing to do with post-mortem position or destiny, but has everything to do with the redemptive purpose of God in this life.

God's election of individuals or groups is always to historic and redemptive vocation in this life (e.g., lineage and service), and does not pertain to post-mortem existence. God's hatred of Esau was no more a literal, personal hatred of him than the hatred Christ says we are to have toward our family and our own lives (Luke 14:26). God's hatred of Esau simply meant that, in contrast to Jacob, God had no regard towards Esau and his descendents (that is, Edom - Gen 25:23) in relation to the outworking of his redemptive plan in history. In other words, Edom was not to be the chosen vessel through which the Messiah would come. Any divine wrath that fell upon Esau and his national descendents in consequence of their rejection by God was completely in this life (Isaiah 34:5-10).


Moreover, throughout his epistle to the Romans, Paul is careful to speak of God's wrath in terms of judgment in this life (Rom 1:18, 24, 26, 28, 32; 12:19; 13:2, 4). The destruction of the "vessels of wrath" (Rom 9:22) is also spoken of as being an imminent temporal judgment:

"Isaiah also cries out concerning Israel:

'Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea,
The remnant will be saved.
For He will finish the work and cut it short in righteousness,
Because the LORD will make a short work upon the earth.'

And as Isaiah said before:

'Unless the LORD of Hosts had left us a seed,
We would have become like Sodom,
And we would have been made like Gomorrah.'" (Romans 9:27-29)

What Paul quotes in vv. 27-28 was spoken originally of the few Israelites that were saved from the ravage of the Assyrian army (Isaiah 10:22-23). This historical judgment - like the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (v. 29; cf. Luke 17:29-30; 2 Peter 2:6) - was completely temporal in nature (and the salvation of the "remnant" of which he speaks was no different in this regard). Paul never says a word about God's wrath being experienced after death. It is soley confined to this temporal existence.


In Christ,
Aaron

[thelasttrumpet]

cygnusx1 said:

it's interesting to note men in scripture ask "what must I do to be saved ? "

but none asks "what must I do to be born-again? "

if descisional regeneration were true , we would see men asking and being told just what to do....... instead ;

“The wind blows where it wills, and you can hear the sound it makes, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes; so it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” (John 3:8)

and

KJV: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. John 1:13

and

'So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him that runs, but of God who shows mercy' [Rom. 9:16].

Hi cygnusx1,


Although I am not an Arminian, and do not believe in so-called "libertarian free will," I'm not sure I agree with your position that the "new birth" precedes faith (if this is indeed your position - please correct me if I'm wrong here). You quoted John 1:13, but did not include verses 11 and 12:


"He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name..."

Now, John appears to be saying that those who "receive" Jesus (and it is by faith that we receive him) are given the "power" (or "privilege") to become the "sons" (that is, "children") of God. "Children of God" are those who have been "born of God" (1 John 3:9-10, etc.). Thus, it appears that it is by believing on his name that one becomes "born again," and can thus be styled a "child of God."


Moreover, in 1 John 3:9, we read the following: "No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God." (ESV)


And in 1 Peter 1:23, 25b we read the following: "...since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God...and this word is the good news that was preached to you."


Now, granted, Peter and John are using different Greek words for "born again" and "seed" in these two passages, but the concepts are, I believe, the same. They seem to be using different words to describe the same spiritual change that is wrought by God's spirit within the hearts of believers. If so, the "seed" by which we are "born of God" - and which remains in us to keep us from "making a practice of sinning" - is the gospel of Christ.

Although I understand the new birth to follow (and not precede) one's believing the gospel of Christ, I do not in any way see such belief/faith as something that can be manufactured by an act of will, or as the result of a "free choice."


Your thoughts?


In him,
Aaron

[thelasttrumpet]

Just some more thoughts.

In Titus 3:5-7, Paul writes that God "saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewel of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life." The Holy Spirit is "poured out" on those who believe on Christ (hence Paul adds, "through Jesus Christ our Savior"). It is through the gospel of Christ that we are "born anew," or "regenerated," by the Spirit of God. This agrees with what Paul writes in 1 Cor 6:11: It is "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" (that is, it is by faith in him) that the Spirit of God washes (regenerates) us, sanctifies us and justifies us. Because the Spirit by which we are "born anew" is received by "the hearing with faith" when the gospel is proclaimed (Gal 3:2), Paul could thus tell the Corinthians that, in Christ, he had "begotten" them "through the gospel" (1 Cor 4:15; cf. Philem 10).

James 1:18 adds further support that the "new birth" is both the effectual work of God (and therefore not of our own will) AND is the result of hearing the gospel when it is proclaimed:

"Of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creation."

Again, the vocabulary is slightly different from that of Peter's and John's, but the concept appears to be the same. I submit that they're all describing the same spiritual change effected by God's Spirit in the heart of those who believe, but simply each in his own way. I believe the burden of proof is on anyone who would argue otherwise.

In Christ,
Aaron

[wnwall]

No it is not loving for God to demonstrate his wrath upon a wicked sinner.

I'm sure you meant correctly, Beoga, but it would be easy to misunderstand what you said here. God is loving when he demonstrates his wrath upon a wicked sinner because in demonstrating his wrath he is upholding his glory for the enjoyment of the elect. So it is loving to God's children to display his wrath against those who have blasphemed his name and attempted to diminish his glory. It is true however that it is not loving toward those who receive the wrath, but that only makes this a debate between pluralists and exclusivists, not Arminians and Calvinists. It is interesting that so many of the arguments Arminians use force them to appear to take a pluralist stance, though many would label pluralism a heresy.

[thelasttrumpet]

wnwall,

God's wrath would only be unloving if it meant the endless suffering of those experiencing it. And if God's wrath meant endless suffering for any person, it would be unjust as well, for endless suffering could never satisfy the demands of God's justice; justice would never be met, for divine justice requires something different than mere pain for the sake of pain. Furthermore, if God IS perfect love, then justice is an attribute of his love. His justice, then, is the servant of his love, and not the other way around.

Partialists (whether Calvinists or Arminians) greatly err in dragging both election and God's wrath beyond this temporal life. I challange any partialist to demonstrate that God's wrath pertains to any existence other than this one, or that the distinction between elect and non-elect continues post-mortem.

As far as pluralism and exclusivism goes, one may hold that God is the Savior of ALL, that Jesus is the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the WORLD, and that ALL PEOPLE will be justified by means of Christ alone, and be an exclusivest (for it is precisely in holding these truths that makes one an exclusivest). The pluralist position is basically religious relativism, and is utterly inconsistent with scripture.

In Christ,
Aaron

[Beoga]

I'm sure you meant correctly, Beoga, but it would be easy to misunderstand what you said here. God is loving when he demonstrates his wrath upon a wicked sinner because in demonstrating his wrath he is upholding his glory for the enjoyment of the elect. So it is loving to God's children to display his wrath against those who have blasphemed his name and attempted to diminish his glory. It is true however that it is not loving toward those who receive the wrath, but that only makes this a debate between pluralists and exclusivists, not Arminians and Calvinists. It is interesting that so many of the arguments Arminians use force them to appear to take a pluralist stance, though many would label pluralism a heresy.

I am in agreement with you here.

[thelasttrumpet]

Freak4JC said:

John 3:16 ...God so loved [agape] the world...
Romans 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved [agape], but Esau have I hated.
God did not unconditionally love everyone. If "world" meant all people, God lied.


Luke 10:27 And Jesus answered, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
Luke 14:26 "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.”
Obviously Luke 10:27 does not mean we are to literally love our neighbors as we love ourselves, because Jesus said we are to hate even our family members as well as our own lives, or we cannot be his disciples.

Of course, I’m being facetious here; hopefully the point I'm trying to make is clear. Just as I have “misunderstood” Luke 14:26, Freak4JC has misunderstood both Romans 9:13 and John 3:16. From the first chapter of the gospel of John (see especially v. 10) to John 3:16, the word “world” [kosmos] consistently denotes the lost world of humanity. Or, as B.F. Westort remarks, “The fundamental idea of kosmos in John is that of the sum of created being which belongs to the sphere of human life as an ordered whole, considered apart from God. The world represents humanity in its fallen state, alienated from its Maker.” It is this fallen world that God demonstrated his love towards by giving his only Son, "that whoever believes in him may not perish" [live and die in spiritual darkness, without the joy and peace of knowing God as he has revealed himself in Christ] but "have eternal life" ["age-during life" - not life in heaven, but the this-life blessings of the Messianic reign, during this new covenant age].

Although John 3:16 does teach that God's love embraces even those who don't believe on him to receive "age-during life," Christ does not reveal to Nicodemus the even greater display of God's love which the world will ultimately behold on the "last day," when all people are given resurrection life in Christ.

Freak4JC also said:

Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
Obviously this does not mean that all will be going to heaven.


It is not at all obvious that this isn’t exactly what Paul means. Paul even goes on to say, “As was the man of dust [Adam], so also are those who are of the dust [those who die in Adam], and as is the man of heaven [Christ], so also are those who are of heaven [those who are made alive in Christ]. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven” (1 Cor 15:48-49). All people will ultimately “bear the image of the man of heaven,” and thereby be “of heaven.” Jesus himself said that those who are resurrected become “sons of God, being sons of the resurrection” (Luke 20:36).

In Christ,
Aaron