Is Calvinism or Arminianism Biblical?

[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