Core Essentials of Calvinism/Arminianism

And the same can really be said about some Calvinist interpretations; especially Romans 9. This figures prominently in Potter's Freedom, and when you disprove that, a lot of the rationale falls. Yes, there are strong looking arguments, such as Rom.9 when taken as a proof-text. Many people are tossed by every wind of doctrine, and many Arminians are not well read up on the issues. So this proves nothing. Geisler may not have defended himself, but What Love is This answers Potter's Freeom, and see what happens. All the other side does is trash it over a bunch of side comments it makes (that I agree he did spend too much time on, and may have been inaccurate).

The "unjustness" comes in when Calvinists insist on reprobation (or "preterition") as a necessary corollary of the Gospel of our salvation. "just punishment" is brought up as a justification of it, but then it always swings back around in some form to a decree of unconditional damnation for someone who ultimately had no choice (regardless of any "good or evil" he did) when it is argued further; whether it is argued as "federal headship" (God unconditionally imputing all with sin in the first place), or "God needs vessels of wrath to show us His glory", or whatever.

 

Eric B.,
Thanks for your comments. I would have to say that IMO, Hunt spent most of his time attacking straw men and did a poor job at addressing the issues. You mentioned "some form of decree", but how do you view John 6:37? This verse clearly teaches that God has given a people to His Son, and that this giving precedes the coming to the Son in faith. This is "some form of decree", how do you explain it?

Thanks for the discussion
In Christ

 

Only certain people were being called at this time before Christ's death, resurrection and outpouring of the Holy Spirit on "all flesh" (Is.54:13, Jer.31:34, Micah 4:2 cf. ch.12:32). Israelites He was speaking to were hardened, and the Father was giving Him his early disciples. Doesn't build a philosophy of why all people who die lost were decreed to be lost. That is what we are wrong to be trying to read into these passages.
Hunt may have done that somewhat, but there is so much more that is easily skipped over on the premise that he is not worth answering. In other words, they focus on those things he did say wrong, and just assume that that ws the whole of his argument. Sorry, but that does not negate the rest of of his answers, and he did address just about all of the Calvinist arguments.

 

Eric B.,
John 6:37 is very clear on election. It shows it's strength in the fact that men have to bring something "to" the text in order to get passed what it teaches. Your interpretation is no different. Below is a link that refutes your dispensational hermaneutic that you have to have before you come to the text:

http://www.aomin.org/PFRSJohn6.html

May God bless you

 

And the guy he is responds to has two pages answering him. (I'm glad I saw this site! It is very good!) While I can't read the whole thing right now, from what little I've seen, some of what White says is easily answered. Like using "raise 'it' up at the last day" to refer to the group of "all" when houtos means "he/she/this" among other things, so could still refer to "the one who comes to me" as a distinct entity. You would think he should know better with something as simple as that. Other points, while you may not accept our view, is at least debatable. No side can claim absolute victory, (like one of them is constantly doing!) His final response is "We shall end our reply here, since there really is nothing of substance left to refute. The author failed in his initial attempt to establish his argument, and has added to that failure a large dose of common, traditionally-driven eisegetical errors that have little if anything to do with the actual text. And now we find him, having made numerous errors in his handling of the language, saying “that is the problem with Calvinists!” Well, it is painfully obvious it is the author who has not done his homework, either in the text, or in the writings of those he dismisses. The teaching of John 6 stands firm, with yet another failed attempt at escaping its teaching left upon the scrap heap of man’s traditions". This ia basically how they've handled Hunt as well, and this person doesn't even do all the much criticized things Hunt did. So we just dismiss anyone who stands up to us like that, and go back to focusing on softer opponents like Geisler, and then triumphalistically claim victory. This was my main point here anyway: that Calvinists shouldn't be so quick to think they've totally beat the other side.

 

Don,
There is a world of difference between the two postitions thought. Arminians believe we make ourselves elect by our belief or should I say "forseen" belief. Calvinists say that we owe our "coming" in belief on our election. This is no small point.

God bless

 

This is a key point about the core essentials that should not be missed. Five-point Calvinists say that we believe because we are elect. Classic Arminians say that we are elect because we believe. The real question between the two groups is whether God's foreknowledge of their belief preceded or followed God's election (in logical order). I think both groups would agree that one did not precede the other in temporal order. 1 Peter 1:20 tells us that Jesus was foreknown "before the foundation of the world." Ephesians 1:4-5 tells us that the elect were chosen "before the foundation of the world." Likewise, Revelation 13:8 tells us that the names of the elect were written in the book of life "from the foundation of the world." So, God's foreknowledge and election are both from eternity. Clearly, one does not precede the other in the temporal sense. If both are eternal, however, doesn't that also mean that one does not precede the other in logical order? Thus, His election is not based on His foreknowledge, and His foreknowledge is not based on His election. They have simply always existed together. They are in accordance with one another. Classic Arminians often use 1 Peter 1:1-2 to say that God’s choice is dependent upon His foreknowledge (conditional election), but the phrase “according to” (the Greek preposition katá ) can also mean “in accordance with, corresponding to.” An example of this usage is 1 Peter 1:15: “But like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior.” The word “like” is the Greek word katá . The same preposition is found in Romans 15:5: “Now may the God who gives perseverance and encouragement grant you to be of the same mind with one another according to Christ Jesus.” Paul wanted their perspective to be in accordance with Christ’s perspective.

 

I think Jesus gave the best test for knowing if someone is elect or not (Matthew 7:17-20). If we see genuinely good spiritual fruit in a person's life, we know that person is elect.

 

By the way, Don, are you an Auburn fan? The tigers play the hogs next Saturday.

 

Don,
I agree with what you said.

Korea said:
Classic Arminians say that we are elect because we believe. The real question between the two groups is whether God's foreknowledge of their belief preceded or followed God's election (in logical order).

Me:All believe it is according to God's foreknowledge (Rom. 8:28ff.), but that raises two questions. What does the noun, foreknowledge, and the verb foreknow mean? Is it a "passively taken in of knowledge" or a term of "love". Also, on what basis does God have foreknowledge. Does He just let things happen and see that they just turn out to be right, or does He know what will be because He has decreed what will be. I think these are questions that seperate us also.

Hope this helps

P.S. I like what you said about election. Something in the sense of "does man make Himself elect or does God actually elect". One makes God the great reporter, "you decide, God report's". The other says that God gives a people and these are the ones that come (John 6:37).

May God bless you

 

Korea,
Tigers? Hogs? c'mon. You know it's all about Ole Miss. Ok, maybe their not as hot this year as they were last year, but Southern Miss. is doing great!

You from Arkansas, Korea?

 

I'm from Memphis, right across the river. My mother taught Ken Hatfield in high school at Helena. Ken was an All-American hog in the early 60s and later head coach there. Houston Nutt, the current head coach, gave my oldest son some one-on-one quarterback instruction at a football clinic, and I've been a fan of his ever since.

 

Back to foreknowledge. Five-point Calvinists believe that God's foreknowledge is based on His election. In other words, they believe He knows exactly what will happen in the actual world only because He will cause all those things to happen (determinism). I think there are a couple of problems with that scenario.

The first problem is in regard to the first sins of Adam and Satan. God knew exactly what they would do, but He didn't cause their first sins. If He had caused their sins, He would be the author of sin, which is unthinkable. The sins of Adam and Satan were self-caused. In their cases a bias toward evil was formed from a position of equipoise (neutrality).

The second problem is in regard to God's counterfactual knowledge. God knows exactly what will happen in non-actual circumstances even though He has not determined what will happen. An example in the Bible of this counterfactual knowledge where God knew with certainty both the actual future and the imagined future is 1 Samuel 23:9-13:

God already knew the actual future; He knew that David and his men would leave Keilah before Saul could come there. God, however, also knew with certainty what the specific events in an imagined future would be if some events in the actual future were changed. David asked God what would happen if he stayed in Keilah (not an actual event). God told David what would happen if an actual event (leaving Keilah) were somehow changed. He said that the people of Keilah would surrender David to Saul. Of course, that surrender of David did not actually happen, but God knew with certainty it would happen if David stayed in Keilah. David had a choice to make, and God already knew what his choice would be. Thus, his choice did not interfere with God’s sovereignty.

Other examples of God’s counterfactual knowledge are found in 2 Kings 13:19, Jeremiah 23:22, 1 Corinthians 2:8, Jeremiah 38:17-20, and Acts 27:22-31.

Free will decisions, like those made by Adam and Satan, fit into God's sovereign plan. Humans can manufacture programmed robots, but only God is capable of creating a finite number of humans whose decisions (freewill and otherwise) fit perfectly into His sovereign plan. Out of an infinite number of imagined people and circumstances, God has always known which people and circumstances would most glorify Him, and He has always known that He would create the finite number of elect and non-elect people that would live in the actual world.

 

Korea,
I would not disagree with alot of what you said. Since you mentioned something about God would have to cause sin in one view, I must ask if you are familiar with what is called 'Compatibilism'(Acts 4:27ff.)?

As for election being based on something God foreknew, how do you view John 6:37 which teaches that a people are given to the Son prior to their coming in faith?

Thanks for the insight

 

"Isms and Schisms"

"I am of Paul, I am of Cephas, I am of Appolus, I am of Calvin, I am of Arminius"

Are we not babes in Christ--unable to take meat?

Let us get away from the doctrines of men and preach the unadulterated Word of God.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Sure, but the devils believe and tremble.

But I understand the point of your post.

Bro. Dallas

 

Southern, I do think that all human decisions (freewill or otherwise) are always compatible with God’s sovereign will. You mentioned Acts 4:27ff. Acts 4:28 is a perfect example of compatibilism. You asked about my view on John 6:37:

“All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.”

I think this verse is another good example of compatibilism. All elect people past the age of accountability will come to Jesus by surrendering their lives to Him in repentance and faith.