Misconceptions on both sides of the debate...

I admire your attempt to find common ground between the two positions.

If God is sufficient, then how could there be anything extraneous to His work which would be necessary for salvation?

I don't see how God's love for everyone could possibly be consistent with the pernicious idea that He has eternally purposed to bring irreparable harm upon those He loves.

I'm not sure what definition of 'sovereign' you have in mind here. Although I believe in freewill (to a feasible extent), I do not see God's will and man's will as mutually exclusive realities, and rather see God's will at the ultimate cause of salvation of which our freewill as but an aspect.

What do you think?

 

Indeed all agree - Calvinist use Arminianism to Evangelize - because it is the only system that works.

No. They believe God "so loves the FEW that He gave his son to die for THEM alone and He willed to WILL them to accept that Gift". God died for all He loved - and only they will go to heaven.

IF God loved the others - He was perfectly powerful enough and sovereign enough to save them as well. Clearly sending them to hell was not his "way of loving them".

(IN this Calvinist model).

--------------------------------------------

Arminian believe in the 1John 2:2 "Atoning Sacrifice" of Christ fully accomplished at the cross according to the Lev 16 model and then Christ begins His High Priestly ministry as mediator and High Priest (Heb 8-10) as Lev 16 indicates..

Calvinists believe 1John 2:2 should be changed to "Atonement fully accomplished at the cross" and we should pretty muc ignore the process described in Lev 16. There idea is that atonement is so "complete" that nothing remains but for the sinner to step into glory as God conveys them there. No choosing no forgiving -- nothing remains.

In Christ,

Bob

 

In a thread about misrepresentations, Bob fits right in because he has so many of them.

I have to say Bob, it takes some kind of guts to keep repeating this nonsense. The least you could do is admit that you are grossly misrepresenting our position in hopes of scoring some emotional points, because that is all it is. You know very well that Calvinists do not believe these things.

 

Pastor Larry said:

I have to say you're wrong on this one, PL.
Bob is simply waiting for the right opening to subtly insert here and there the need to still observe the Law inspite of his claims on grace, and for the moment he needs to ally himself with something, and that something is Arminianism.

Watch what he says closely, and you'll find hints of investigative judgment in between the lines.

 

Skandelon said :

I do not know whether Calvinists believe this, but we PB's certainly do not believe all men will stand without excuse on the day of judgment, because the elect were already judged in Christ and nowhere does it say they will stand in front of the Great White Throne which is, of course, the Judgment Seat of the Day of Judgment.

 

Feel free to post the corrections.

Still... I notice no correction posted. Which statement would you correct and how?

In Christ,

Bob

 

All your statements have been corrected numerous times by numerous different people. Your 5800 posts have not gone without response. They have been soundly refuted by many different people and you continue to say them. You know the response. It is time for you to quit misrepresenting our position.

 

There are a couple of generalized views of Calvinism and yet some on the board come up with 'their flavor of the month views.

The generalized views come out of Sublapsarianism and Superlapsarianism.

 

That was pretty compelling -- thanks for sharing.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob, God is powerful enough to save everyone regardless of whether Arminianism, Pelagianism, Calvinism, or any other "ism" is true.

Arminians and Pelagians simply place the blame on man's wrong free will choice rather than man's depravity. In either case, man is responsible, so I think there's another motive for believing in Arminianism/Pelagianism.

 

In either case man is in trouble. But the question I was addressing is "God so loved the World" and the fact that in Calvinism the term "World" is not the same as in the Arminian view.

This is "obvious" I think - but it appeared that Pastor Larry was not going for it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

It has been said, 'Arminians and Pelagians simply place the blame on man's wrong free will
choice rather than man's depravity. In either case, man is responsible, so I
think there's another motive for believing in Arminianism/Pelagianism.'

Ray: We Arminians know that it is both the depravity of sinners plus their rebellious wills that keep them out of the kingdom of God.

With your Calvinistic view it is not sinners who are responsible it is God Who appoints men and women to Hell or Heaven according to His good pleasure. Sinners are merely human puppets.

There is no hidden motive in believing in Arminianism; it is rather the exegesis of Scripture that points us to this theology, just as you think Calvinism best points toward Divine truth.

 

Ray writes:
"With your Calvinistic view it is not sinners who are responsible it is God Who appoints men and women to Hell or Heaven according to His good pleasure. Sinners are merely human puppets."

Wrong. We are completely responsible for our sin. However, we have no ability to save ourselves from the consequences of our sinful actions. Thank God for His Grace.

 

Ray: We Arminians know that it is both the depravity of sinners plus their rebellious wills that keep them out of the kingdom of God.

Nick: Calvinism says the same thing. It is the depravity and rebellious wills that keep them out of the kingdom of God. Period. Some are saved from that by grace. The rest remain condemned as they always were.

 

Neither would most Calvinists that I know of go for it. You are engaging in a misrepresentation to assert that Calvinists believe God doesn't lvoe the world.

 

This is actually "THE FIRST" time I have heard that to Calvinists the term WORLD is the SAME as for Arminians!!

What a difference this will make in all future debates!

In Christ,

Bob

 

Then you need to study more. This is not the first time it has been said here, much less in all of theological history. It seems my suspicion was correct ... you really don't know what you are talking about ...

 

Someone said, 'in Calvinism the term "World" is not the same as in the Arminian view.'

Ray: Is the world the ground, stone and minerals or people?

And if we say He was speaking to humanoids, then He would not call 'whosoever' if He was going to pick out for His elect, just a few people.

 

The world is obviously people, Ray. And to say that God "would not would not call 'whosoever' if He was going to pick out for His elect, just a few people" seems a little arrogant. Who are you to tell God what he would or would not do? He said "whosoever" and followed it with "believes." The whosoever is limited to those who believe. Those who do not believe are not part of the whosoever.

I think we should let the text stand as it does. God loved the world in this way: That he sent his only Son into the world to save whoever believes in him so that they will not perish.

I don't think the teaching of hte verse, and either Calvinism or Arminianism hangs on the definition of "world." We have shown ample evidence that the meaning of "world" always depends on context. Calvinists understand this verse differently, as do arminians. This is not the smoking gun and it is ridiculous to act like Calvinists don't believe God loves the world. But it is even more ridiculous to say what God would have done in a particular instance. He did what he did ...