The main complaints - against...

Discussion in 'Calvinism/Arminianism Debate' started by BobRyan, Jan 11, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    1. What is the top complaint against the Arminian POV??

    (OK top 2 or 3 if you will).


    2. What is the top complaint against the Calvinist POV??

    (2 or 3 if you prefer).

    Not looking for a long list in either case - just the big ones - the top few in your POV.


    =====================

    One of my primary complaints against 4 and 5 pt Calvinism is that it cannot be stated by its own promoters in such a way that does not make God the "cause of His own lament". (I think many here would have guessed that one for my list by now).

    The other complaint I have is that Cavlinism makes it case by constructing an exact negation of the text. So as one simple example where the Bible says "God so Loved the World" Calvinism says "God did NOT so love the WORLD - just the FEW of Matt 7" or something to that effect.


    in Christ,

    Bob
     
    #1 BobRyan, Jan 11, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 11, 2014
  2. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,516
    Likes Received:
    49
    The Arminian view comes far closer to biblical doctrine than Calvinism.

    The difficulty with Arminianism is that its doctrine is wishy-washy concerning how a person is saved. Some say when they trust in Christ, that puts them into salvation. But since, they put themselves in, they can choose to subsequently walk away. However, the bible teaches it is God alone who puts us in Christ, i.e. spiritually baptizes us into Christ, and we are set apart in Christ through the sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.

    The difficulty with Calvinism is that 4 of the 5 points of the TULIP are mistaken doctrines. Fallen, spiritually dead, men can understand the milk of the gospel; our individual election for salvation is conditional (through faith in the truth); and Christ died for all mankind, those saved and those not saved like the false teacher of 2 Peter 2:1. Finally the doctrine of Irresistible Grace is mistaken as shown by Matthew 23:13 where men who were entering heaven we blocked by false teachers.
     
  3. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    The Arminian view of salvation is like flipping on a light switch. The choice of the lost is enabled by the supernatural drawing of God and they choose to flip on the switch- and so they do.

    But it is the power company that generates the electricity and carries it over the lines to the house, and the builder that wires the house, and the light-bulb vendor that makes the bulb. All the person did is cause the switch to go up or down - an action which by itself would do nothing if holding a disconnected switch in your hand or if the power to the house was off.

    So it is not a denial of Christ's work in providing the power and the Gospel system that enables and provides for salvation - to simply "flip the switch".

    The supernatural drawing of Christ enables the event in the first place.

    And as Rev 3 says "I STAND at the door and knock - if anyone HEARS my voice AND OPENS the door - I WILL come in"

    Which is an even better light-switch illustration in my POV.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
  4. Jacob_Elliott

    Jacob_Elliott
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2013
    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    0
    Many a man may boast that they were clever enough to turn on that light switch when many others were to dumb to do so.
     
  5. JamesL

    JamesL
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2013
    Messages:
    2,247
    Likes Received:
    76
    My biggest complaints are the same against both:

    Both POVs start with the notion that entrance into heaven is measured by whether or not a man obeys God. Ultimately, the rest of the POV develops from there. Works are neither the root, nor inevitable fruit, of eternal life. We should work, but that doesn't mean we will. And if we don't, our eternal destiny does not hang in the balance

    Both POVs think that believing a promise comes byway of making a choice. Whether by man's own will or by God changing his nature which enables his will, it still boils down to a decision, which no scripture supports.

    Both POVs misunderstand the biblical teaching on election, and in essence are arguing whether a bicycle has three wheels or four.

    I'll leave it there for now
     
  6. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Really? Does it not bother you at all to abuse Scripture by pulling it out of context?
     
  7. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,381
    Likes Received:
    728
    :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
     
  8. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Originally Posted by BobRyan [​IMG]
    ...And as Rev 3 says "I STAND at the door and knock - if anyone HEARS my voice AND OPENS the door - I WILL come in"


    The mere quote of the text gives rise to strong objection to it among Calvinists - because they know - Calvinism does not survive Revelation 3.

    And yet still - your post does not address the question in the OP -

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
  9. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Is it "cleaver enough" when the Holy Spirit "Convicts the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment" - or just doing the obvious?

    Is it "cleaver enough" when Christ "draws ALL mankind unto him" John 12:32 - or just "doing the obvious" to flip on that switch using the choice granted?

    After all "God was in Christ reconciling the WORLD to Himself...we BEG you on behalf of Christ BE RECONCILED to God" 2Cor 5

    And yet - "He came to HIS OWN and HIS OWN received Him not" John 1

    The calvinist argument is that if you are not "simply responding to irresistible robot-programming then the work is not of God" - with the unintended observation that Calvinism makes God the "cause of His own lament".

    How "instructive" for the unbiased objective Bible student.

    Clear choices can be made on this subject by seeing the arguments so clearly identified.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
  10. prophet

    prophet
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2010
    Messages:
    1,037
    Likes Received:
    2
    Can Man turn the switch on and off?

    And if so, can Man turn the switch back on, once he has turned it off?

    And if he can, does the Father smack his hand, and say "quit playing with the lights!", like I do?

    What would lead a man to turn the switch off, if he, in fact, can?
     
  11. Jacob_Elliott

    Jacob_Elliott
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2013
    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you think Calvinist believe that we are programmed like robots, or zapped during salvation, then I'm afraid you don't understand Calvinism, as we believe that our God is an intimate and personal God, that directs our steps according to His will, and the good of those who believe.
     
  12. JohnDeereFan

    JohnDeereFan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2009
    Messages:
    4,628
    Likes Received:
    11
    My top complaint is that it's man centered and synergistic.

    My second complaint is that it infringes upon the sovereignty of God.

    What Calvinist, specifically, has said this?
     
  13. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4



    Is God's own sovereign choice not expressed in His "whosoever will" claims in the Bible on behalf of His own free will system - ?

    If God were not inclined to free will - there would be no fall of Lucifer.

    if God were not supporting free will - after the fall of Lucifer there would be a dead-Lucifer and no fall of 1/3 of the angels.

    If God were not supporting free will - after the fall of Lucifer and the angels there would be no fall of Adam.

    If God were not supporting free will there would BE no "lament" in the Bible - as a statement by God complaining about those who are lost even though He has 'done everything' to save them.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
  14. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Originally Posted by BobRyan [​IMG]
    Is it "cleaver enough" when the Holy Spirit "Convicts the WORLD of sin and righteousness and judgment" - or just doing the obvious?

    Is it "cleaver enough" when Christ "draws ALL mankind unto him" John 12:32 - or just "doing the obvious" to flip on that switch using the choice granted?

    After all "God was in Christ reconciling the WORLD to Himself...we BEG you on behalf of Christ BE RECONCILED to God" 2Cor 5

    And yet - "He came to HIS OWN and HIS OWN received Him not" John 1

    The calvinist argument is that if you are not "simply responding to irresistible robot-programming then the work is not of God" - with the unintended observation that Calvinism makes God the "cause of His own lament".

    How "instructive" for the unbiased objective Bible student.

    Clear choices can be made on this subject by seeing the arguments so clearly identified.

    Here is my "Arminian" response - not just "non-cal".

    Romans 11 shows the switch off, on ... off and then back on "again".

    =============================
    [FONT=&quot] Rom 11[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
    13But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry,
    14if somehow I might move to jealousy my fellowcountrymen and save some of them.
    [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]
    15For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]
    16 If the first piece of dough is holy, the lump is also; and if the root is holy, the branches are too.
    17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree, [/FONT]

    [FONT=&quot]18 do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you.
    19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.”

    [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear;
    21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]
    22Behold then thekindness and severityof God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. [/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]23And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.
    ==============================================

    I don't see how Calvinism survives that - or how the non-Cal position does not turn into the Arminian position given Romans 11.

    in Christ,

    Bob

    [/FONT]
     
  15. prophet

    prophet
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2010
    Messages:
    1,037
    Likes Received:
    2
    Rom 11:1
    Chapter 11
    1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

    Vs 1 sets the table...Rom 11 is talking about a nation. Yes it juxtaposes individual salvation, but the topic is Israel. Highlighted in verse 14.

    5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

    7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

    11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid:but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

    Still a national issue.

    14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.

    25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

    Yup, still national level.

    30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
    31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
    32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

    Ditto

    Yeah, nothin about individuals turning a switch on and off in this chapter.
     
  16. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Any one reading Revelation 3 knows that the context is a letter to a Christian church. Quote verse 19 and try to tell us that verse 20 is about Christ knocking on the lost person's door.
     
  17. Luke2427

    Luke2427
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    8
    1. It inadvertently makes less of God than he is.

    For the Arminian POV to be consistent and make sense it has to posit a God who does not know the future precisely as it will actually unfold, who learns as he goes, who is not truly sovereign, who is not all powerful, etc...

    Arminianism makes the almighty, infinite, omnipresent, omniscient God of Scripture into a god like Zeus.

    2. Arminians dump logic. "God is so sovereign that he is not in control of everything"- a mind numbingly stupid statement and many like it are made by Arminians because they often don't CARE if what they say makes sense.

    3. TERRIBLE hermeneutics. Guys like Winman are the worst. They take obscure passages and use them to explain away explicit ones. Their whole doctrine is based on proof texts plucked out of context, usually obscure and misapplied.


    So what?

    Why is that a problem even if it is so?

    As I type this I am so sore I can't hardly stand myself. Working out Friday night and then busting wood with a 30 pound maul all day yesterday has rendered me terribly sore.

    I knew this would happen before I did it. I willed the soreness to happen. I caused it to happen. I was, as you say, the cause of my own lament. But I did so as a means to a very good end (to get in shape and keep a family warm who depends on a wood burning heater to get through the winter).

    I don't get what your problem is with this.

    God is displeased with sin that he willed to exist. But sin and evil serve a glorious purpose. Without sin there is no grace, no lamb dying for sinners and receiving throughout the endless ages of eternity the praises of the redeemed who sing a song that angels cannot sing, etc, etc, etc...

    So what is your problem with this issue?

    That's silly.

    No Calvinist in the history of the world has ever done that, I suppose.

    What we do try to do is get oblivious Arminians to learn something about that verse and many others like it. It is this: the word "world" almost NEVER means every single person on earth throughout history. Almost NEVER.

    "The world watched as the towers fell in New York that fateful morning."

    That's how human beings have most often used the word "world" throughout history.

    Only a moron thinks that reporter means that every single person on earth was watching the TV that day. Hundreds of millions of people on earth did not even have ACCESS to TV's that day.

    No Calvinist adds the word "not" in that verse. How SILLY!!!

    Calvinists simply define the word "world" as every other person with a high school education defines it- as it is in its literary context.

    Luke 2:1 "And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed."

    Now, everybody knows that Luke did not even come CLOSE to meaning that every single person over the surface of the entire planet Earth went to be taxed. In fact, it was probably less than 1% of the world population who went to be taxed.

    So you can drop that objection.

    Any others?
     
    #17 Luke2427, Jan 13, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 13, 2014
  18. Luke2427

    Luke2427
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    8
    You do realize that you did not make a single argument, don't you? You just made a bunch of claims. I guess we are supposed to believe that what you claim is truth just because you SAY it?
     
  19. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Originally Posted by BobRyan [​IMG]
    1. What is the top complaint against the Arminian POV??

    (OK top 2 or 3 if you will).



    Most of the Arminians I know (not "non-cal" but Arminian) claim that God has exhaustive, total and complete knowledge of the future -- just as I do here on this section of the board.

    How?

    Is that your way of saying "When God sovereignly chooses the whosoever will model of scripture - He removes Himself from being the cause of His own lament"??

    That is a general statement that can only be "shown" case by case. If you find one verse where many/most Arminians can be shown to wrench it so far from context that 'Whole World" is bent into "NOT" - "Whole World" then you might have a case, but you need to show it. It would be like saying "the main problem with Calvinism is that Calvinists don't read the Bible they just listen to their tradition". It is too broad and general a statement to show some case for it having merit.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
    #19 BobRyan, Jan 13, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 13, 2014
  20. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    2. What is the top complaint against the Calvinist POV??

    (2 or 3 if you prefer).

    Not looking for a long list in either case - just the big ones - the top few in your POV.


    =====================

    One of my primary complaints against 4 and 5 pt Calvinism is that it cannot be stated by its own promoters in such a way that does not make God the "cause of His own lament". (I think many here would have guessed that one for my list by now).

    Ok well that would be the "logic" lament you expressed above. It is not logical to make God the cause of His own lament over the lost where God says "What more could I do?" feigning some sort of extent when Calvinism knows 'exactly what MORE he could do -- He is just not choosing to do it".

    Like a child that does not study for the upcoming test - then failing then saying "oh what more could I have done!".

    Or like the parent that does not feed the children - complaining that the children are unhealthy and then lamenting "o what more could I do".

    It makes total nonsense of the one speaking to construct such cases making the speaker the cause of their own lament. Obviously.

    God says of the lost "what more could I have done that I have not done" - a statement that Calvinism does not survive in my opinion.

    Wonderful except we find no example of God saying "I am totally exhuasted after providing the Gospel to all mankind all day - I what more could I have done so that I would not be so tired at the end of my day" --

    So the kind of lament you are selecting is not "in kind".


    1. Fact: No text in all of scripture says "God willed sin to exist' at best he permitted it by implication.

    2. By contrast - there actually is a text that says "God is not WILLING that any should perish but that all should come to repentance" and Calvinists choose to water the text down that actually does exist regarding what "God willed" while then making up something about "God willed sin to exist".


    Don't think that "Whole world" actually means "whole world" because that would not "help" Calvinism??

    Why go to the text with such an a priori?

    In John 1 Christ "made the world" and John 1 He is the light that coming into the WORLD - enlightens EVERY man.

    Calvinism will down size it - as needed - but it is eisegesis if you approach it that way.

    Just as 1 John 2:2 argues that Christ is the Atoning Sacrifice for "OUR sins and not for OUR sins only but for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD".

    Notice how "usward" is used by Calvinists in 2Peter 3 to say that "we, US means not the unsaved". How then do they spin "sins of the WHOLE World" as not meaning "WHOLE WORLD" in 1John 2 when it is contrasted to "OUR sin"??

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
    #20 BobRyan, Jan 13, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 13, 2014
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...