Why Calvinists and Arminianists are both wrong

Weren't you the one that started the subject and chose the title "Why Calvinists and Arminianists are both wrong"? I was merely responding to a question using one of the historical arguments over this issue. I chose some of the well known arguments that Calvinists use as a source for their position.

I am afraid that your perceptions are weak. My positions are not, as you say, humanist. How can you accuse us of this when you are the one who spent 4.5 hours watching a DVD on the subject?

 

You just accused people of reading someone else's work and looking at Scripture that way. I can tell you I looked at Scripture first and found in there the doctrines of Grace, the Holy Spirit was my interpreter.

It was not until I started looking around that I found a name for what I discovered in Scripture which was T.U.L.I.P.

Now you say both sides are arguing the same thing that is very wrong and you need to study more if you think that, now you can puff up in pride and say "I just read Scripture" but that really doesn't answer anything and you bring your own spin to the mix.

To educate you so you will know from now on here are the tenets for each position

Arminianism

• Humans are naturally unable to make any effort towards salvation (see also prevenient grace).
• Salvation is possible only by God's grace, which cannot be merited.
• No works of human effort can cause or contribute to salvation.
• God's election is conditional on faith in the sacrifice and Lordship of Jesus Christ.
• Christ's atonement was made on behalf of all people.
• God allows his grace to be resisted by those who freely reject Christ.
• Salvation can be lost, as continued salvation is conditional upon continued faith.

Notice while we can say with point one, we agree and also with point two and three we can have some agreement that is were it ends. Here is the Calvinism side:

Total Depravity - Sin affects man in every area and does not ever seek God

Unconditional Election - God chooses to save those He will

Limited Atonement - Christ died for His Sheep

Irresistible grace - asserts that the saving grace of God is effectually applied to those whom he has determined to save (that is, the elect) and, in God's timing, overcomes their resistance to obeying the call of the gospel, bringing them to a saving faith. The doctrine does not hold that every influence of God's Holy Spirit cannot be resisted, but that the Holy Spirit is able to overcome all resistance and make his influence irresistible and effective. Thus, when God sovereignly purposes to save someone, that individual certainly will be saved. (much better description than mine Source)


Perseverance of the saints - Whom God calls and brings to Christ He will never lose


There is a lot of misconceptions about the doctrines of Grace because it is hard sayings. I can tell you right now we are not arguing the same as the Arminians are, you will see the Arminian will say that God's election is conditional, but disagrees with Scripture.


You'll further notice that the Arminian will say that Christ atonement was for everyone, not consistent with Scripture. The Arminian will say that God can be resisted again inconsistent and then they will say one can lose their Salvation again very inconsistent.


I held those views once and it lead me to the RCC when I looked to Scripture finally I realized that within them is the doctrines of Grace, not Arminianism and I repented and turned my life over to Christ

 

Daniel 4:35
And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?

Since scripture does not contradict scripture, how then should we interpret II Peter 3:9 ...God is not willing that any should perish..." in the light of Daniel 4:35?

Please resolve "he doeth according to his will" and "God is not willing that any should perish..."

 

Well let's look was Peter writing to the world or Christians? A lot of these can be easily dismissed because Arminins wrongly assume these verses are to the whole world, if one steps back and looks they were to believers not everyone.

 

Spurgeon, on the shenanigans some Calvinist enthusiasts undertake when the pesky Scripture doesn't line up with their "grand theory":

[I Tim. 2:4]

"What then? Shall we try to put another meaning into the text than that which it fairly bears? I trow not. You must, most of you, be acquainted with the general method in which our older Calvinistic friends deal with this text. "All men," say they, —"that is, some men": as if the Holy Ghost could not have said "some men" if he had meant some men. "All men," say they; "that is, some of all sorts of men": as if the Lord could not have said "all sorts of men" if he had meant that. The Holy Ghost by the apostle has written "all men," and unquestionably he means all men. I know how to get rid of the force of the "alls" according to that critical method which some time ago was very current, but I do not see how it can be applied here with due regard to truth. I was reading just now the exposition of a very able doctor who explains the text so as to explain it away; he applies grammatical gunpowder to it, and explodes it by way of expounding it. I thought when I read his exposition that it would have been a very capital comment upon the text if it had read, "Who will not have all men to be saved, nor come to a knowledge of the truth." Had such been the inspired language every remark of the learned doctor would have been exactly in keeping, but as it happens to say, "Who will have all men to be saved," his observations are more than a little out of place. My love of consistency with my own doctrinal views is not great enough to allow me knowingly to alter a single text of Scripture. I have great respect for orthodoxy, but my reverence for inspiration is far greater. I would sooner a hundred times over appear to be inconsistent with myself than be inconsistent with the word of God. I never thought it to be any very great crime to seem to be inconsistent with myself, for who am I that I should everlastingly be consistent? But I do think it a great crime to be so inconsistent with the word of God that I should want to lop away a bough or even a twig from so much as a single tree of the forest of Scripture. God forbid that I should cut or shape, even in the least degree, any divine expression. So runs the text, and so we must read it, "God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.""

 

I will rephrase the question I asked in post #24.

If God is as described in Daniel 4:35 "he doeth according to his will;" if God is "not willing" that any should perish (II P 3:9); if God wills that all men be saved (I Tim 2:4), yet some perish, and not all are saved, how then must we interpret those verses to make them consistent with each other?

Daniel 4:35 doesn't allow much wiggle room, it seems to me. If God does according to his will, there can be no instance where God does not do according to his will. If God is willing to save sinners, it must follow that those sinners whom God is willing to save will be saved.

 

I have seen a lot of posters in my time on the BB use irrelevant verses to bolster their view of a given subject. You are following in their train. None of the verses you cited (or the emboldened words)support your claims.

The KJV word whosoever gets a lot of mileage from you. It just means anyone who. Or more particularly -- anyone who believes.

In 1 Peter 1:1 he says that he is writing to "God's elect." In 2 Peter 1:1 he says that he's writing "to those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours."

In 2 Peter 3:9 he repeats himself by saying "to usward". He was not wrting to everyone in general -- but to believers -- the elect.

I wish I had the luxury of time to expand on this -- but that's all I can say for now.

 

"the great dispute between Calvinists and Arminians has arisen very much through not understanding one another, and from one brother saying, "What I hold is the truth" —and the other saying, "What I hold is truth, and nothing else." The men need somebody to knock both their heads together, and fuse their beliefs into one. They need one capacious brain to hold both the truths which their two little heads contain; for God's word is neither all on one side nor altogether on the other: it overlaps all systems, and defies all formularies." ---Charles Spurgeon

 

"Whatever the doctrine of election may be, or may be meant to be, we will not talk of that just at present, for it is quite certain that it cannot contradict any plain practical direction of Scripture. Here is a plain text, which no one can gainsay, "Whosoever believeth in him is not condemned." If, then, you believe on Jesus Christ, you are not condemned, election or no election." ---Charles Spurgeon

 

I believe that very much of current Arminianism is simply ignorance of gospel
doctrine; and if people began to study their Bibles, and to take the Word of God as
they find it, they must inevitably, if believers, rise up to rejoice in the doctrines of
grace. Spurgeon

Spurgeon was a Calvinist

 

The doctrines of original sin, election, effectual calling, final perseverance, and all
those great truths which are called Calvinism—though Calvin was not the author of
them, but simply an able writer and preacher upon the subject—are, I believe, the
essential doctrines of the Gospel that is in Jesus Christ. Now, I do not ask you
whether you believe all this—it is possible you may not; but I believe you will before
you enter heaven. I am persuaded, that as God may have washed your hearts, he will
wash your brains before you enter heaven. - Spurgeon

 

We notice that if we talk about the election of men and the non-election of fallen
angels, there is not a cavil for a moment. Every man approves of Calvinism till he
feels that he is a loser by it; but when it begins to touch his own bone and his own
flesh then he kicks against it - Spurgeon

 

drfuss: Which book of Bible did God use Spurgeon to write? I can't find it in my Bible.

 

it's just a quote fight, nothing more

 

AMEN BROTHER!

Best explanation of why this Calvinism vs Arminanism debate must have God rolling His eyes watching this.

It is almost reminiscent of when Paul tried to convince folks to just follow Jesus, and not him or Appollos.
:BangHead:

 

By the way, in his later years Spurgeon drifted away from Calvinism to what I'd say was that middle ground between the two factions.

 

Nope, that is not true. Many want that, but he never did