Why just two camps?

The SCriptures say that God elects individuals to salvation from before the beginning of the world and then effects that salvation in their life through regeneration and faith. That should be the end of the discussion. Unfortunately, it is not.

The term "biblicist" is not useful since all people claim that. (Who will claim that their position is unbiblical??) And if you think debate is stifled, you should visit the CvA forum down the page a bit. Debate is far from stifled.

 

Roy, I think maybe people are just scared that they may end up spending eternity sitting next to someone who sinned worse than they did?

 

I was a Calvinist before I knew that there was such a thing as Calvinism. I was studying my Bible one day and could not reconcile the supposed truth that had been pounded into my head that salvation is a choice that I had to make when reading Romans 9 and thinking about what had happened to me when I was in late middle school early high school.

I was about to kill myself. I had a knife in my hand and was about to slit my wrist and the phone rang and I answered and I don't know who it was, but they wanted to hang out and I told them I was gonna be gone and they were like, "Alright. Well, God bless ya man!" and hung up. I immediately broke down, ran to my bedroom and cried "God save me" until I fell asleep from exhaustion. I can't say that it was my choice to be saved.

I will say that being called a Calvinist often turns people away from what I have to say, but there are others who are curious because I don't act like a Calvinist, or at least how they have been told a Calvinist is supposed to act.

Addmittedly, too many people, from ANY camp, not just Calvinist or Arminian but Pelagian and Catholic all others are guilty of saying that this person says it so I believe it. When one truly preaches Scripture, and truly studies Scripture, and truly meditates on Scripture, they would be surprised at what they may come to believe that they called a heresey before.

 

I agree with you ROY1. In fact, I was talking with our (SBC) interim minister about how our board members want to lump us in one of 2 camps and he said to just tell them I'm Biblical.

Oh.... he also told me there's a great pamphlet out by Richard Paige called 'The Problem with the TULIP' but I haven't been able to find it. It's being redone as a book.

Diane

 

Many people may have had experiences where God intervened in their life, but that does not imply that they were not truly saved until after this event. I don't know if you were a believer or not before this event in your life, but there is a calling for believers, beyond our initial salvation, which is freely given to all who will believe. The calling to live holy, to be a saint, and to partake in the inheritance of the millennial kingdom with Christ is the high calling for all Christians. But it is not the case that all Christians will answer this call.

 

the two camps your investigating are

impartialists
partialists

calvinists and arminians are both partialists.

believing that grace will only be administered to a portion of men reconciling only some to God.

there are today..calvinists, arminians and universalists.

many today confuse the process of election (which only selects some) with the final consummation of Gods will concerning the reconciliation of his entire creation (selects all).

producing either a partialists and impartialists viewpoint of Gods grace, will, and character.

partialists are those who preach God condemning some for an eternity disallowing and negating their full reconciliation with their God. while impatialists preach Gods Grace not being witheld from any man until all are reconciled.

 

And when you say this, the Calvinists will think you are calvinist, and the arminians will think you are arminian. That is why this is a useless designatin.

Interestingly enough, this was the message of Christ, Paul, John, Peter, and the rest of the apostles. That settles the question.

 

On the contrary Pastor Larry. He actually said to tell them 'neither.... I'm Biblical'. I should have included that extra delineation.

I remember quite well when the Holy Spirit touched my heart and my decision to surrender my life to Jesus. I do not believe this was preprogramed or forced upon me just as Christ could have called legions of angels and turned away from the cross, I believe everyone can say no to salvation. I said Yes.

Me2.... you said: partialists are those who preach God condemning some for an eternity disallowing and negating their full reconciliation with their God. while impatialists preach Gods Grace not being witheld from any man until all are reconciled.

Again, not me. Depart from me.... I never knew you. Many will perish by choice.

 

Jesus speaking....

Mat 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in [yourselves], neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

shutting up heaven how?
by preaching their viewpoint?
that God only saves those who perform correctly?
that man must add to the work of Gods free offer of salvation?

this is the arminians position. even though God "offers" grace to all men. arminians have the power to refuse..proving to the world that God is actually not capable or not willing to save all. this is not the true jesus who died for all sin. this is a jesus who is incapable of defeating all of the enemies of unrighteousness.

the battle between vessels of wrath and mercy are between partialists and impartialists. the battle between flesh and spirit is between partialists and impartialists.

If one withold the message of Gods grace in full to any of HIS enemies. this is a presentation of partial grace towards men.

persecution comes to christians in the form of those disallowing the presentation of impartial grace to be administered to Gods creation.

this is the reason for Jesus anger towards the scribes,pharasees and lawyers. It is the same anger of paul towrds those living by the flesh. It is the same reason for peters disagreements of those lacking knowledge (Of Gods impartial Grace).
It is James arguement of those professing faith without evidence or works.
It is about Johns statements of those with Christ spirit (impartial high priest) and those without(partial antichrists).
It is also John dissertation of Revelations..where he identifies the sons of God, or the overcomers (those comperhending Gods impartial Grace towards ALL men).

the election of Grace is about the battle between partialists against impartialists.

 

Slightly different, but still without merit

I don't think it was forced upon or anyone else. IT was the gracious work of God in opening your heart to the gospel and bringing about the repentance of faith in you. Not only can everyone say "no" to salvation. Apart from God's unilateral work, everyone will say "no" to the salvation.

 

Me2,

Could another term for the impartialists be universalists?

Bro Tony

 

There is none so blind as he who will not see.... Without merit to a 5 point Calvinist but makes a lot of sense to those of us who are not of either camp.

Let's face it, we'll never agree.

 

impartialists can be called those who believe God will reconcile all men.

or universal reconciliation

Col 1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, [I say], whether [they be] things in earth, or things in heaven.

reconcile all things.

while you may be alluding to any humanists viewpoints when claiming anyone being called a "universalist".

those who belive Gods desires to reconcile all men to himself also believe this occurs through the faith of the Lord Jesus Christ. through death and judgement, through sanctification of the elect and the drawing of the father of all men to HIS Son.
even if Gods plans will take many ages to complete.
It is a clear issue of faith of the believer towards the character and the desires of God towards his creation.

there are such called Christian Universalists.

in one camp we have the partialists. those who give man free will and sovereignty above God. they hamper Gods own desires and only allow him to save only a portion of his own creation.
proving to all observing that Jesus Christ CANNOT Be THE Lord.
for the sin of unbelief within mankind has twarted his power

and we have the impartialists. those who believe that to receive the full grace of God.
mankind must abdicate all resources of his own will and rely on God himself to resurrect them from death.

 

Thank you for clarifying the position. It is universalism and personal faith has nothing to do with final salvation. At least faith that is expressed in Jesus in this lifetime. It that a correct understanding?

Bro Tony

 

Nice implication there ... Always a solid debate tactic to simply call your opponent blind.

However, I see quite fine. And my point is that while it may make sense to you, I can assure you that every single died in the wool arminian believes they hold the biblical position. And every single died in the wool Calvinist believes they hold the biblical position. And when someone comes along and says "neither, I am biblical" both sides let out a huge laugh along with a groan becuase it makes no sense. No one claims to be unbiblical. To say you are biblical is to say you are a Calvinist to the CAlvinists and an arminian to the arminians. The term "biblical" needs more definition.

And, as a final point, I will point out again that no matter how hard people try to craft a middle position, there is no middle ground. You either believe in the sovereignty of God in personal election to salvation (Calvinist) or you don't (arminian). The number of points you agree with or disagree with is not what place you in a particular camp. There is room to the left of those two (Pelagian, Open Theism, universalism) ... or perhaps it is to the right, depending on your perspective. But there is no room between them.

 

Diane, as a 4 or 5 pointer myself (depending on th exact wording), I consider myself completely biblical. Your position would then be unbiblical. You see now? If you say you are biblical, then you must be a calvinist.

 

And if you only choose 4 out of 5 of the Calvinist 'creed' then are you REALLY a Calvinist? I agree with a few of his points but not predestination (personal election to salvation). Would that still make me a X point Calvinist? I think not!

Don't label me either. I'm not 'all of the above' so I'm none of the above. Blind to what I'm trying to say.....

Diane

 

Depends on which four. The best argument for a dividing line can be made with unconditional election. That is what separates the men from the boys ... You can decide which is which ... If you believe it, you are a Calvinist. If you don't, then you are an arminian.

Predestination was one of the points. You are probably referring to unconditional election, I would imagine ... And out of all of the points, that is the one that is most explicitly stated in Scripture. I can see some argument with the other four, especially the last three (though I find it extremely unconvincing). But the seoond ... unconditional election ... is the one that is explicitly stated: He chose you to salvation from before the beginning of the world.

Notice that:
1. God did the choose.
2. It was a choosing of "you" ... the readers at Thessalonica.
3. It was to salvation.
4. It was before the beginning of the world and therefore could not be based on anything man does.

Eph 1 is equally clear.

I am not blind as to what you are trying to say. I understand it completely. That is why I can disagree with it.

 

Good! Then we can agree to disagree!

Diane