Featured Arminianism and Calvinism are not that different

We can certainly agree Calvinism and Arminianism share concepts.

1) Christ died for all mankind or some of mankind.
2) God's choice for salvation of individuals is based on faith or is not based on faith.
3) Once saved always saved or perhaps you are able to become unreborn.
4) God's grace is irresistible or resistible.
5) God's exhaustive knowledge of the future foreordains everything or not.
6) God allows people to appropriately respond to the general call of the gospel or not.

Yep, two peas in a pod! Both hold correct and erroneous views of scripture.

 

This 1 thru 6 list defines itself as authored by Satan, right?

Completely, mutually exclusive, self- contradictory lies.

His deceitful trick of attempting to raise both as having some 'validity', is only possible if The Sin Nature of human beings is hidden by him.

In #6, for example, The Sin Nature is hidden using the word, 'appropriately', when The Sin Nature has zero Spiritual Enablement or Regeneration, to "answer" The Call of God, until God Grants it Repentance and Faith, in The New Birth, by The Holy Spirit Implanting The Divine Nature to Create a New Creature that is Capible and Does Answer and Can See and Will Hear.

Same with the first 5.

#1 Jesus Died for the SINS of HIS PEOPLE. Matthew 1:21.

#2 "not of him", who is a SINNER.

#3 SIN is something that requires SAVING.
Jesus is THE SAVIOR from SINS.

#4 SINNERS are carnally dead to God Who is Spirit.

#5 The Bible Reveals God, as God is, Who God is and not what SINFUL MINDS 'THINK' THE ALL KNOWING GOD IS.

The God Who Knows The End from The Beginning, is The Only God their is, and to lost SINNERS, He is The Unknown God.

 

We can certainly agree Calvinism and Arminianism share concepts.

1) Christ died for all mankind or some of mankind.
2) God's choice for salvation of individuals is based on faith or is not based on faith.
3) Once saved always saved or perhaps you are able to become unreborn.
4) God's grace is irresistible or resistible.
5) God's exhaustive knowledge of the future foreordains everything or not.
6) God allows people to appropriately respond to the general call of the gospel or not.

Yep, two peas in a pod! Both hold correct and erroneous views of scripture.

It seems Alan needs a translation because he cannot grasp what the above says!

For Alan

Shared Concepts:
1) Christ died for sinners
2) God chose individuals for salvation
3) Salvation could be eternal
4) Salvation is by grace
5) God ordains future events
6) God provides the general call through His gospel. ​

 

You were being serious and these 6 Completely, mutually exclusive, self- contradictory lies were not intended to be pure, in-stage, bona-fide, Satanic wiles?

And now the same Completely, mutually exclusive, self- contradictory lies and pure, in-stage, bona-fide, Satanic wiles, have been abbreviated to hid their content, to be even more deceitful and deceptive?

3) Salvation could be Eternal?

Sin is a more serious Reality than saying 'Christ died for sinners' which makes the Reality of The Sin Nature Oblivious to sinners in their flesh, which profits nothing, and renders them in no position to write Systematic Theology.

The Bible Teaches that a lost soul Must be Born Again, because a lost soul can not give birth to itself, from Above.

No lost soul has ever had any ability to 'choose', 'believe', 'have faith', 'have power' and any sin-cursed reasoning that 'thinks' so, is deceived by Satan, concerning their lost, blind, undone, evil, deceived heart that is desparatly wicked.

 

LOL, Alan will claim non Calvinistic views are Satanic wiles."

The six alternate views demonstrate Arminianism and Calvinism are very different, with both holding correct and incorrect views.

 

Van, you sound like a member of the LCMS.

 

I didn't say Non-Calvinistic views are Satanic.

I am not a Calvinist.

I will say that in order to have a false debate, it is totally required that whether either side represents a Saved soul, or not,

BOTH SIDES Must be in the flesh.

I am a Bible Believer.

...

No human sin-cursed, Spiritually dead, fallen carnal, finite creature has any ability to Relate, Spiritually to The One and Only Eternal God.

Isaiah 46:9-10

"Remember the former things of old,
For I am God, and there is no other;

I am God, and there is none like Me,

Declaring the end from the beginning,
And from ancient times things that are not yet done,

Saying,

‘My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure,’"

...

For an "Armenian" to speak, they must say, "I deny the Fallen Nature of man",

and for a Bible Believer, (defined as) who "does not deny The Bible Teaching of The Fallen Nature of man", to enter into a discussion about "WHO GOD IS", and "WHAT GOD is 'ALLOWED to DO", "How Must I Be Saved", etc., with an "Armenian", they both have to surrender any Spiritual Guidance and submit to their flesh,

whether either, or both are Saved, or not.

...

The alternative is, Let's Talk about sin, as it is, as God Says it is, as it is Biblically defined by The Fall of Adam and the subsequent sinful State of all of Adam's descendants,

FIRST.

That discussion could rationally employ The Holy Spirit.

...

Two people discussing "God", who do not actually SHARE an HONEST CONVICTION of The Fallen Sinful Nature of Mankind, which leaves them IMPOTENT, in The Realm of Spiritual Realities, is bogus.

It is 'arguing religion, WITHOUT GOD."

 

OMGOSH, OMGOSH,

YOU Can't say, LCMS type things, because of the Board Rules!!

Warning: No Threads Regarding Human Sexuality Are Allowed in This Open Public Forum

BE CAREFUL.

OMGOSH, OMGOSH!!

...

 

I take it back, I take it back.

Must be some misunderstanding.

Maybe I'm missing something.

 

Scroll down or click the link for conversion.
Brief Statement of LCMS Doctrinal Position - The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

 

Yeah, I was making a 'play' off of the acronym
with an 'L' in it, as if it was the bunch that have a 'gay' organization, with an 'L'.

That's called various things, like 'stupid', and the flesh.

Thinking I was trying to be 'funny', when I don't know how.

...

I am Loving 'me' some 'Conversion' statement, here:

Of Conversion

10. We teach that conversion consists in this, that a man, having learned from the Law of God that he is a lost and condemned sinner, is brought to faith in the Gospel, which offers him forgiveness of sins and eternal salvation for the sake of Christ's vicarious satisfaction, Acts 11:21; Luke 24:46, 47; Acts 26:18.

11.All men, since the Fall, are dead in sins, Eph. 2:1-3, and inclined only to evil, Gen. 6:5; 8:21; Rom. 8:7. For this reason, and particularly because men regard the Gospel of Christ, crucified for the sins of the world, as foolishness, 1 Cor. 2:14, faith in the Gospel, or conversion to God, is neither wholly nor in the least part the work of man, but the work of God's grace and almighty power alone, Phil. 1:29; Eph. 2:8; 1:19; Jer. 31:18. Hence Scripture call the faith of men, or his conversion, a raising from the dead, Eph. 1:20; Col. 2:12, a being born of God, John 1:12, 13, a new birth by the Gospel, 1 Peter 1:23-25, a work of God like the creation of light at the creation of the world, 2 Cor. 4:6.

13. On the basis of these clear statements of the Holy Scriptures we reject every kind of synergism, that is, the doctrine that conversion is wrought not by the grace and power of God alone, but in part also by the co-operation of man himself, by man's right conduct, his right attitude, his right self-determination, his lesser guilt or less evil conduct as compared with others, his refraining from willful resistance, or anything else whereby man's conversion and salvation is taken out of the gracious hands of God and made to depend on what man does or leaves undone. For this refraining from willful resistance or from any kind of resistance is also solely a work of grace, which "changes unwilling into willing men," Ezek. 36:26; Phil. 2:13. We reject also the doctrine that man is able to decide for conversion through "powers imparted by grace," since this doctrine presupposes that before conversion man still possesses spiritual powers by which he can make the right use of such "powers imparted by grace."
...

And I understand there thinking, here:

13. On the other hand, we reject also the Calvinistic perversion of the doctrine of conversion, that is, the doctrine that God does not desire to convert and save all hearers of the Word, but only a portion of them. Many hearers of the Word indeed remain unconverted and are not saved, not because God does not earnestly desire their conversion and salvation, but solely because they stubbornly resist the gracious operation of the Holy Ghost, as Scripture teaches, Acts 7:51; Matt. 23:37; Acts 13:46.

Acts 7:51c: (Gill)

ye do always resist the Holy Ghost;

"the resistance made by these persons was not to the Spirit of God in them, of which they were destitute, but to the Spirit of God in his ministers, in his apostles, and particularly in Stephen; nor to any internal operation of his grace, but to the external ministry of the word, and to all that objective light, knowledge, evidence, and conviction that it gave of Jesus's being the Messiah:

and such who resist Christ's ministers, resist him, and such who resist him, may be said to resist his Holy Spirit; and the word here used signifies a rushing against, and falling upon, in a rude and hostile way, and fitly expresses their ill-treatment of Christ and his ministers, by falling upon them and putting them to death: which is the resistance here designed, as appears by the following verse:

so that this passage is no proof of the resistance of the Holy Spirit, and the operations of his grace in conversion, when he is in men and acts with a purpose and will to convert them;

since it does not appear that he was in these persons, and was acting in them, with a design to convert them;

and if he was, it wilt be difficult to prove that they so resisted, and continued to resist, as that they were not hereafter converted;

since it is certain that one of them, Saul, was really and truly converted, and how many more we know not.

Though it will be allowed, that the Holy Ghost in the operations of his grace upon the heart in conversion may be resisted, that is, opposed;

but not so as to be overcome or be hindered in, or be obliged to cease from, the work of conversion, insomuch that may come to nothing:"

...
Matthew 23:37b; (Gill)

"How often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!"

It seems to be a simile much in use with those people.

Our Lord is to be understood not of his divine will, as God, to gather the people of the Jews internally, by his Spirit and grace, to himself;

for all those whom Christ would gather, in this sense, were gathered, notwithstanding all the opposition made by the rulers of the people;

but of his human affection and will, as a man, and a minister, to gather them to him externally, by, and under the ministry of his word, to hear him preach; so as that they might be brought to a conviction of, and assent unto him as the Messiah;

which, though it might fall short of faith in him, would have been sufficient to have preserved them from temporal ruin, threatened to their city and temple, in the following verse.

Instances of the human affection, and will of Christ, may be observed in ( Mark 10:21 ) ( Luke 19:41 ) ( 22:42 ) which will of his, though not contrary to the divine will, but subordinate to it, yet not always the same with it, nor always fulfilled:

whereas his divine will, or his will as God, is, always fulfilled:

"who hath resisted his will?" this cannot be hindered, and made void;

he does whatsoever he pleases:

and further, that this will of Christ to gather the Jews to himself, is to be understood of his human, and not divine will, is manifest from hence, that this will was in him, and expressed by him at certain several times, by intervals;

and therefore he says,

"how often would I have gathered", &c.

whereas the divine will is one continued, invariable, and unchangeable will, is always the same, and never begins or ceases to be, and to which such an expression is inapplicable;

and therefore these words do not contradict the absolute and sovereign will of God,

in the distinguishing acts of it, respecting the choice of some persons, and the leaving of others.

And it is to be observed, that the persons whom Christ would have gathered, are not represented as being unwilling to be gathered;

but their rulers were not willing that they should, and be made proselytes to him, and come under his wings.

It is not said,

"how often would I have gathered you, and you would not!"

nor,

"I would have gathered Jerusalem, and she would not";

nor,

"I would have gathered thy children, and they would not";

but,

"how often would I have gathered thy children, and ye would not!"

Which observation alone is sufficient to destroy the argument founded on this passage in favor of free will.

...

Acts 13:46; (Gill)

"and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life;"

no man is worthy of everlasting life, on account of anything done by him, for it is the free gift of God;

and all who are sensible of themselves, and of the just demerit of sin, conclude themselves unworthy to inherit eternal life;

but this was not the case of these Jews, nor is it the sense here:

but the meaning is, that the Jews, by this act of theirs in rejecting the Gospel, did as it were pass sentence upon themselves, and determine against themselves that they ought not to be saved, since they despised the means of salvation;

or that they were not worthy to have the Gospel preached to them anymore, which may be called eternal life, because it ( the Gospel preached to them which may be called eternal life), is brought to light by it ( the Gospel preached to them which may be called eternal life), and revealed in ( the Gospel preached to them which may be called eternal life), and because it ( the Gospel preached to them which may be called eternal life), points out the way unto it (eternal life), as well as gives some account of it: (eternal life)."

 

The six alternate views demonstrate Arminianism and Calvinism are very different, with both holding correct and incorrect views.

Calvinism only holds one correct view, OSAS, and Arminianism only holds two correct views, Christ died for all mankind, and God chooses individuals for salvation through their faith.

Questions to be dodged, sidestepped, ignored and deflected:
1) Why is it easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God?
Being rich would have nothing to do with it if unconditional election were true.

2) Why could our faith be in vain, if it was instilled by irresistible grace?

3) Why did Paul speak to newborn Christians as to men of flesh, if men of flesh could not grow on spiritual milk?

 

You really don't know, do you?

 

Do you imagine you are the determiner of what the correct views are?

 

Two evasion posts in a row, questioning my qualifications and dodging answering the questions. How anyone could not realize doctrines defended by deflection are false is mind-boggling.

 

Go look up your questions. They have been asked and answered thousands of times, just like all the other 'thinking' that people do with their minds apart from God.

 

Do you imagine you are the determiner of what the correct views are?

 

1) it is easier for the impossible, than the impossible.

2) if Christ be not Risen our faith in Christ being Risen would be in vain.

3) Newborn Christians are not men of flesh, but Paul spoke to them as if they were, because their fleshly thinking needed considerable 'unteaching' and re-teaching to The Things of God and spoke to them using milk, because they were babes in Christ.

"And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ." I Corinthians 3:1.

...

Or, 1-3) Camel milk is rich tasting to babies.

Either way.

Depends on whether The Fallen Sin Nature is a qualification.

 

[QUOTE="Alan Gross, post: 2542009, member: 14358"
]1) it is easier for the impossible, than the impossible.

2) if Christ be not Risen our faith in Christ being Risen would be in vain.

3) Newborn Christians are not men of flesh, but Paul spoke to them as if they were, because their fleshly thinking needed considerable 'unteaching' and re-teaching to The Things of God and spoke to them using milk, because they were babes in Christ.

"And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ." I Corinthians 3:1.
...

Or, 1-3) Camel milk is rich tasting to babies.

Either way.

Depends on whether The Fallen Sin Nature is a qualification.[/QUOTE]

Posts doubling down on evasion followed by the absurdity defense of the indefensible.

Is the statement it is easier for the impossible than the impossible an answer or gibberish? Gibberish. Obfuscation, deflection, and nothing more. The noteworthy difficulty of the rich man means unconditional election is bogus.

The question was not whether Christ has risen, but how could faith instilled by irresistible grace be in vain? And that question was not answered but rather the question was deflected.

No one said newborn Christians are men of flesh - so obfuscation. If men of flesh can be "unteached" and reteached using spiritual milk, then they have enough spiritual ability to understand the milk of the gospel. Once again demonstrating "total spiritual inability" of men of flesh is bogus.

 

Once again no answers, but the change the subject ploy. This is all they have because they must hide the truth.
Questions to be dodged, sidestepped, ignored and deflected:

1) Why is it easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God?
Being rich would have nothing to do with it if unconditional election were true.

2) Why could our faith be in vain, if it was instilled by irresistible grace?
God would not instill faith in falsehood.

3) Why did Paul speak to newborn Christians as to men of flesh, if men of flesh could not grow on spiritual milk?​