The reason why they won't admit that it's a false dilemma is because they believe that their Theology of Salvation (Soteriology) is 100% correct. They believe everything else is wrong :)
Calvinism vs Arminianism? Why either/or? Why not both?
Discussion in 'Calvinism & Arminianism Debate' started by delizzle, Feb 2, 2018.
Page 2 of 8
-
-
A nicer way of saying "wrong."
-
That statment may be accurate. However, the title of this thread section is "Calvinism vs Arminianism" not "Calvinism vs Arminianism on Salvation Proper". Where does Lutherianism sit?
-
How foolish of me to question the infallibility of the institutes of Calvin. Which brings me back to the purpose of this thread. There comes a point where a it is no longer really about Christ. Rather, it is about the brand of Christ. Ford vs Chevy, Calvinism vs Arminianism, Paul vs Apollos. Who's right? Don't get me wrong. John Calvin is hands down the greatest theologian of the reformation. But I would not say that his views are any better or worse than Augustine or Aquinas. But as the "big C" Church, we need to ask ourselves if we love our brand of church more than being the Church.
-
Even if there are other variations of "wrong", the dilemma is false.
-
No, I'm not. I never mentioned fruit. I made a very clear and correct statement regarding the 5 Points of Particular Redemption.
As nobody said anything about fruit except you the dilemma is all yours. -
Analogy Cass! Analogy! You did read my post where I said "If Calvinism was a banana and Arminianism was an apple"...right?
Btw...I like mangos. -
Are you advocating disobedience to God's Great Commission?
-
HeirofSalvation Well-Known MemberSite SupporterDude...
Quit while you're behind...
T.Cassidy will absolutely CRUSH you on this...
Those terms you threw out????
Yeah, he knows them....You are out of your league son.
Completely out of your league...
I don't have the verbal skills to describe how COMPLETELY out of your league you are....
As much as I disagree with T.C....
He knows what the difference between "Infralapsarianism" "Supralapsarianism" and "Amyraldianism" is.....
He's gonna make you look pretty stupid pretty quick.
And Karl Barth (which I've absolutely no doubt he's familiar with)......(I've heard him comment on him intelligently) is irrelevant. -
Actually you proved my point. Amyraldism is, essentially, 4 Point Calvinism. Believing 4 points and not believing 1 point.
-
That's not what I said. Is the Gospel only found in Calvinism?
-
You said:You clearly questioned obedience to the Great Commission. "What do I have to lose?" Obedience. As far as any person's salvation being at stake, I can't save anyone. But God uses means to reach the lost, and the primary means is the preaching of the Gospel. To not do so is open rebellion against God. So, I ask again, are you advocating disobedience to the Great Commission?
-
Crush me? I proved his entire either/or claim to be false by providing one alternative. Let's face it. Theology has its definite black and white issues. But there is a heck of a lot of grey. Otherwise, why else would so many topics have been debated for literally hundreds of years unless there was an ample amount of biblical support for both?
The good news is that regardless of your position on Arminianism vs Calvinism as long as you believe the Gospel, there is no reason to question your salvation. We can all ask God someday. -
I have a feeling that we might not be entirely on the same page. Perhaps I wasn't clear so I will accept blame where it is due. So just to clarify, are you claiming that you have to accept all 5 points in their entirety or reject them all together? Or the decision is binary between each point?
-
I am of the opinion that all 5 points are interlocked and each depends on the other 4. But I know a lot of good men, including theologians, who disagree with me.
As I posted originally, I dealt with each point separately. "You either accept T or deny it" etc.
I know many fine Christian people who accept 4 or 3 points but reject the others.
Even Jacobus Arminius was a 4 pointer. He disagreed only with Unconditional Election, and taught election was based on the Foreknowledge of God's knowing that eventually that person would believe.
The Remonstrance was published after his death and reflects more the positions of his colleagues and students than his own.
The same is true of "Calvinism." The so-called "5 Points of Calvinism" published as the "Five Heads of Doctrine" by the Synod of Dort came out 54 years after Calvin died. And the "Five Heads" were later edited down to TULIP but that did not happen until the early years of the 20th century. -
Calvinism vs Arminianism? Why either/or? Why not both?
They make mutually exclusive claims. That's why. -
It's not arrogant to be right. You sound as if you've drunk the postmodernism Kool-Aid
-
HeirofSalvation Well-Known MemberSite SupporterMeh, yeah...
Crush you.
There are many possible alternatives which have at least the benefit of internal logical consistency and some level of Biblical support...
Did you throw him for a loop?
NO.
Yes.
Not that much really, some.....but there are limits.
Not to speak for T.C....
But, he could easily and rightly appeal to the noetic effects of sin to begin with...
I probably wouldn't take it as far as he would inasmuch as I'd cease it's effects at regeneration, but, maybe you get my drift.
True, but, as far as I know...
No one is questioning the "Salvation" of one another...
I disagree (Soteriologically) on essentially EVERYTHING T.C. believes....minus the locus of the gospel itself...
Which as Paul says, is that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and he died and rose again the third day according to the Scriptures...
That's the gospel, and those who repent and believe it are one in Christ...
Questioning Salvation?...
Nah...
Questioning essentially everything else???
Fair Game.
True.
But you suggested that the likes of T.C. didn't know what the difference between say..."Supralapsarianism" and "Infralapsarianism" is...or that he's conceivably never thrown the term "Pelagianism" around a little..... I assure you he has.
Now, I'd argue that "Pelagianism" is a meaningless and nebulous term...
But, T.C. has at least "heard of it" :)))) -
That statement shows your ignorance of the subject, which is quite "normal". I can count on one hand (if two of my fingers were missing) the Arminians who understand the Doctrines of Grace.
-
Uh, no, that's wrong.
Wrong again.
Page 2 of 8