Core Essentials of Calvinism/Arminianism

Well thats because me and ol Arminius define "Free Will" different. Id use the term "free agency" but then you Calvinist vultures would descend.

 

Many people have disagreed about the interpretation of the Romans 7 passage. Some interpreters believe that the passage refers to Paul’s life before his conversion to Christianity, citing the fact that he was “sold into bondage to sin” (verse 14). Non-Christians are indeed slaves to sin, but the Christian’s flesh can still be said to be “sold into bondage to sin.” Even though the Holy Spirit has indwelled the Christian’s spirit, sin still dwells in the Christian’s flesh (verse 20).

In verse 22 we are told that the law of God is in the “inner man” ( esō anthrōpon in Greek). Some interpreters who believe that this passage refers to a non-Christian might say that the inner man refers to the conscience (which functions correctly for a while in non-Christians as it bears witness to a “Law written in their hearts”—Romans 2:15). The phrase “inner man” occurs also in Ephesians 3:16: “That He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man.” Also notice 2 Corinthians 4:16: “Therefore we do not lose heart, but though our outer man is decaying, yet our inner man is being renewed day by day.” The conscience, physical mind, and body can decay; but in contrast, the human spirit indwelled by the Holy Spirit does not. It is clear that the phrase “inner man” refers to the human spirit where the Holy Spirit dwells. The Holy Spirit permanently indwells the human spirits of Christians. The Holy Spirit then works outward and affects the mind, body, and conscience.

The renewing mentioned in 2 Corinthians 4:16 begins when a person becomes a Christian: “He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5). The renewal continues in the process of spiritual growth: “Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices, and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him” (Colossians 3:9-10). This spiritual growth process includes the renewal of the spiritual mind: “And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect” (Romans 12:2).

In the Romans 7:14-25 passage the apostle Paul says four times that he wants to do what is good. Depraved non-Christians do not want to do what is good. Christians are free agents who have the disposition to serve God and do what is good. They are “being led by the Spirit of God” (Romans 8:14). Therefore, when Christians do what they do not want to do (unintentional sins of ignorance), the cause of that sin is not their own will. Rather, the cause is the evil that is present in their flesh (verse 21).

An example of this would be a Christian who eats too much at a meal. Before committing the sin he does not say, "I intend to sin against God by eating too much.” Instead, he rationalizes and perhaps says to himself, “I worked very hard today and burned many calories, and therefore I should be able to eat a lot of extra food.” Such a sin is not a willful, intentional sin. It is an unintentional sin of ignorance. The choice is not a true freewill choice made from a neutral posture; rather, it is a careless, unintentional choice motivated by the desire of the sinful flesh. The Christian’s disposition is to obey God rather than sin, but the sin in his flesh sometimes influences him to commit unintentional sins of ignorance.

It is true that the Christian’s old sinful self has been crucified with Christ, and the Christian is no longer a slave to sin (Romans 6:6). It is also true, however, that the Christian is told to “not let sin reign in your mortal body that you should obey its lusts” (Romans 6:12). Thus the struggle between the old nature and the new nature is inevitable in the Christian life.

Christians must be vigilant to recognize the cravings of the old, sinful nature (the flesh). The Holy Spirit will convict their consciences and prevent them from living a lifestyle of habitual sin: “No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God” (1 John 3:9). By the Spirit Christians “are putting to death the deeds of the body” (Romans 8:13).

 

Bob Ryan,

You and I agree on this matter. The Apostle Paul would hardly move from Romans three: Salvation to all who believe; Romans four: The Imputation of righteousness; Romans five: Justification by faith; Romans six: Grace greater than our sins; and then in Romans seven: Revert to a pre-salvation time; and then, jump back in Roman eight: with no condemnation and no separation for those in Christ. The sequence is strangely interupted with this view.

Roman seven is clearly the true Christian believer who is in the process of his life of sanctification. This passage deals with the struggle between the fleshly/Adamic nature and the mighty indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the people of God.

There is no question on this at all.

Berrian, Th.D.

 

Does anyone see the gaping hole in a theology as big as that experienced by the ship, Cole? Case in point:

The Lord tells Christians to 'love their neighbor as themselves' and in James 3:9 He tells us not to curse another man or woman verbally, because all of humanity is created in the Image of God. Our Lord, allegedly, does not love all of His lost creation, only His elect and even worse than a verbal denunciation, is more than willing to damn most sinners while hiding His action by some secret, decretive will.

We have a big problem here and the ship with the flag Calvinism flying over it, is in need of total repair.

 

Paul makes it clear in 1Cor 2 AND in Romans 7 that "The LAW is spiritual and spiritually understood" he affirms that the "natural man does NOT understand it".

But in Romans 7 He AGREES fully with God's LAW and with his mind is in obedience to it.

This is NOT the behavior of the totally depraved, fleshly mind that is "hostile towards God" and in fact does not even discern the Law much less agree with it.

The "conflict" he describes CAN only be possible in the context of the born-again new-creation whose totally depraved nature is transformed and whose will is now IN harmony with God.

He shows that his heart and mind are committed to God but in his sinful flesh he is at war - sin warring in the flesh AGAINST that new creation - that new nature that is in harmony with the Law of God.

How is it that you see the unregenerate heart discerning the Law of God, in full agreement with it, and understanding it -- when Paul says that no such thing is possible for the unconverted mind?

Take a look at 1Cor 2:14

It is clear - Paul "could not" be in the situation of Romans 7 without first being converted.

Here we see the perfect Arminian condition "the WILL" is fully devoted to God.

I agree with you that Romans 8 offers the Romans 7 solution to the born-again Christian - but it is a solution to a problem that ONLY born again Christians "CAN" have!

For that reason - Paul says "I DIE daily".

In Christ,

Bob

 

So... "again we agree"!

Your Bible study has served you well.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Don Sailer,

I think you have stated a deep truth that many miss.

In Romans 7 it was not the Spirit's fault for Paul living a carnal, Christian life. He apparently did not care to come under the Lordship of Christ, until he fully yielded to the Lord God.

Ray

 

One of the core essentials of Calvinism teaches that of Limited Atonement. All of the Calvinistic geniuses cannot figure out why God damns some and saves the elect. He does not elevate Himself in the eyes of human beings, nor does He enlarge His eternal greatness within Himself. One would also guess that God cannot experience a greater praise and glory through bring eternal torment to the these unfortunate souls.

Did it ever cross people's minds that the whole theory is a human concoction. The Apostle Paul in writing to Titus set the record straight. God speaking through Paul said to the Lord's people: 'For the grace of God that brings salvation has appear to all men.' [Titus 2:11; John 1:9; and Isaiah 49:6d,e] Salvation did not merely make its understanding only to the elect, nor was Jesus atonement limited to only some sinners. [I John 2:2 & I Timothy 2:6 & Galatians 2:6] In this last verse God speaking through Paul says that God does not have respect to certain persons. His Divine justice insure this fact. The theory of Particular Atonement is incongruous with the love and justice of our God of infinity. Boundless and indiscriminate love toward all sinners is one of the Attributes of God.

 

Arminianism teaches limited atonement, too. If even a single person remains unsaved, his sins are not covered by the propitiation of Jesus.

God does not save some and damn the rest. Everyone is damned. God redeems some. This is true of both Calvinism and Arminianism. The difference between the two pivots only on what made the difference between who is redeemed and who is not. Calvinism attributes it entirely to God. Arminianism pivots the difference on man's free will.

God is glorified by His righteous indignation against the wicked. He would be glorified if He allowed everyone to remain unsaved. He is more glorified by the fact that He has mercy on some. But he would be less glorified if He had mercy on all, because that would prevent us from knowing His attribute of righteousness and righteous judgement against evil.

You use the term "unfortunate souls" as if to excuse them for their wickedness, as if they deserved better than they get. There is your error. We all deserve what they get. The miracle is that God actually has mercy on anyone at all.

 

One of the core essentials of Calvinism teaches that of Limited Atonement. All of the Calvinistic geniuses cannot figure out why God damns some and saves the elect.

ME:Ray, how many Calvinist's have you read? The Bible says that we are saved according to "His" own "good pleasure" (Eph. 1).


He does not elevate Himself in the eyes of human beings, nor does He enlarge His eternal greatness within Himself. One would also guess that God cannot experience a greater praise and glory through bring eternal torment to the these unfortunate souls.

ME: I am not following you. God is unjust because he gives sinners the wages of their sin(Rom. 6:23)? How is just punishment, unjust? Could not God have left us all alone and let us all go to hell, and not be just?

Did it ever cross people's minds that the whole theory is a human concoction. The Apostle Paul in writing to Titus set the record straight. God speaking through Paul said to the Lord's people: 'For the grace of God that brings salvation has appear to all men.' [Titus 2:11; John 1:9; and Isaiah 49:6d,e]

ME: This, Ray, is what I tried to tell you in another post. Your acontextual and "tradition"al interpretation of this verse is not exegetically derived. If you want to know what titus is talking about, look at the preceding verses. Please start at verse 1 and read through ten. Is Paul speaking of different "kinds" of people? Are you familiar with how the greek word "pas" is used in this way in the Bible?

Salvation did not merely make its understanding only to the elect, nor was Jesus atonement limited to only some sinners. [I John 2:2 & I Timothy 2:6 & Galatians 2:6]

Ray: I would suggest getting James Whites, "The Potters Freedom", and looking at how Calvinist's view these verses. You quote these verses but I have yet to see you offer any exegetical reason to back up your universalism. I have to ask if you have ever had these verses explained to you from a reformed perspective?

You:In this last verse God speaking through Paul says that God does not have respect to certain persons.

ME:God would be a "respector" of persons if he chose on the basis of something in them, but election teaches that out of the race of fallen mankind God gives a people (John 6:37) to the Son out of His own "good pleasure" (Eph. 1).

You:His Divine justice insure this fact. The theory of Particular Atonement is incongruous with the love and justice of our God of infinity. Boundless and indiscriminate love toward all sinners is one of the Attributes of God.

Me: God would still be love had He sent us all to hell and not provided Jesus like with the fallen angels. Only a person who does not understand the Bible's teaching on election and particular redemption would say that it doesn't fit with God's love.

In Christ

 

Brethren,

If you want a fair and balanced view of all positions on election, purchase, "Chosen But Free" by Dr. Norman Geisler, Bethany House Publishers.

Double predestination does teach that God chooses some for Heaven and Hell. What you fail to realize is that God is not strengthen or weakened by what He does or does not do. He is all powerful and glorified as He always is in His eternality. He remains the same no matter whether sinners accept or reject His Son.

God is not like a thermometer with His glorification going up and down. I will agree that He does and will have indignation against the wicked, those who refuse Jesus.

I am not excusing a sinner's wickedness. By your teaching, at least some Calvinists, suggest and believe that indeed God actively is damning much of the world population. In that they have no way out between 'a rock and a hard place, they are to be pitied. Since, according to your belief, there is nothing in themselves that can improve their lost conditioned, I cannot think of anything that is more sad.

'He does not elevate Himself in the eyes of human beings, nor does He
enlarge His eternal greatness within Himself. One would also guess
that God cannot experience a greater praise and glory through bring
eternal torment to these unfortunate souls, hypothetically speaking.'

All sinners wages is death. The only hope for them is to believe and find life in Christ. Since all are allowed to believe, Jesus is a just Sovereign.

 

Now Ray,

How can we be sure this is Dr. Geisler's final position?

He used to be a Calvinist. Perhaps he's just on a journey to becoming a proponent of open theology like so many other theologians.

 

Ray,
James White wrote a thorough refutation of "Chosen But Free" called "The Potters Freedom". I would encourage you or even challenge you to read this book objectively. Geisler refuses to discuss these issues with Dr. White. If you will read the book you will see why, Geislers Arminianism is indefensible. Please let me know if you 'will' take the time to read this book. I have an Arminian (eternal security baptist) friend who is reading it right now, he even admitted that he cannot answer many of the points raised in this book. (this friend was influenced by "Chosen but Free" and "What Love is This" as I once was also, but I found out most of my objections and alleged Biblical texts were acontextual and traditional interpretations that did not contradict the wonderful grace of God!)

May God bless you in your studies

 

Hardsheller,

In "Predestination & Free Will" you will find four views of Divine sovereignty and human freedom. Drs. John Feinberg, Norman Geisler, Bruce Reichenbach and Clark Pinnock. Each man responds to the views of the other persons. I found some error in all four of these men, especially John Feinberg.

Clark Pinnock among other colleges and seminaries he also received his doctorate from the University of Manchester in N.T. studies. He also was once a Calvinist.

You may be right about Dr. Geisler. He has served as chairman of the philosophy of religion department at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and now is professor at Dallas Theological Seminary as of the time of the writing of the named book above.

One thing I have to say about Geisler is that he fairly explains the various views in his book, "Chosen But Free."

I value a person who looks at all sides of the Word of God and theology and then has his or her understanding clarified. This gives all the room that the Holy Spirit needs to bring us into all truth. I do not consider it a 'flip-flop' when a man adjusts his views, unlike our Catholic candidate, Senator John Kerry from Massachusetts.

As a side bar, Mr. Kerry is presently the same peace-nick that he was back in the 1960's; but now he comes to Americans in sheep's clothing as a stronger defender the American way of life. He will check with the U.N. to see what our nation should do in time of national crisis. Yes, please enter and cut our technical defense spending and the financial backing of our C.I.A., so we are defenseless. In the 60's we were told that the Communists would infiltrate our universities and take us over from the inside out. I am afraid that we are about to vote in Mr. Jane Fonda; this Senator Kerry will become the peace at any cost president of the United States.

Sorry for getting off subject . . .

Best regards . . .

 

Ray, how many Calvinist's have you read? The Bible says that we
are saved according to "His" own "good pleasure" (Eph. 1).

'He does not elevate Himself in the eyes of human beings, nor does He
enlarge His eternal greatness within Himself. One would also guess
that God cannot experience a greater praise and glory through bring
eternal torment to these unfortunate souls, hypothetically speaking.'


Me: What does this have to do with Eph. 1 which I based my argument upon?

quote:

I am not following you. God is unjust because he gives sinners the
wages of their sin(Rom. 6:23)? How is just punishment, unjust? Could
not God have left us all alone and let us all go to hell, and not be just?

All sinners wages is death. The only hope for them is to believe and find life in Christ. Since all are allowed to believe, Jesus is a just Sovereign.

Me: You admit that sinners earn death, if they earn it then God is not “unjust” to justly give judgment to them. Their only hope is to believe in Christ. All are “allowed” to believe if they would, but the problem is, none want to (John 6:44). The only ones that come are who? The ones given by the Father (vs. 37).


quote:

This, Ray, is what I tried to tell you in another post. Your
acontextual and "tradition"al interpretation of this verse is not
exegetically derived. If you want to know what titus is talking about,
look at the preceding verses. Please start at verse 1 and read through
ten. Is Paul speaking of different "kinds" of people? Are you familiar
with how the greek word "pas" is used in this way in the Bible?

 

I am surprised that a Calvinist would think that a totally depraved soul "who does NOT seek after God" would "agree gladly with the Law and actually seek to be in obedience to it".

That seems to say "the tree is good but the fruit is bad".

How can a Calvinist go for such an understanding of total depravity?

Actually - this passage just "proves" that Calvinists are tempted to hold two opposing views at the same time. It does not resolve the contradiction in Calvinism - it creates it.

There is is that "good tree bad fruit" theme coming in from Calvinism. How can you do that?

IT should bother you.

The law is spiritual - spiritual things are spiritually discerned - they are foolishness to the unregenerate heart.

How do you get the totally depraved to see their truth and choose the way of life?

Truly an odd field for a Calvinist to dwell in.

By the way - I agree this text shows the innability of man - but the total depravity aspect was solved at the new birth. The law IS being spiritually discerned here AND the inner nature AGREES with it - it is the outer sinful flesh that is "unnable" to perform.

You are right about that part.

In Christ,

Bob