I got a question about Calvinism and arminianism

Dallasdid,
Hey, just off the cuff I would recommend "The Five Points of Calvinism" by Edwin Palmer.

Also, the new debate book "Debating Calvinism" by Dave Hunt and James White which basically shows the two sides.

The following page has much audio to the common objections offered by Arminians:
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/calvinism.html

Oh and on the nickname "Calvinism", check out this quote from the great Baptist preacher Charles H. Spurgeon:

"I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified unless we preach what is nowadays called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the Gospel and nothing else..."

May God bless you in your search for truth. I was in your shoes, (You seem to be truly seeking), about two years ago. I watched all my arguments fall one by one to the consitency of God's Holy Word. I pray that you will test all "supposed" Arminian scriptural argumentation (John 3:16;2 Pet. 3:9) and see that after all the smoke clears and you look at context you see that the Bible teaches what Charles Spurgeon said, Calvinism.

Keep Searching,
Bobby

 

And Bobby I was in your shoes over 10 years ago when I also adopted the Calvinistic beliefs but since then I have come to understand the context and intent of the scriptures that lead me to adopt such a troubling dogma.

I beg of you to study the historical and doctrinal issues concerning judicial hardening. I believe this is the blindspot of Calvinistic doctrine which leads to many of their errors in interpretation of the scripture.

God Bless

 

Skandelon,
From my experience those who claim to have been "in my shoes" in studying Calvinism 'never' understood what Calvinists believe.

In Christ,
Bobby

 

Oh...of course!

Seriously, I've read this excuse from Calvinists over and over, that if someone criticizes Calvinism (or indeed turns from it after once ahdering to it) then it must be because he doesn't understand it. The implication is that if one truly "understands" Calvinism he would accept it (or continue believing in it). Besides being a ridiculous assertion, this excuse essentially makes Calvinism a non-falsifiable moving target.

 

Dallasdid:

Off hand, here are a couple sites where you can read someone's opinion on them:

http://www.modernreformation.org/mr92/mayjun/mr9203calvarmchart.html

http://www.calvarychapel.com/cheyenne/Books/Calvinism.html

This topic usually gets heated, but stick to searching out the similarities and differences. There are more websites out there as well as books, I'm sure.

 

This so called excuse is "my" experience my friend. Possibly the reason that you "hear" it so much is maybe you personally don't understand Calvinism. As far as your assertion of a non-falsifiable target, many creeds such as the London Confession 1689 and the Philadelphia Confession are open for "target". To bad most of the bullets shot at this target fire at something else. These targets that clearly display the teachings of salvation found in the scriptures haven't moved.

How do you as one who "came out" of Calvinism view
John 6:37:

All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

Who are the people given to Jesus by the Father?

In Christ,
Bobby

 

Perhaps you can start by going back to my post and pointing out where I said "hear". This is an excuse I've read from Calvinists to their critics and not to me personally. It seems rather you would rather accuse me of misundertanding, although such an accusation proves my point.

Actually, in my experience, my friend, most criticisms of biblical interpretaion I've read focus on Calvinism as defined in these and other confessions. When someone points out problems with these specific definitions, the assertion is still made that the critic just doesn't understand Calvinism.

 

Doubting Thomas,
Would you please comment on John 6:37 from your viewpoint.
Who are the ones given by the Father to Jesus?
Does the giving precede the coming to the Son?

Thanks

 

Arminianism:

PREVENIENT GRACE=the grace of the wooing of the Holy Spirit Who calls people to faith in Jesus. If the witness to faith is received; the drawing is inevitable. [Matt. 11:28] Human beings are created in His own Image: Genesis 1:26,27; 5:1; 9:6 & James 3:9]

ELECTION CONDITION BY FAITH IN CHRIST [Romans 8:29]

UNLIMITED ATONEMENT=Christ died for every sinner. [John 3:16; I Tim. 2:6; I John 2:2].

RESISTIBLE GRACE=It is possible for sinners to reject Christ's grace. [John 5:40; Acts 7:51]

THE POSSIBILITY OF FALLING FROM GRACE [Hebrews 6:1-6]

Calvinism:

TOTAL DEPRAVITY [Romans 3:23; I John 1:8]

UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION=The Lord selects some for Heaven and the rest go into eternal destruction/Hell.

LIMITED ATONEMENT=Christ only died for His chosen elect ones.

IRRESISTIBLE GRACE=Once He draws you; you must come into the faith.

PERSEVERENCE OF THE SAINTS=Those who are given grace will never completely fall away from His love and care. [John 10:27-30; I John 5:18]

Best regards,
Berrian, Th.D.

 

Dallasdid,
I ran across this site today:

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/arminianism.html

it has an article entitled "What similarities does Arminian Theology have with the Augustinian/Reformed Tradition?", which I suppose would show similiarities. Also, look at the bottom for Arminian sites and views from men such as John Wesley.

Hope this helps,
In Christ

 

Well, now you are now having a different experience.

I can send you copies of papers I wrote supporting Calvinism when I was in Seminary if that will help.

You need to remember that back in the day of Arminus that many were Calvinists who were leaving that camp to join the Arminian camp. Do you mean to tell me that those students of Calvin didn't really understand Calvinism when they decided to leave it? Its possible to understand something and disagree with it. The fact that you have only experienced Arminians who don't understand Calvinism is only proof you haven't dealt with an educated Arminian. It only shows you haven't really dealt with the strong points of Arminian doctrine.

 

BTW, its my experience that Calvinists don't really understand Arminianism.

Granted, that is because most Arminians today are ignorant of the real issues at hand, which only gives Calvinist's a false since of superiority.

 

John 6:37

I am reposting this from a post I made under " the sum and substance of all theology" I would recomend that you read the entire post to get a better understanding of my view. And for the record I am not an Arminian. To often it is claimed by calvinists that if you are not one of them then you are an arminian, and vise versa.


The argument you make in the latter part of your post is based on a false premis, which is that the first half of this verse, John 6:37 (All that the Father gives Me shall come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will in no way cast out.),is refering to the elect. There is no reason, however, to believe that the two parts of the verse refer to the same thing. The conjuction "and" simply means that the two ideas voiced in this sentance must have at least one thing in common. That one thing is Jesus. It is often asummed that both parts are refering to the elect because the words in the two parts are very simular. Both refer to something that will come to Christ, and since the latter specificaly mentions that it is refering to humans, then both must be doing so. This however, is not necessarily the case.

It is important to consider that the words "come" and "comes" are from two different greek words, with different meanings. The first is hēkō which means to arive, while the other is erchomai which means the process of coming or traveling. If the all that shall come and him who cometh are the same then their coming would be in the same manner, but they are not. It is clear that Jesus is talking about two different things.

Remember that in this verse Jesus is speaking to a crowd which has come to him but does not believe in him(John 6:24-36). It is my belief that this verse is a refernce to this. Jesus is saying that everything, don't forget that God gave his son everything (John 3:35), will come to him, he then changes the word used for "come" to indicate a differnt kind of coming, that is required of those who will be permited into the kingdom of heaven. In other words, just because the crowd came physicaly to Jesus doesn't mean that they will be permited into the kingdom of God, they must instead come to him on a completely different level.

 

While I agree with Ray on this - just a few comments on the Arminian position...

In Christ,

Bob

 

by dttw_aic:

And what level would that be, you suppose ? And how will they come, on their own will ? or based on their own inherent ability ?

 

man has the ability to respond to the word of God, after all faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God does it not?

 

But is all mankind GIVEN that ability by God?

If so - is it GIVEN to them by the John 12:32 drawing of ALL mankind by God?

I vote yes to both. Which then allows for total depravity of Romans 3 and still finds for choice for all mankind of John 12:32, John 3:16 and John 1.

In Christ,

Bob

 

All means all means all, right? So what do you do with this verse?

37 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.

If all means all means all, then all mankind will be given by the Father, all WILL come to Jesus, and since Jesus will by no means cast anyone out, everyone on earth past present and future will be saved. That is, according to your premise that all means all means all.

 

Jesus explains --

All are drawn...
All CAN come to Him

Only those who both HEAR and LEARN from the Father COME to Him

It is only "HE who BELIEVES that has eternal life".

So we see BOTH the nondiscriminating drawing and enabling of ALL - as well as the discriminating RESPONSE on the part of those ALL - individuals responding differently.

He never said "ALL will believe"

But He did say "He is not willing for ANY to perish but for ALL to come to repentance".

In John 1 we are told "Christ CAME to HIS OWN chosen ones but HIS OWN received Him not".

The point is clear.

The supernatural DRAWING does "enable what depravity disables in terms of choice" just as BOTH Calvinist and Arminians teach.

In Christ,

Bob