I got a question about Calvinism and arminianism

Bob,

Your answer does not explain this...

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.

It does not say "All are drawn, and those who believe are the ones the Father will give to me." It does not say "The Father gives All to me, and the ones who believe will come to me." It says "All that the Father gives me WILL come to me."

If, as you say, the following is the explanation of Jesus...

44 ""No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.
45 ""It is written in the prophets, " AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.

Then the explanation says that "Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me.

That explanation confirms "ALL that the FATHER GIVES ME, WILL COME TO ME", and it tells you what the Father does -- not what man does -- that makes the difference. Those who do NOT come do NOT come because they have not heard and learned from the Father. They were not enabled or drawn. They were not given to Jesus.

If these verses said what you want them to say, then you would have to believe in universal salvation. Because Jesus says "All that the Father has given me WILL COME to me." Not "might come" or "may come". WILL COME. If the "enabling and drawing" simply gives them the choice, then Jesus would not have said "WILL COME to me" if even a single one of them would choose not to come.

Finally, as to your emphasis on "AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD", look up where Jesus is quoting, and you'll see it has nothing to do with drawing all of mankind...

Isaiah 54:9 "For this is like the waters of Noah to Me;
For as I have sworn
That the waters of Noah would no longer cover the earth,
So have I sworn
That I would not be angry with you, nor rebuke you.
10 For the mountains shall depart
And the hills be removed,
But My kindness shall not depart from you,
Nor shall My covenant of peace be removed,"
Says the LORD, who has mercy on you.


11 "O you afflicted one,
Tossed with tempest, and not comforted,
Behold, I will lay your stones with colorful gems,
And lay your foundations with sapphires.
12 I will make your pinnacles of rubies,
Your gates of crystal,
And all your walls of precious stones.
13 All your children shall be taught by the LORD,
And great shall be the peace of your children.
14 In righteousness you shall be established;
You shall be far from oppression, for you shall not fear;
And from terror, for it shall not come near you.
15 Indeed they shall surely assemble, but not because of Me.
Whoever assembles against you shall fall for your sake.

 

Indeed it does. Christ provides His Own "qualifier" - He explains it IN the text.

Notice WHO is "hearing" and WHO is "learning"? It is not the father. These are verbs - actions based on choice and they are not being done "BY" the Father -- He is not "hearing" nor is He "learning".

Nor does Christ say "only those whom My Father forces to hear" nor even "Those whom my Father forces to learn".

Christ places the "action" for the hearing and the learning on the part of the person.

Just as He does in Rev 3 "IF ANYONE hears my voice AND opens the door" - He does not say "IF I MAKE anyone hear AND THEN I MAKE them open the door".

The Bible continuously speaks in Arminian terms! -- Even in John 6.

If only He ended the book there - instead of adding to it "He who has Heard AND learned" placing the action on the side of humanity.

The only way I would have to believe in universal salvation after reading the book of John is if I "start" as a Calvinist and I only accept that God "really does" so Love the World, and that He "really does" draw ALL men unto Him.

In that case - I would need to believe in universal salvation of all.

But if I start as an Arminian believing that God DRAWS all but that God also enables free will for all - and calls man to "HEAR" and to "LEARN" and to "open the door" -- then I can easily see how some choose light and some choose darkness. I see how they are enabled to choose. I see why having been drawn and enabled - they do not all choose the same thing like robots.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Dallasdid, a good response to Calvinism by someone considers himself a "moderate Calvinist" is Chosen But Free by Norman Geisler.

Of course, Calvnists do not think there is such a thing as "moderate Calvinism" and I believe James White has responded to this book. However, I strongly suggest it as a good book to see a non-Arminian response to Calvinism.

I do not consider myself a Calvinist nor an Armenian. I don't like the labels and I don't find that the Bible supports such a division. I have also found that discussing or debating with Calvinists often ends up going in circles. But I have many Calvinists friends and I love them in Christ!

 

Marcia -

What is neither Calvinist nor Arminian?

Is the sacrifice of Christ limited to just the saved in your view?

Is God drawing all mankind to Him or just some of them?

When people do not respond to the gospel is it only because "They are not able"?

I am asking because the debate looks like a binary switch - either on or off. Either God finds a way to establish free will - or He does not.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I believe Christ died for all men (unlimited atonement), and that people can reject Jesus as Savior.

My understanding is that there are even different levels of Calvinism. Some Calvinists believe in "double election," that God also elects those who will go to hell.

The perseverance of the saints in Calvinism is not what I thought it was, either. It's a belief that if you are the elect, you will persevere. So even if you think you are saved, if you don't persevere, you must not be saved (I think this means if you backslide you are not saved). In other words, you can't really know if you are one of the elect or not. Also, there is the belief that you can be regenerated but not be one of the elect. I do not think all Calvinists hold this but it is a Calvinist view.

I think it's possible to reject these views, or some of them, and still not be Arminian. The Calvinist and Arminian views today are not even based that much on the Bible as I see it -- I see them as man made philosophies. They use Bible verses but many of these verses are not clearly supporting either view, IMO.

Does God draw all men to Christ? I tend to believe so. But if He does, then obviously not all men are choosing to believe in Christ.

I am not writing my beliefs in this area on stone, either.

I am not good at articulating these views -- to see the view of the neither Calvinist/neither Arminian, read Geisler's book. It's not that long, very readable, and interesting.

 

Every point you listed appears to be Arminian - so what part of the Arminian position do you reject?

If God draws all, died for all, and all have the ability to reject or accept the Gospel - you seem to be Arminian.

(Looks like a duck, talks like a duck...)

What am I missing?

In Christ,

Bob

 

I don't believe that a saved person can lose his/her salvation.

 

Ahh then you are right - that is not "pure" Arminianism.

However I have a surprise for you. Most people who call themselves Arminian among Baptists - hold all your same views including the belief in OSAS. And most of the debates where Calvinists are complaining about Arminians - it is exactly "your kind of Arminian" that they are referencing. (Of course they are very unhappy with my version as well ... but they are going to consider your stance to be pretty normal for the Arminians they encounter.)

I "happen" to be the kind of Arminian that does not believe in OSAS -- so I am one who actually "Agrees with Calvinists" when they say that it is inconsitent for an Arminian to hold to all the other points - but then try to mix with that - OSAS.

However - be that as it may -- your brand of Arminianism is probably "more common" on this board than mine. I would be hard pressed in this context not to call it "the dominant form of Arminianism" on this board.

So... "Marcia in"... "Bob out".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,

While I tend to agree with you concerning OSAS I must correct you by saying that is not "pure" Arminianism.

Jacobus Arminians himself never denounced this doctrine. He questioned it and was willing to consider the scriptures that seem to contradict that idea, but he personally never denounced it. He was, however, accused of denouncing this belief and that is why the fifth point was included, so in that regard it would be true Arminianism. Just an FYI...

Here is a quote for Arminius on the subject...