The Importance of Calvinism vs Arminianism

Bob,

Salvation from start to finish is a work of God.

If Christ lifted up draws all men to himself, God is not partial.

I've shown that Calvinism can allow for the idea that man with "no volition," meaning he does not resist or respond, will be found to be "in Christ." God elects those who are "in Christ" from before the foundation of the world. He passes over those who are not in Christ.

God receives all of the glory for those who are saved. He desired none to perish.

God receives none of the blame for those who reject his desires for them.

All of this happens in the counsel of God's will before he creates. So yes, there is an elect and a non-elect. Once God creates, everything is rendered certain by virture of his foreknowledge.

Now my theory about what took place in the counsel of God's will may be wrong, but it doesn't diminish the fact that God has decided certain things to happen according to the counsel of his will.

 

And by that you mean "arbitrarily".

In other words passing over those who were pre-determined to be "not in Christ" ensures they have no chance. And what was the decision based on? Was it based on their being drawn to Christ and refusing? Their skill? Their talents? Their lineage?

No! Far beit for man to play any part at all (in the minds of Calvinists).

So it is the purest example of the term "Arbitrary". It is in fact "arbitrary pre-selection" taking place from eternity past where the one "guarantee" is that "nothing, absolutely nothing ABOUT the lost person is causing them to be selected".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,
What you call 'Arbitrary', Paul views it as a wonderful thing that is according to God's will(Eph. 1). Man hates that God did not take something into account on mans part when He chose who would be the receipients of His redemptive grace. If God had not chose, "no one" would be saved because "no one" want's to come to Him (Jn. 6:44), but God in His grace give His Son a people (John 6:37). These are the ones who do "come" and put their faith in the Lord (Eph. 2:8-10). You may ridicule the Biblical teaching that God did give a people (not everybody) to the Son (John 6:37)before they actually come but until you deal with the scriptures you have no choice but to accept it or reject it.

In Christ

 

Southern,

What verse in Romans nine is the nexus proving that God damns some and saves some other surprized sinners.

Proverbs 22:2 says, 'The rich and the poor meet together; the Lord is the Maker of them all. It appears that he takes responsibility for each sinner and saint. He makes us all, but then Calvinists press the issue that in reality He only cares for the elect.

Also, in 17:5 the Word says, 'Whosoever mocketh the poor reproaches his Maker; and he that is glad at calamities shall not be unpunished.' We are not to do this because sinners are created in the 'image of God,' and this is after the Fall and the Flood. [Genesis 9:6c & James 3:9d] If God tells us not to carelessly mock the poor, is it plausible to you that He would autocratically damn the majority of His created beings, without any opportunity for redemption? There is infinitely more gravity to damning souls forever, than telling us to not mock the financially poor. Would you agree?

How is it that God tells us to love our neighbor and yet God can hate the non-elect?

 

Southern,

What verse in Romans nine is the nexus proving that God damns some and saves some other surprized sinners.

Proverbs 22:2 says, 'The rich and the poor meet together; the Lord is the Maker of them all. It appears that he takes responsibility for each sinner and saint. He makes us all, but then Calvinists press the issue that in reality He only cares for the elect.

Also, in 17:5 the Word says, 'Whosoever mocketh the poor reproaches his Maker; and he that is glad at calamities shall not be unpunished.' We are not to do this because sinners are created in the 'image of God,' and this is after the Fall and the Flood. [Genesis 9:6c & James 3:9d] If God tells us not to carelessly mock the poor, is it plausible to you that He would autocratically damn the majority of His created beings, without any opportunity for redemption? There is infinitely more gravity to damning souls forever, than telling us to not mock the financially poor. Would you agree?

How is it that God tells us to love our neighbor and yet God can hate the non-elect?

 

Hi Bob,

Go back and read my previous post.

Are we agreed that if Christ is lifted up drawing all men to himself, and that this is part of his plan, God cannot be accused of being partial (arbitrary - your word)?

 

Ray,
None of your post addressed any scripture or main point in my post. As for your question, I will answer it anyways:

Yes, God does withhold electing love from his enemies, but we are not commanded to show them electing love. Yes, we are commanded to love our enemies in many ways, but God also loves these enemies in the same ways (Matt. 5:45).
-from a website

In Christ

 

Southern,

John 3:16 and Revelation 22:13f is a Divine call of the Holy Spirit to all the enemies/sinners in their lost condition.

We are commanded to show love toward all sinners, as does the Lord, and this is once again proven in Mark 16:15-16. We are to witness and 'preach the Gospel to every creature.' Every created being of God is worthy of His love and grace, and not merely to the few [Matthew 7:14]
It is not our option to try to figure out who we should, allegedly, not show electing love. I cannot express to you how far off the scope you gentlemen are as to where God's love goes and where it ends. This concept is so far away from the true Gospel, that it is almost not worthy of trying to convince you folks about His truth. Your view diminishes the infinity of the attribute of Christ's love toward His lost creation.

For example, the loving Lord wants Christians to have 'pity on the poor' [Proverbs 19:17] and He is pleased with us, but the Almighty Lord can autocratically damn most sinners and He gets a 'free pass.' I get it! I think most Christians would agree that there is a great disparity with this weak logic and theory.

Berrian, Th.D.

 

What is so important about Arminianism vs. Calvinism? Spurgeon says it this way:

There is nothing like a belief in my eternal perseverance, and the immutability of my Father's affection, which can keep me near to Him from a motive of simple gratitude. Nothing makes a man so virtuous as belief of the truth. A lying doctrine will soon beget a lying practice. A man cannot have an erroneous belief without by-and-by having an erroneous life. I believe the one thing naturally begets the other. Of all men, those have the most disinterested piety, the sublimest reverence, the most ardent devotion, who believe that they are saved by grace, without works, through faith, and that not of themselves, it is the gift of God. Christians should take heed, and see that it always is so, lest by any means Christ should be crucified afresh, and put to an open shame.

http://www.spurgeon.org/calvinis.htm

 

Ray,
As I noted, we are to show love to all individuals because God shows love to all individuals. But this is a long way from saying that God elects all, when the Bible teaches something different (John 6:37).

Would you please comment on Ephesians 5:25-32 which clearly shows a “different” type of love.

1.)Does this verse teach that there was a “special” type of love of the church when God gave His Son in Ephesians 5, or is this illustration pointless?
2.)Am I supposed to show my wife a specific type of love that I do not show other woman, or am I to love all woman equally?

I am not denying that we are to love all women, but the way we “love” all woman is certainly different than the way I “love” my wife.
You are trying to say that God doesn’t love people at all unless He loves them in the same way (Ps. 5:5-6). I am telling you that the ‘type’ of love God commands us to show, is the same ‘type’ that He shows to all.

Oh, and about the verses mentioning “whosoever will”, I believe them. I just believe the Bible to also show us who the ones are that “will” (John 6:37). You call this “weak logic”, but as long as it’s Biblical, your view of logic will not change it.

May God bless us

 

Martin Luther is a good example of someone that many here would say "was in error on at least one point" if not Purgatory - then infant Baptism.

But does that mean He crucified Christ afresh?

Even the disciples were in error on some things.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I agree that IF God does what He claims to do - and draws ALL people to Himself then He is not being arbitrary.

However IF you toss into that the side notion that "God MAKES certain people so they must choose to reject the Gospel" then we are back at the start again.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,
I have not been keeping up with you and whoever you were talking to about God 'drawing' all men (each and every individual without distinction). What verse are you referring to? and what exegetical basis do you have from the the verse (whatever it is)to believe that it means what you say it means?

In Christ

 

Hi Gershom;

There are not two correct ways for Salvation. Either one is wrong and the other right or visa versa. It's true that it's all semantics where the doctrine of these two types are concerned. "Will it really matter?" Yes it does. Don't you desire to be right? Don't you desire the absolute truth? I do! With out truth you can't be sure of a thing. The Bible says we are to work out our own Salvation. I've found that discussion and study are the best way to do that.
May God Bless You;
Mike

 

John 12:32
"I will draw ALL unto Me"

1Peter 3:9
9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Given Calvinism vs Arminianism - Clearly one of the two views is dead wrong.

Given evolution as the "account for origins" vs God's Creation "account for origins" - clearly one of the two views is dead wrong.

So does it really "matter" if we pick the one that is dead wrong?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Southern,

God's love is unfettered and reaches to all sinners with no partiality at all. Those who have faith in Jesus are adopted into the family of God. As you have said He will not be able to adopt all sinners, because not everyone will yield to Christ. Thus, all who are given to the Father must come through the Son, and the rest of John 6:37 promises that any one who comes will not be put off, meaning rejected.

The relationship between a wife and a husband is a symbolism of Christ's love for we who have been born again. We are to love one wife but here the analogy ends, because Christ loves all who open their hearts/lives to Him. The intimacy of a husband for his wife, is suggestive of the purity and closeness of Jesus toward we who believe. This passage from Ephesians five is a picture of His love for we who are united with His Son, Jesus Christ. It is a mystery and a mystical union between the true believer and Jesus.

Southern, I hope what I have written has touched on some of the ideas that you were thinking
about.

 

Hi Southern;

We maybe chosen before the foundation of the world but I don't remember reading that we are given to Christ then as well. Jn 6:37 doesn't say just when we are given to Christ. It is my belief that we are given when we believe and not until.

I know Calvinism claims that election is individual. Can you show one scripture that supports this idea?
Act 13:47 For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.
Rom 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles , for to provoke them to jealousy.

All the scriptures teach that election is of peoples as a whole not individualy.
May God Bless You
Mike

 

Mike,

Personally, I think you made true and genuine truths as to election, or at least some great reflections on this subject for all of us.

Regards . . . .

 

Ray,
I was trying to prove that just because God does not love all in an "intimate" way does not mean He does not love people at all. Your explanation proved my point.

Mike,
The giving to the Son precedes the coming to the Son in Faith. How can you say the giving happens at the same time?

Thanks