Why Calvinists and Arminianists are both wrong

The bolded is an oxymoron.

 

I do take my own advice. I don’t make dogmatic assertions about things I don’t know about. If I have to ask someone else, I am not dogmatic about it. But there are certain things I do happen to know.

I have already said that “the Church “ is not limited to those who agree with me. However, it seems that unconditional election is the predominant or majority position among believers. It is too clear in Scripture not to be.

And that’s what I am saying is nonsense. The historical facts are that Calvinistic doctrine has existed in the church since the apostolic era because it is in Scripture. The early centuries of the church were concerned with things other than the systematization of doctrine (things like survival in a hostile world).

No, they aren’t. The elements of Calvinistic doctrine precede Calvin by over a thousand years, and it is therefore impossible to be based on his interpretation. The elements of Calvinistic doctrine are based on the Scriptures. Calvin is credited with systematizing it.

Here is Lorraine Boettner:

This cardinal truth of Christianity was first clearly seen by Augustine, the great Spirit-filled theologian of the West. In his doctrines of sin and grace, he went far beyond the earlier theologians, taught an unconditional election of grace, and restricted the purposes of redemption to the definite circle of the elect.
Against these views Augustine developed the very opposite. He taught that the whole race fell in Adam, that all men by nature are depraved and spiritually dead, that the will is free to sin but not free to do good toward God, that Christ suffered vicariously for His people, that God elects whom He will irrespective of their merits, and that saving grace is efficaciously applied to the elect by the Holy Spirit (The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, p. 213).
Other sources could be cited as evidence.


Your history is clearly lacking and your theology is as well. However, we can certainly debate theology. There is no debate about the long history of Calvinistic doctrine.

Of course. But they had some agreement on some fundamental issues as well.

According to anyone’s. In some places, the Reformation and even separation from the Catholic church had great success, and in other places it didn’t.

I don’t know which particular case you are talking about, and in many cases, these issues are still debated among those who agree on the more core issues.

DT, I would seriously stop talking if I were you. You can’t win on the evidence. It simply doesn’t support you.


There is no doubt that there is disagreement over the issue in the church at large. But to pretend that Calvin made it up is unthinkable. I can't imagine where in the world you came up with that.

 

So you think Paul was oxymoronic under the inspiration of the Spirit?

 

Than take it up with Him because it is in Scripture, I'm otta here

 

Oxymoronic, no...anthropomorphic, yes. Where did he use the specific language "before time"?

 

So is the fact Christ has a sword coming out of His mouth...you believe that literally also?

 

On the contrary, perhaps you need to stop talking. Your quote of Lorraine Boettner proves MY point not yours--that Augustine diverged (I believe I used the word "pioneer" in my last post) from the rest of the early church in his teaching of an unconditional election (here's the quote you cited, with emphasis added by me):

"This cardinal truth of Christianity was first clearly seen by Augustine, the great Spirit-filled theologian of the West. In his doctrines of sin and grace, he went far beyond the earlier theologians, taught an unconditional election of grace, and restricted the purposes of redemption to the definite circle of the elect*.
Against these views Augustine developed the very opposite. He taught that the whole race fell in Adam, that all men by nature are depraved and spiritually dead, that the will is free to sin but not free to do good toward God, that Christ suffered vicariously for His people, that God elects whom He will irrespective of their merits, and that saving grace is efficaciously applied to the elect by the Holy Spirit" (The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, p. 213).


In other words Boettner concedes that Augustine "went far beyond" the earlier theologians (just as I said in my last post) and actually taught the "very opposite" regarding unconditional election "against these (earlier) views". This would be like saying that Arius "first clearly" saw the "cardinal truth" of Christianity regarding Christ's true nature as opposed to all those that went before him just because they hadn't "systematized" that particular doctrine yet (eg in the homoousion of the Nicene Creed). And by that argument, Unitarians and Jehovah's Witnesses could look back in history and say "See? the Unitarian doctrine is present in the Church 1000 years before the Socianists (etc) revived it during the time of the Reformation! It's what Christ and His apostles meant afterall!"

At any rate, Boettner is incorrect in claiming that Augustine "restricted the purposes of redemption to the definite circle of the elect". This is demonstrably false, as Augustine taught that one could be regenerate (ie redeemed) and still fall from grace and be finally lost. As I mentioned before, the Western consensus moderated some of Augustine's more rigidly monergistic views, and the Eastern church never accepted unconditional election--it continued the synergism of the ante-Nicene fathers.

Then you offered this gem...

Which, of course, amounts to implying all those who don't hold to unconditional election (ie Arminians, Weslyans, classical Anglicans, many Baptists, Eastern Orthodox, RC Molinists, etc), who outnumber Calvinists, must not be true "believers", as they don't "clearly" see unconditional election in Scriptures.

Umm...it's called CALVINism for reason

 

Before the foundation of the world and from the beginning are "before time."

 

Did you read? It says "first clearly seen." There is no dispute that it was not an emphasis prior to Augustine. I never said otherwise, and if you would pay attention you would know that.

Excellent. Some uninformed fellow on an internet site telling Boettner he is incorrect. That's a classic.

The truth is that there are comments by most that can be interpreted in different ways. Calvin and Augustine, as well as Spurgeon, and a host of others can be painted both on both sides of the atonement question.

It implies no such thing. Please be more careful. If this is indicative of your typical way of thinking, it's no wonder you are confused. You are not careful with people's words. The truth remains that no matter what someone believes, unconditional election is clearly in Scripture. Some have chosen to believe that and hold some other points in tension, thus holding to less than four or five points. Some just don't address it. Furthermore, th idea that these groups outnumber Calvinists is certainly not clear.

Of course it is. If you knew history you would know why. You would know that it is not because he invented it or came up with it.

Again, it would probably be better for you just to stop talking at this point. Going farther isn't helping your case. It is only demonstrating carelessness.

 

...and since time itself defines before and after, with nothing occurring "before" the "before" is created...it's an anthropomorphism since it's man describing God's attributes and not coming from God as first person.

 

What? That's not even coherent. Before the foundation of the world means exactly that. It's not describing God's attributes. It is talking about his actions ... his choice. And he is telling us when it happened.

Was there a point when the creation did not exist? Of course ... And that is when God chose.

 

Talk about incoherent! Of course there is a point when creation did not exist...to us....not to God, else He's not truly ominpresent. If you speak of His actions and choice, by default you are also dealing with His attributes. You clearly do not understand the meaning of statments wrapped in time, so discussing this is futile. Can someone be born before they are actually born? Of course not, and makes no sense. Same with the "birth" of the phrase before. No time = no before.

 

So creation is eternal to God?

BTW, omnipresence has nothing to do with this discussion.

No, his actions flow out of his attributes.

I think it is clear that you are the one who doesn't understand. You say that creation has always existed to God. Yet the Bible says that God created it, meaning that it didn't always exist, not even in the mind of God. The fact that God knows something does not mean it exists.

Your attempt to philosophize here is certainly empty. The Bible doesn't need your help. It is just fine the way it is. Your attempts here reveal the problems you complain about with Calvinism and Arminianism ... You complain they attempt to go beyond Scripture to explain things. That is exactly what you are doing. Rather than let the Scripture stand on its own, and believe what it says, you are forced to create categories that are incoherent because your commitment to your own belief is greater than your commitment to Scripture.

The Bible says that God chose us before the foundation of the world. Don't try to massage it to fit your personal prejudice. Just believe it.

 

Omnitemporalness is part of omnipresence, hence it is warranted in the discussion. Being omnitemporal, creation is indeed eternal to God.

Which is the exact same thing I said worded differently.

When Christ was the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world...did the event exist? It seems you have bound up God in time...which I understand, as it is necessary to make TULIP work.

And the ad hominems start. You held off longer than I thought
Your ignorance on time is startling, concerning words do have meanings. I'll say it again: No time = no before.

I'll point you to your own advice and add what you conveniently left off...that we are chosen through faith and the work of the Holy Spirit...clearly done since the foundation of the world, unless you had faith before you were born or before the world was created, which seems like a possibility to you.

 

Uh, no.

Um, no.

No. It is a statement of certainty, but more than that, it is probably a statement of whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life. There is some debate over how to translate it.

God bound himself up in time. It’s in “The Book.”

Where? I made no ad hominems.

What? That’s incoherent too. But at least this is a grammatical issue and not a theological one.

You can say it all you want. It won’t change the facts.

You have just pointed out your own contradiction. But as I have said, “through faith and the setting apart of the Spirit” modifies “salvation” not “chosen.” You still, after all this time, don’t read the verse right. I don’t suppose that will change.

 

Larry, ever discussion with you is fruitless, pointless, and leads to the same place...nowhere. I sometimes think you type replies just to see yourself on the screen. "Um, no" and "uh, no" are hardly worthy replies, and to claim that God "bound himself up in time, it's in the book" stomps on the throat of His sovereignty and in unorthodox.

Of course not...you never do

Rule 1: When not having a point to make, attack spelling. Rule 2: When spelling is correct, attack grammar.

Start with the dictionary and the definition of the word "before", and then come back to play.

I know I don't read it right...because I add the whole of Scripture, not just the portion you listed. It's much easier to chop up Scripture to make it say what you want it to.

 

But why? Because you don't respond to facts, to theology, to Scripture. Talk about frustrating.

I seriously doubt that.

To the statements made, they were very worthy. You said two incorrect things based on a probably well meaning but incorrect understanding. There is really no way else to say that other than "No." I guess I could have added "That's incorrect."

How? It doesn't step on his sovereignty, at least not if you define sovereignty the way the Bible does.

I am not sure I would say "never," but certainly rarely. This was not one of them.

I am not attacking it. I am pointing out that it is incoherent, but for a different reason than your other posts. I don't konw what you were trying to say.

I know what the word before means. That's not at issue. The problem is a biblical one. The Bible says that God chose us "before" the foundation of the world. Assuming that the "foundation of the world" was in Genesis 1, and the creation of everything that is not God, God is the one who said he chose "before." Your problem is not with me or the dictionary. Your problem is with the Bible's clear statement.

I have never done that. As I have pointed out (and you have never answered), the Bible says that the salvation is by setting apart of the Spirit and belief in the truth. It does not say the choosing is. That is the major difference. You ignore what Scripture actually says and try to force your own meaning in it.

Here's why we never get anywhere: You don't actually read and think about the words and the theology. You decided what you believe and you will make Scripture fit it. I disagree with that methodology and I reject it .

 

Lie.

They were coherent enough to reply to with incoherent "Uh" and "um no" comments.

Defining it biblically is to not bind God to time.

...yet you continue to reply. I guess it's coherent enough, then.

I see you still do not know what the word means.

Wrong. It states plainly we are chosen for salvation through faith and the work of the Spirit. The choosing is the whole of the entire phrase. You have eisegeted the choosing out of the passage, which is not a shock.

Not only is this also a lie, but could be said of your approach as well.