Calvinists? Arminians?
Moderator: Moderators
Calvinists? Arminians?
Post #1Just out of interest, I was wondering what sort of spread here? Self description is the only requirement...
Post #11
I voted myself as a Calvinist although I have to say I think what most 'calvinists' believe is a slightly twisted version of what John Calvin actually proposed.
Like Hannah, I balk at the idea of limited atonement, only because the title is deceptive. You could call it unlimited atonement-limited application, but that would mess up the acronym wouldn't it?
Like Hannah, I balk at the idea of limited atonement, only because the title is deceptive. You could call it unlimited atonement-limited application, but that would mess up the acronym wouldn't it?
Post #12
What if we were to use these five points:
Humanity's Radical Corruption
God's Sovereign Choice
Christ's Purposeful Atonement
The Spirit's Effective Call
God's Preservation of the Saints
Would those be more appealing to the Calvin friendly crowd?
I would agree that even though I label myself as a Calvinist I do not follow the teachings of Calvin, I have never claimed to. I follow the teachings of Reformed Theology, Calvinism just is the more common synonym for such.
(these terms were taken from R.C. Sproul's Grace Unknown...would very much recommend it.)
Humanity's Radical Corruption
God's Sovereign Choice
Christ's Purposeful Atonement
The Spirit's Effective Call
God's Preservation of the Saints
Would those be more appealing to the Calvin friendly crowd?
I would agree that even though I label myself as a Calvinist I do not follow the teachings of Calvin, I have never claimed to. I follow the teachings of Reformed Theology, Calvinism just is the more common synonym for such.
(these terms were taken from R.C. Sproul's Grace Unknown...would very much recommend it.)
Post #13
Humanity's Radical Corruption
I think total depravity, while somewhat archaic still works here. The concept is the same for either reference. Humanity is completely corrupted since the fall.
God's Sovereign Choice
Unlimited Grace over His choice? He is soveriegn, I think that plays into the debate in another thread, and many other threads concerning free will and determination. Soveriegnty comes first and foremost - before any discussion of man's will, man's ability to choose, and the fact that man does not seek God (cannot choose God without the help of God)
Christ's Purposeful Atonement
A much better description than limited atonement. Christ's atonement is fully sufficient - unlimited in its sufficiency IOW. It is the application of that atonement which is limited. This is where many go wrong in their interpretation of Calvinism by Calvin and the calvinism they now subscribe. Mostly a simple understanding of the concept Calvin originally presented.
The Spirit's Effective Call
This idea needs scriptural support for me at this point. Not that I necessarily disagree, but in all the discussions I have been involved in this idea of the 'general' call and the 'special' call have been the least supported. I know scripture tells us of special callings, mostly though, pertaining to advocations and ministries. I would not mind delving into the effective call vs. the general call idea though.
God's Preservation of the Saints
This is another area of further discussion I would like to see. I think we have seen discussions on OSAS vs. unrepented sin, and most of those discussions revolve around anti-christians trying to get christians to justify how 'good people' can go to hell and bad people can go to heaven, just because they say they are 'christians'. [/i]
I think total depravity, while somewhat archaic still works here. The concept is the same for either reference. Humanity is completely corrupted since the fall.
God's Sovereign Choice
Unlimited Grace over His choice? He is soveriegn, I think that plays into the debate in another thread, and many other threads concerning free will and determination. Soveriegnty comes first and foremost - before any discussion of man's will, man's ability to choose, and the fact that man does not seek God (cannot choose God without the help of God)
Christ's Purposeful Atonement
A much better description than limited atonement. Christ's atonement is fully sufficient - unlimited in its sufficiency IOW. It is the application of that atonement which is limited. This is where many go wrong in their interpretation of Calvinism by Calvin and the calvinism they now subscribe. Mostly a simple understanding of the concept Calvin originally presented.
The Spirit's Effective Call
This idea needs scriptural support for me at this point. Not that I necessarily disagree, but in all the discussions I have been involved in this idea of the 'general' call and the 'special' call have been the least supported. I know scripture tells us of special callings, mostly though, pertaining to advocations and ministries. I would not mind delving into the effective call vs. the general call idea though.
God's Preservation of the Saints
This is another area of further discussion I would like to see. I think we have seen discussions on OSAS vs. unrepented sin, and most of those discussions revolve around anti-christians trying to get christians to justify how 'good people' can go to hell and bad people can go to heaven, just because they say they are 'christians'. [/i]
Post #14
I think that Radical Corruption would be a much better way of putting this. If you still choose to say that man is completely corrupted, you of course fall into the trap of some accusing you of teaching that man is as 'completely' wicked as he can be. All men are as awful as they can be, such as Hitler, barring Mother Teresa. That is if you say they are completely corrupt. Rather if you make the disclaimer by claiming that they are radically corrupt I think you can bypass that assumption by directly commenting on the radical (as in every aspect) of corruption that plagues humanity.Humanity's Radical Corruption
I think total depravity, while somewhat archaic still works here. The concept is the same for either reference. Humanity is completely corrupted since the fall.
You likewise express concerns for need of Scriptural support for the last two points. Let me provide these; perhaps they can be of use to you.
IG- Ezk 11:19-20; Jn. 6:37; Rom 8:30; Col 2:13; James 1:18; Titus 3:5; Acts 16:4
PS- IS. 43:1-3; Jer. 32:40; Rom. 8:35-39; Eph. 1:13-14; 1 Thess. 5:23-24; Jude 24-25; Joh. 10:27-29; Phil. 1:6
I must admit I am simply copying references as given by a tract that I own, but I hope they can be of use to you.
Post #15
Shame on you Mr. Man! Posting references with no commentary! 
Let's look at corruption first and foremost: Corruption, while commonly believed to be, is not necessarily a condition of wickedness or evil - although further discussion willl define these terms in such a way that my statement will be proven false...
But, the point is; corruption is simply a state altered from the original, pure, condition. If my black coffee has cream added, I can rightly say it has been corrupted. I understand the semantics and the implications of the word corrupted add a lot more that just alteration, but that in essence is what we are talking about.
Man, the perfect companion for God here on earth, was altered, corrupted, from his original state and now no longer can serve as that companion. Given God's aversion to sin (all sin is like offal to Him), the tiniest corruption becomes complete (a little arsenic in the soup, poisons the whole bowl....)
As for the references... I'll come back to those. As you know I am working on borrowed equipment for a while (new PC next week!
Let's look at corruption first and foremost: Corruption, while commonly believed to be, is not necessarily a condition of wickedness or evil - although further discussion willl define these terms in such a way that my statement will be proven false...
But, the point is; corruption is simply a state altered from the original, pure, condition. If my black coffee has cream added, I can rightly say it has been corrupted. I understand the semantics and the implications of the word corrupted add a lot more that just alteration, but that in essence is what we are talking about.
Man, the perfect companion for God here on earth, was altered, corrupted, from his original state and now no longer can serve as that companion. Given God's aversion to sin (all sin is like offal to Him), the tiniest corruption becomes complete (a little arsenic in the soup, poisons the whole bowl....)
As for the references... I'll come back to those. As you know I am working on borrowed equipment for a while (new PC next week!
Post #16
I would actually agree with you. Given our corrupt sinful nature, even if we sin barely any, or none at all, we are still inhabited by this sinful nature; and this nature is what makes us unable to seek after God or to incline ourselves toward the things of God.
Post #17
I like the use of nature in connection with mans corruption. We so often assert that something is 'natural' so it cannot be wrong. "I was born this way" seems to be the defense for sin. What we don't realize, or refuse to acknowledge, is that our very nature is corrupt, it is a nature of sin - so those things that are 'natural' are corrupt by their inception. Being 'born' a certain way does not mean God intended it, as it is a result of a corrupt nature, not the nature God originally created.
Hmmm... it looks like we are begining to stray from the original topic a bit.... where were we?
Hmmm... it looks like we are begining to stray from the original topic a bit.... where were we?
Other!
Post #18I have registered my vote as 'other' as opposed to 'Calvinism', John Calvin put down a good foundation for the Reformation along with many other good men willing to stand up to the tyranny of the Roman Church, I am of the 'reformed faith' which holds to 'the Westminster Confession of Faith'. The strongest argument for the reformed faith, is that it recognises God as Sovereign, not subjected or dependant on mans' choice. I will not go into the full argument now, but happy to debate further if anyone so wishes.
hannajoy:
The quote from: Jos 24:15 And if it seems evil to you to serve Jehovah, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served Beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you live. But as for me and my house, we will serve Jehovah.
He isn't saying choose between Jehovah and the other gods, he recognised that they did not want Jehovah, so says pick or choose from amongst the other gods who you will serve, but as for him, he will serve Jehovah
hannajoy:
The quote from: Jos 24:15 And if it seems evil to you to serve Jehovah, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served Beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you live. But as for me and my house, we will serve Jehovah.
He isn't saying choose between Jehovah and the other gods, he recognised that they did not want Jehovah, so says pick or choose from amongst the other gods who you will serve, but as for him, he will serve Jehovah
Post #19
If you're a Calvinist, its because God told you to be. 
I fit in the camp of Arminian for the most part. Mostly because Calvinism cannot account for punishment of the unchosen.
I don't fully embrace all of Arminist view but I do fit the camp mostly because I think it fits with God's character more.
I have not studied any Open Theist views.
I fit in the camp of Arminian for the most part. Mostly because Calvinism cannot account for punishment of the unchosen.
I don't fully embrace all of Arminist view but I do fit the camp mostly because I think it fits with God's character more.
I have not studied any Open Theist views.
-
Clement of Rome
- Student
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 3:51 am
Post #20
"I will not go into the full argument now, but happy to debate further if anyone so wishes."
The quote from: Jos 24:15 And if it seems evil to you to serve Jehovah, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served Beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you live. But as for me and my house, we will serve Jehovah.
"He isn't saying choose between Jehovah and the other gods, he recognized that they did not want Jehovah, so says pick or choose from amongst the other gods who you will serve, but as for him, he will serve Jehovah"
It appears to me you are attempting to exegete this verse by reformed theology, which can't explain the grammar. In this verse, the conjunction
"And" indicates it's in addition to verse 14 which tells Israel to serve God
in sincerity and truth, to put away their idols and serve the Lord.
The conditional "if" is attached to the word "it" which is serving the Lord in sincerity and truth and putting away their idols and so If that "is disagreeable/evil in your sight to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve..."
Now, for the offensive.
Sense sovereignty is one of the prime issues, this only states that God IS in control, not how he is in control.
A. Reformed believers determine how much of the control God determines to use on his creation and decides it's all his control all the time. God can allow his creation to will for itself and still be in control because he allowed it.
B. God's sovereignty is an extension of his omnipotence. One is in control only as far as his power will allow. God is of course all-powerful and does not express all his power all the time. For example, he destroyed Sadam and Gomorrah, not the entire planet. He flooded the world, and didn't extinguish the entire universe. Just as he doesn't express all his power all the time, neither does he express all his control all the time.
Second stage of my offensive: Classic Calvinist scriptural passages
I will only summarize, as I really don't know how much of this will be responded to. If you are interested, I will expand on my opposition to why I interpret these passages alternately.
Eph. 1:3-12 Traditionally interpreted as those being referred to as predestined and adopted so forth and so on as the church throughout time. However, the grammatical break down of this passage informs us that the Jews, apostles and prophets are the subject of the predestinating.
Rom. 9:13-24 This passage is not only subject to a Reformed bias but is further screened through Covenant Theology. The passage is painfully obvious to refer to Israel and doesn't represent the church. Secondly, it is assumed by reformed thinking that Pharaoh is hardened by God for no declared purpose, and so in the eyes of an Armenian or any free will believer, this would imply God is arbitrarily hardening his heart, or even predestining him to this cause. This passage says God will harden whom he desires and have mercy on whom he desires and as we study this passage and others, we find it is clear whom he hardens...stubborn people, and who he has mercy on.
Positive passages supporting free will. I will briefly mention some because of how long this is getting, for a first reply anyway, and you can pick one or all of these passages you have contention with.
2 Peter 3:7-9 Grammatically, in verse 9, the object of God's patience is ungodly men and not the saved.
Matthew 23:37 The idea that the Lord can desire something and have it not happen because the desired object is resistant towards the Lord obviously implies a will that is capable of even resisting the Lord.
Ezekiel 33:11 God does not desire the death of the wicked but that they turn from it. This would seem to be in opposition the teaching that the
Lord predestined them to wickedness. This would also be some confirmation to 2 Peter 3 7-9.
Third and final stage of my offensive: Order of Salvation
Reformed thinking is not capable of demonstrating from scripture an order
of salvation which demonstrates the following:
Regeneration--->Changed Nature--->Faith Response--->Holy Spirit
Please forgive me if I didn't get the Reformed Orta Soluta correct. If you would, inform me of what it actually is and respond if you desire. I do understand this is not actually happening in a time contingent, however, each one is sequential and the following one depends on the previous.
The order of salvation I believe would have greater scriptural support would look something like this:
Faith Responce---> Regeneration--->Changed Nature--->Holy Spirit
At this point I am going to assume you are familiar with various passages which would at the very least APPEAR to support this order so I am going to only post one unless you specify you would like me to indicate more. Perhaps you and I can bicker over this one passage enough, however.
Rom. 10:8-15 I believe this passage clearly indicates, even twice, a faith response is first before salvation (regeneration) and is what I believe to be an accurate model of the order of salvation.
Thankyou for your time. I know I kind of hit several different points in a short amount of space so if you would rather select parts of what I wrote to respond to, I understand. I haven't been able to engage in this kind of discussion for some time so I am looking forward to this.
God bless.
I believe the obvious implication that a free will believer’s position does not recognize the Sovereignty of God misrepresents the position. I could simply say that God becomes only more sovereign in his ability to be in control despite free will. I am more along the line that this free will / sovereignty relationship can be explained to some degree but it should be recognized that I don't have to anymore then a Calvinist must explain how a man is responsible for his sin in a determinist view point.
I would like to take up the gauntlet.
"The strongest argument for the reformed faith, is that it recognizes God as Sovereign, not subjected or dependant on mans' choice.
The quote from: Jos 24:15 And if it seems evil to you to serve Jehovah, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served Beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you live. But as for me and my house, we will serve Jehovah.
"He isn't saying choose between Jehovah and the other gods, he recognized that they did not want Jehovah, so says pick or choose from amongst the other gods who you will serve, but as for him, he will serve Jehovah"
It appears to me you are attempting to exegete this verse by reformed theology, which can't explain the grammar. In this verse, the conjunction
"And" indicates it's in addition to verse 14 which tells Israel to serve God
in sincerity and truth, to put away their idols and serve the Lord.
The conditional "if" is attached to the word "it" which is serving the Lord in sincerity and truth and putting away their idols and so If that "is disagreeable/evil in your sight to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve..."
Now, for the offensive.
Sense sovereignty is one of the prime issues, this only states that God IS in control, not how he is in control.
A. Reformed believers determine how much of the control God determines to use on his creation and decides it's all his control all the time. God can allow his creation to will for itself and still be in control because he allowed it.
B. God's sovereignty is an extension of his omnipotence. One is in control only as far as his power will allow. God is of course all-powerful and does not express all his power all the time. For example, he destroyed Sadam and Gomorrah, not the entire planet. He flooded the world, and didn't extinguish the entire universe. Just as he doesn't express all his power all the time, neither does he express all his control all the time.
Second stage of my offensive: Classic Calvinist scriptural passages
I will only summarize, as I really don't know how much of this will be responded to. If you are interested, I will expand on my opposition to why I interpret these passages alternately.
Eph. 1:3-12 Traditionally interpreted as those being referred to as predestined and adopted so forth and so on as the church throughout time. However, the grammatical break down of this passage informs us that the Jews, apostles and prophets are the subject of the predestinating.
Rom. 9:13-24 This passage is not only subject to a Reformed bias but is further screened through Covenant Theology. The passage is painfully obvious to refer to Israel and doesn't represent the church. Secondly, it is assumed by reformed thinking that Pharaoh is hardened by God for no declared purpose, and so in the eyes of an Armenian or any free will believer, this would imply God is arbitrarily hardening his heart, or even predestining him to this cause. This passage says God will harden whom he desires and have mercy on whom he desires and as we study this passage and others, we find it is clear whom he hardens...stubborn people, and who he has mercy on.
Positive passages supporting free will. I will briefly mention some because of how long this is getting, for a first reply anyway, and you can pick one or all of these passages you have contention with.
2 Peter 3:7-9 Grammatically, in verse 9, the object of God's patience is ungodly men and not the saved.
Matthew 23:37 The idea that the Lord can desire something and have it not happen because the desired object is resistant towards the Lord obviously implies a will that is capable of even resisting the Lord.
Ezekiel 33:11 God does not desire the death of the wicked but that they turn from it. This would seem to be in opposition the teaching that the
Lord predestined them to wickedness. This would also be some confirmation to 2 Peter 3 7-9.
Third and final stage of my offensive: Order of Salvation
Reformed thinking is not capable of demonstrating from scripture an order
of salvation which demonstrates the following:
Regeneration--->Changed Nature--->Faith Response--->Holy Spirit
Please forgive me if I didn't get the Reformed Orta Soluta correct. If you would, inform me of what it actually is and respond if you desire. I do understand this is not actually happening in a time contingent, however, each one is sequential and the following one depends on the previous.
The order of salvation I believe would have greater scriptural support would look something like this:
Faith Responce---> Regeneration--->Changed Nature--->Holy Spirit
At this point I am going to assume you are familiar with various passages which would at the very least APPEAR to support this order so I am going to only post one unless you specify you would like me to indicate more. Perhaps you and I can bicker over this one passage enough, however.
Rom. 10:8-15 I believe this passage clearly indicates, even twice, a faith response is first before salvation (regeneration) and is what I believe to be an accurate model of the order of salvation.
Thankyou for your time. I know I kind of hit several different points in a short amount of space so if you would rather select parts of what I wrote to respond to, I understand. I haven't been able to engage in this kind of discussion for some time so I am looking forward to this.
God bless.
