Calvinism Vs Arminianism

[Manu]

Is there any accurate exegetical verses which would debunk some if not all the 5 points of Calvinism? or the 5 Points of Arminianism?

I personally abandoned the Arminian view over a year ago, and I say that so to be honest.

I hope this will be a good long discussion

For those who do not know the 5 points are here:

Calvinism

T - Total Depravity (Man cannot of himself respond to the gospel/he is dead in sin)

U -Unconditional Election - God has chosen some unto salvation not based on anything we have done including knowledge of foreknown events

L - Limited Atonement - (Also known as Particular Redemption) That Christ died only for the one's he has chosen. Not for every person that ever lived or will live

I - Irresistible Grace- God's saving work in someone cannot be resisted but that such grace will result in salvation

P - Perseverance of the Sains- (also known as Eternal Security) Those who are born again can never lose their salvation

Arminianism

1)Partial Depravity - Man is able to respond to the gospel on his own and that he is not dead spiritually but rather sick
2)Conditional Election - God chooses those who he foresaw would choose him/or generate their own faith/ or would be a good candidate (There are different views in Arminianism to this)
3)Unlimited Atonement- Christ died for every single person that ever lived or will live
4)Resistable Grace- God is unable to bring someone to salvation who is unwilling to be saved
5)*Eternal Security* This point is divided among Arminians. Some say God only chooses those he knows will never fall away hence Eternal Security, or that those who willingly choose God, God in return chooses them and will never let them go. Still others deny this point; and lastly Arminius' followers were not certain about it. (Arminius believed in Eternal Security) [/b]

[samuelbb7]

Howdy McCulloch

I agree with you. Now to me there are some verse that debunk Calvinism. I do not have the time for a number right now. But here are a couple.

KJV - Jhn 12:32 - And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all [men] unto me.

NKJV - Jhn 12:32 - "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself."


NLT - Jhn 12:32 - And when I am lifted up on the cross, I will draw everyone to myself."
Footnote:
Greek lifted up from the earth.


NIV - Jhn 12:32 - But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.”


ESV - Jhn 12:32 - “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”

NASB - Jhn 12:32 - "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself."

RSV - Jhn 12:32 - and I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself."


ASV - Jhn 12:32 - And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto myself.

Young - Jhn 12:32 - and I, if I may be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto myself.'

This to me ends the doctrine of irresistible Grace unless you also teach universal salvation. Since all are drawn and all those drawn will be saved you cannot have one without the other.

Jhn 3:15 so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life.
Jhn 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
Jhn 3:17 "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

Again no limited atonement or limited calling. Calvinist get around these by declaring that GOD's will must be done. They in effect do not believe in free will.

[MikeH]

Calvinism and Arminianism are not complimentary they are contradictory.

Yes, but the argument basically boils down to free-will or determinism, with which there is also compatibilism, the idea that both can be logically true at the same time.

[McCulloch]

There are no verses that would debunk either one, because they are meant to be complimentary.

Calvinism and Arminianism are not complimentary they are contradictory.

[row][mcol]Calvinism[mcol]Arminianism [row]1 [col]Total Depravity [col]Able to choose good [row]2 [col]Unconditional Grace [col]Grace conditional upon acceptance [row]3 [col]Limited Atonement [col]Unlimited Atonement [row]4 [col]Irresistible Election [col]Free Will [row]5 [col]Perseverance of the Saints [col]Can fall from grace

Yes, but the argument basically boils down to free-will or determinism, with which there is also compatibilism, the idea that both can be logically true at the same time.

Compatibilism (aka soft determinism) is essentially the idea that an act is free unless it involves compulsion by another person. This seems to me to be a bit of a slight of hand. It does not really show that determinism and absolute free-will can be logically true at the same time, but redefines free-will narrowly so that you can define a determinist framework that includes free-will.

McKenna, Michael, "Compatibilism" , The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2004 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)

Let's look at Calvinism v Arminianism in that light.
The Calvinists teach that humans are totally evil and cannot do good or even choose good apart from God's intervention. Arminians teach that humans are not totally evil and can freely choose to do good. There is no middle ground. Either humans can or they cannot freely choose to do good.

[MikeH]

Let's look at Calvinism v Arminianism in that light.
The Calvinists teach that humans are totally evil and cannot do good or even choose good apart from God's intervention. Arminians teach that humans are not totally evil and can freely choose to do good. There is no middle ground. Either humans can or they cannot freely choose to do good.

I'm afraid the best I can do is to repeat something I heard which goes sort of like, "God, in his vast knowledge, chooses who He knows will choose Him."

Since this is neither really Calvinism v Arminianism, and I don't even necessarily believe it anyways, I'll just throw it out there just to think about.

[Chancellor]

Let's look at Calvinism v Arminianism in that light.
The Calvinists teach that humans are totally evil and cannot do good or even choose good apart from God's intervention. Arminians teach that humans are not totally evil and can freely choose to do good. There is no middle ground. Either humans can or they cannot freely choose to do good.

I'm afraid the best I can do is to repeat something I heard which goes sort of like, "God, in his vast knowledge, chooses who He knows will choose Him."

Since this is neither really Calvinism v Arminianism, and I don't even necessarily believe it anyways, I'll just throw it out there just to think about.

Actually, I've heard Arminians say exactly that statement. They really do believe that God's "election" is based on His foreknowledge - that God knew who would choose Him and, so, He chose them. I think it's all a bunch of nonsense that makes an utter mockery of God's choosing. "Oh, I just knew you would choose Me, so I chose you." Further, this silly notion of "free will" (which isn't really "free" since there is no "right" to choose wrong) makes man sovereign over God since God is prevented from saving an individual solely by that individual's will.

[samuelbb7]

Howdy Chancellor

I see you believe in Calvinism. That is part of the main argument of Calvin that GOD giving humans the right to choose eliminates his absolute sovereignity.

But that is like arguing that GOD cannot make a rock so big he cannot lift it.

GOD being sovereign can give men free will and abide by our decision since he is sovereign .

Thank you McCulloch good points.

[Salt Agent]

Is there any accurate exegetical verses which would debunk some if not all the 5 points of Calvinism? or the 5 Points of Arminianism?

quote]T - Total Depravity (Man cannot of himself respond to the gospel/he is dead in sin)

U -Unconditional Election - God has chosen some unto salvation not based on anything we have done including knowledge of foreknown events

L - Limited Atonement - (Also known as Particular Redemption) That Christ died only for the one's he has chosen. Not for every person that ever lived or will live

I - Irresistible Grace- God's saving work in someone cannot be resisted but that such grace will result in salvation

P - Perseverance of the Sains- (also known as Eternal Security) Those who are born again can never lose their salvation

Arminianism

1)Partial Depravity - Man is able to respond to the gospel on his own and that he is not dead spiritually but rather sick
2)Conditional Election - God chooses those who he foresaw would choose him/or generate their own faith/ or would be a good candidate (There are different views in Arminianism to this)
3)Unlimited Atonement- Christ died for every single person that ever lived or will live
4)Resistable Grace- God is unable to bring someone to salvation who is unwilling to be saved
5)*Eternal Security* This point is divided among Arminians. Some say God only chooses those he knows will never fall away hence Eternal Security, or that those who willingly choose God, God in return chooses them and will never let them go. Still others deny this point; and lastly Arminius' followers were not certain about it. (Arminius believed in Eternal Security)
Manu, the first part of the entry is whether there are any clear verses that explicitly affirm or refute/debunk Calvinism or Arminianism. The answer is a definite yes. First of all I should say that I attended a Calvinist Bible School while attending an Arminian church, and that I have been a member in everything from Bible Methodist, to Independent Baptist, Church of God Holiness, to Church of Christ in Christian Union, Nondenominational, Russian Evangelical Baptist, Nazarene, to PCA and Evangelical Free Church of America, so I have been an insider, instead of making all kinds of assumptions about what Calvinist or Arminians believe. One of the biggest problems in the discussion comes because people have skewed definitions, or don't define their terms. Your definition of Armininism shows either ignorance of what Arminians teach and believe, or else malice in stating something that you know to be false. It is better to give someone the benefit of the doubt and say that they were ignorant, instead of liars. Partial Depravity is a red herring - the real issue is Adamic or Inherent Sin Nature, -that all men, all mankind are conceived in sin, and are spiritually dead. Arminians and Calvinists alike believe this. Without the inbred, Adamic Sin nature, [if mankind were not cursed by the fall], then redemption and Christ's birth and death are of no point.
Then your definition of Resistible Grace is flawed. Being able to articulate the points fairly and accurately shows one has an accurate grasp of the issue. When you can't articulate the point correctly, then it shows one's poor understanding of the overall discussion. Arminians don't believe that "God is unable...". A better way to state it is that Arminians believe that people may reject or refuse God's free gift, but this does not diminish, nor detract from his gift.
Samuelbb7 wrote an excellent post and listed some of the verses explicitly. Many Calvinists frequently use circular logic and philosophical hopscotch to prop up the points, but when I have asked them to give me a list of verses that say explicitly and clearly in Black and white, that Christ died only for the elect, but not for the rest, or that His death was the propitiation for the elect's sins only, or that he died exclusively for the Elect, but not the whole world, they cannot. There is not a single verse that says explicitly that Grace cannot be refused, or that eternal life can not be rejected, or that no one can refuse the offer of Salvation, or that everyone who Christ died for must accept, or else it makes His death inneffective, so they use philosophical reasoning and circular logic.
To make the question fair to both Arminians and Calvinists, let us state us this way, and just make a list.
Are there any verses that state clearly and explicitly that Christ died only for some, but not for others? NO...That Christ's death was the propitiation only for the elect, or exclusively the elect, but not the others, NO... that he died for the elect, but not for everyone/the whole world?NO... That Christ came to seek and save the elect, or the foreordained ones, but not the rest, not the lost, not the ungodly?NO...That Christ came to the world to save only the chosen ones, exclusively the elect, or only those foreordained for Salvation?NO... That He tasted death for the elect, but not for everyone? NO. That Christ is only willing that the Elect repent, and be saved,and that all the rest, do not? NO.... That Christ Hates some, and takes pleasure in the death of some. NO, NO, NO, NO.

Are there any verses that state clearly and explicitly that Christ died for all... that He died for the ungodly? Yes, Romans 5:6 ...that he is the propitiation not only for the elect, but also for the sins of the whole world? Yes. I John 2:1,2... that the grace of God that Brings Salvation has appeared to all men? That his death resulted in justification of life for all man?...Yes, Romans 5:18. ...That Christ tasted death for everyone? Yes Hebrews 3:9...That He died for sins, once for all, the just for the Unjust? Yes. I Peter 3:18. That God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentence? Yes. II Peter 3:9.

There is not a single verse that says clearly and explicitly that Grace can't be refused, that Salvation can't be denied, or that one can't reject eternal life, or that if someone is offered the living water, he may not refuse. Numbers 21:6-9 -the serpent on the Pole is a type, picture of Christ and His death on the Cross. The fact that not everyone will be saved is clear in the text, because many died. By the way, none of the mainstream Arminian denominations teach Universalism--that all the world will be saved. Many Calvinists confuse Universalism, with Christ's universal offer, that provided the atonement for all. Christ referred to the Serpent on the Pole in two of the gospels referring to his Death. The fact that some refused did not in any way make the cure less potent or effective. Nor does the fact that that in the old Testament, the three direct types of Christ--[the Passover Blood, the scapegoat for sins, and the Serpent on the pole] all have conditions or requirements that the people had to do] make them earn Salvation. In all these cases which are direct types that point to Christ's death and Atonement that provided for [but not guaranteed] Justification for all men, there was a condition that was required. The person who laid his hands on the head of the goat, in meeting the requirement, and the person who looked to the serpent on the pole were not arrogant, as many Calvinists say, nor did their refusal to meet the conditions, render the cure impotent, or less effective.

In order to be fair to both sides, we have to ask the question, Are there any verses that state explicitly and clearly in black and white that no one can depart from the faith? ... can abandon the faith? ... that no one can turn aside again after Satan, can not fall from Grace? Cannot overthrow the faith of some? ... that no one can leave their first love?... that no one can deny Christ? ... that no one can make shipwreck of their faith?... that no one can be vomited out of Christ's mouth?...that no one can be cut off from the vine and cast into the fire and burned? Now we just ask the same questions in the positive, and just like the example above with limited Atonement, every question in terms of verses that say that some can/will depart from the Faith, etc. is answered by yes, there are explicit verses that say all the above. In addition, Peter, Judas, Simon in Acts, Demas, Hymenaeus and Philetus, the church of Laodocea, King Saul, David, Hosea's wife Gomer, and the Nation of Isreal are all examples of those who have backslidden, or committed apostasy. Apostasy, backsliding, or turning away from God after believing is the theme of Malachi, and Hosea, multiple parrables, the Sower and the seeds, the Lost Son and the lost sheep. You can't say that something is a hypothetical warning when scripture gives the names of real people known by the audience as examples and warnings of those who turned away from God.

[samuelbb7]

Amen Salt Agent very good points.

[Salt Agent]

Here is a link to a Poll on the same topic of Calvinism vs Arminianism, and how it relates to the various positions on Creationism and the Flood.

Trying to find out if there is any correlation or predictable patterns between these three issues
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=7231

Grace and Peace

Salt Agent

[atdcross]

Is there any accurate exegetical verses which would debunk some if not all the 5 points of Calvinism? or the 5 Points of Arminianism?...

Arminianism
1)Partial Depravity - Man is able to respond to the gospel on his own and that he is not dead spiritually but rather sick
2)Conditional Election - God chooses those who he foresaw would choose him/or generate their own faith/ or would be a good candidate (There are different views in Arminianism to this)
3)Unlimited Atonement- Christ died for every single person that ever lived or will live
4)Resistable Grace- God is unable to bring someone to salvation who is unwilling to be saved
5)*Eternal Security* This point is divided among Arminians. Some say God only chooses those he knows will never fall away hence Eternal Security, or that those who willingly choose God, God in return chooses them and will never let them go. Still others deny this point; and lastly Arminius' followers were not certain about it. (Arminius believed in Eternal Security) [/b]

Unfortunately, it seems the Arminian (i.e. as taught by Arminius) position is not accurately represented.
1. Arminius taught "total depravity," i.e. man, as a sinner, cannot respond to the gospel without the gift of divine grace.
2. Arminius taught that election is based on divine foreknowledge of who would choose him, however, it is not those who "generate their own faith/ or would be a good candidate" (cf #1). These notions were not taught by Arminius.
3. Unlimited atonement, as far as its intent is concerned, is what Arminius taught. However, it's efficacy is limited to those who believe. As such, Arminius did teach of limited atonement but not in the same sense as the Calvinist doctrines.
4. Arminius taught that the grace of God is irresistibly given to every man as a sinner ("prevenient" grace), which empowers the sinner to accept or reject the gospel message and the grace for salvation proffered.
5. Whether one can forfeit their salvation was a doctrine Arminius did not have a firm opinion on.

Allow me to suggest some books:
(1) The Works of Arminius, this is most necessary in understanding Arminian theology. It is better to read what Arminius stated and not what Calvinist say Arminius stated. Below are a couple of books that can help clarify Arminius' Works.
(2) Arminius: A Study in the Dutch Reformation
(3) Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities

I think I briefly but correctly presented Arminius' position specific to the issues presented. The problem is that this debate is started on an erroneous understanding of Arminian theology. I would think a correct representation of the views being debated are a necessary prerequisite for a fruitful debate.

If anyone sees any point here where I am mistaken regarding Arminius' position, please advise.