Calvinism Vs Arminian

[MennoSota]

No. Obviously, I'm disagreeing with your "logic" that if one part of TULIP is correct, ergo ALL of it is correct. How absurd, how illogical.



You have not yet produced even one verse that remotely teaches that Jesus died ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY, JUST for the few , the elect, and no others. Now you admit why you haven't even tried, it's just something you think is "logical."


You have not yet produced anything to prove that the MANY Scriptures that flat-out, boldly, obviously, undeniable contradict your teaching are all wrong. Just your "logic" trumps God's clear words.


All you have is that if it's wrong, that (in your opinion) creates a "contradiction" for yourself. Well, that's YOUR problem, not God's.









.

They all fit as one, Josiah. There is no such thing as a 4 point Calvinist, or a 3 point, or...
When you reject one you end up with a major contradiction that you must try to overcome. This is why you are so conflicted. You reject particular atonement and that causes problems in your theology. Unmerited election is not possible without particular atonement. Irresistible grace is not possible without unmerited election and particular atonement. They are one, yet stated in five points so that people can see the process of salvation. Once again, you miss the forest for the trees.
I shared the context around every verse you claimed. I showed you how they present particular atonement. You reject what I shared because context means nothing to you when you prooftext a sentence out of context. Josiah, you are still thinking like a Roman Catholic.

 

[Albion]

• Total depravity, Human nature is stricken, this is true, yet it is not erased, it is inclined to sin but it is not nothing but sinfulness, the T of TULIP is wrong. Had it been a L for Limited ability then it would be right.

• 
  
  That, like most of the rationalizations that follow in your post concerning the rest of TULIP are mainly wishful thinking. Consider that ALL OF US inherit the more visible consequences of Adam's sin--physical death, having to work for our daily bread, etc. None of that is repealed because we did not eat of the forbidden fruit personally.
  
  So why would it make sense that we humans are not, in our natural state, estranged from God by sin?

 

[Josiah]

All 5 tenets of Reformed theology fit together as one. When you attempt to remove one you end up in contradiction


.

Your apologetic, "the L MUST be right because the rest of it is" is absurd and illogical.


And as you yourself admit, the "contradiction" you keep ranting about is not MY contradiction but TULIP's, it's YOURS.


.

Are you now really saying that none of the tenets of Reformed faith are correct?

.

No, of course not.


Obviously, I'm disagreeing with your "logic" that if one part of TULIP is correct, ergo ALL of it is correct. How absurd, how illogical.



You have not yet produced even one verse that remotely teaches that Jesus died ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY, JUST for the few , the elect, and no others. Now you admit why you haven't even tried, it's just something you think is "logical."


You have not yet produced anything to prove that the MANY Scriptures that flat-out, boldly, obviously, undeniable contradict your teaching are all wrong. Just your "logic" trumps God's clear words.


All you have is that if it's wrong, that (in your opinion) creates a "contradiction" for yourself. Well, that's YOUR problem, not God's.


.

They all fit as one, Josiah


.

As I said.


You have NOTHING. It's just if you reject this radical dogma invented in the late 16th century by a FEW latter-day hyper-Calvinists, YOU admit YOU have a contradiction. That's YOUR problem, not God's.

That's hardly substantiation for the dogma being true. It's not an apologetic AT ALL.

You reject particular atonement and that causes problems in your theology.

Nope, not at all. I stand clearly with Scripture, with 2000 years of Christianity, and with every Calvinists personally known to me (all of whom reject this absurd "logical construct" and condemn it as "hyper-Calvinism"). I embrace the Protestant theology of justification: Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide. That means where there is faith, there is justification because Christ died for all. Exactly as the Bible repeatedly, undeniably, verbatim states. Over and over. No contradiction on my part, you admitted it exists on YOUR part.

Unmerited election is not possible without particular atonement

It doesn't matter what you think God can and can't do; I could care less about all the limitations you put on God.


But there's no contradiction. Just because God gives faith to some has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with God only dying for a few (and thus odds are, not you or me). Your premise is wholly illogical, as several of us have pointed out. If the IRS supplies a tax deduction for you and you don't use it, does the reality that you didn't benefit prove that it never existed for you (and if you tried to use it, it would be denied)? You insist, dogmatically, that it DOES and this is the only "logical" conclusion. It's silly. It's the antithesis of logic. It ONLY means you never apprehended it and thus didn't benefit from it. Now, you and I agreeing that faith is a gift has no impact on the logic here, it simply means you used the tax deduction because God caused you to do that. No contradiction. Nothing illogical there.


Truth is, 4 points of radical, hyper-Calvinism's TULIP are illogical and unbiblical. That you, parroting exactly what the Arminianists did in constructing the opposite 5 points, simply have invented a tight, interrelated mess of unbiblical ideas - and as you admit, if one part falls, it all does. Think about that. It's not a biblical construct (as we've all seen, the L is flat-out, verbatim, contradicted by many Scriptures). These FEW latter-day radical Calvinists simply did what Catholic Scholasticism did in invented Purgatory and so many other doctrines, they created constructs they considered "logical" (but actually are not) and then said "it thus follows...." until they had a mess, NONE of it with biblical substantiation, all of it "glued" simply because it's all just one extension of supposed "logic" directly contradicted by Scripture. And you inability to stay topic, you being forced to play the shell game, is, in and of itself, proof of the error of the dogma.


You need to stop limiting God..... stop telling Him (dogmatically) what He can and can't do..... stop telling Him how illiogical He is and how logical you are..... stop insisting that what God clearly says - over and over and over - can't be true because it causes YOU to have a contradiction in a new dogma YOU invented (that clearly is never stated in Scripture). A little humility on your part..... accept that God is the Lord, God is soverign, God knows more than you, God is not required to tell you everything and to "fit" your (absurdly illogical) logic. God don't need your puny brain. You need faith. If you can't connect the dots in what God has said, that's NOT God's problem that you must appoint yourself to correct.






.

 

[MennoSota]

As I said.


You have NOTHING. It's just if you reject this radical dogma invented in the late 16th century by a FEW latter-day hyper-Calvinists, YOU admit YOU have a contradiction. That's YOUR problem, not God's.

That's hardly substantiation for the dogma being true. It's not an apologetic AT ALL.








Nope, not at all. I stand clearly with Scripture, with 2000 years of Christianity, and with every Calvinists personally known to me (all of whom reject this absurd "logical construct" and condemn it as "hyper-Calvinism"). I embrace the Protestant theology of justification: Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide. That means where there is faith, there is justification because Christ died for all. Exactly as the Bible repeatedly, undeniably, verbatim states. Over and over. No contradiction on my part, you admitted it exists on YOUR part.








It doesn't matter what you think God can and can't do; I could care less about all the limitations you put on God.


But there's no contradiction. Just because God gives faith to some has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with God only dying for a few (and thus odds are, not you or me). Your premise is wholly illogical, as several of us have pointed out. If the IRS supplies a tax deduction for you and you don't use it, does the reality that you didn't benefit prove that it never existed for you (and if you tried to use it, it would be denied)? You insist, dogmatically, that it DOES and this is the only "logical" conclusion. It's silly. It's the antithesis of logic. It ONLY means you never apprehended it and thus didn't benefit from it. Now, you and I agreeing that faith is a gift has no impact on the logic here, it simply means you used the tax deduction because God caused you to do that. No contradiction. Nothing illogical there.


Truth is, 4 points of radical, hyper-Calvinism's TULIP are illogical and unbiblical. That you, parroting exactly what the Arminianists did in constructing the opposite 5 points, simply have invented a tight, interrelated mess of unbiblical ideas - and as you admit, if one part falls, it all does. Think about that. It's not a biblical construct (as we've all seen, the L is flat-out, verbatim, contradicted by many Scriptures). These FEW latter-day radical Calvinists simply did what Catholic Scholasticism did in invented Purgatory and so many other doctrines, they created constructs they considered "logical" (but actually are not) and then said "it thus follows...." until they had a mess, NONE of it with biblical substantiation, all of it "glued" simply because it's all just one extension of supposed "logic" directly contradicted by Scripture. And you inability to stay topic, you being forced to play the shell game, is, in and of itself, proof of the error of the dogma.


You need to stop limiting God..... stop telling Him (dogmatically) what He can and can't do..... stop telling Him how illiogical He is and how logical you are..... stop insisting that what God clearly says - over and over and over - can't be true because it causes YOU to have a contradiction in a new dogma YOU invented (that clearly is never stated in Scripture). A little humility on your part..... accept that God is the Lord, God is soverign, God knows more than you, God is not required to tell you everything and to "fit" your (absurdly illogical) logic. God don't need your puny brain. You need faith. If you can't connect the dots in what God has said, that's NOT God's problem that you must appoint yourself to correct.






.

Josiah, I have provided ample scripture and shown you how your prooftexting of scripture fits with particular atonement. I have shown you, very clearly, where your position falls flat on its face.
God's word is not a 16th century invention and neither is particular atonement.
Josiah, when a calf was sacrificed in the temple was its blood atoning for the whole world or only for particular people? Is Israel a chosen people or is it the entire world?
You see, Josiah, God has always been particular. It is His Sovereign right as King.

 

[Josiah]

Josiah, I have provided ample scripture and shown you how your prooftexting of scripture fits with particular atonement. I have shown you, very clearly, where your position falls flat on its face.

Come on.... you admit this is a "LOGICAL implication" and it's obvious you have nothing in Scripture since you've not yet been able to provide any verse that says Jesus died ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY, JUST for a few (and thus, odds are, not you or me). And you have been presented with MANY Scrptures that flat-out, verbatim, directly contradict this new dogma of yours. You simply delete the words that contradict you and insert the opposite.

God's word is not a 16th century invention and neither is particular atonement.

Quote one Christian before the 16th Century who stated "Jesus died ONLY for the few."

I have shown you, very clearly, where your position falls flat on its face

No, you have not. You've just admitted it causes a "contradiction" for YOU.... it "contradicts" YOU, it contradicts TULIP... you gave nothing to show the historic, biblical position is false. That it contradicts TULIP doesn't per se make it wrong, there is another option you haven't even considered.

 

[MennoSota]

Come on.... you admit this is a "LOGICAL implication" and it's obvious you have nothing in Scripture since you've not yet been able to provide any verse that says Jesus died ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY, JUST for a few (and thus, odds are, not you or me). And you have been presented with MANY Scrptures that flat-out, verbatim, directly contradict this new dogma of yours. You simply delete the words that contradict you and insert the opposite.



Quote one Christian before the 16th Century who stated "Jesus died ONLY for the few."




No, you have not. You've just admitted it causes a "contradiction" for YOU.... it "contradicts" YOU, it contradicts TULIP... you gave nothing to show the historic, biblical position is false. That it contradicts TULIP doesn't per se make it wrong, there is another option you haven't even considered.

Sure it's logical. Is God's word illogical?
You admit that humans are inherently sinful and fallen...correct?
You admit that God chooses to save by His own Sovereign will apart from human merit... correct?
You admit that only those whom God gives faith are saved...correct?
You admit that human will cannot resist the grace of God when He gives faith...correct?
You admit that Christians will keep the faith unto their death...correct?
You admit that every drop of blood spilt out in sacrifice effectively atones for the sin of the person's whom Jesus died for...correct?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Total depravity, Human nature is stricken, this is true, yet it is not erased, it is inclined to sin but it is not nothing but sinfulness, the T of TULIP is wrong. Had it been a L for Limited ability then it would be right.

That, like most of the rationalizations that follow in your post concerning the rest of TULIP are mainly wishful thinking. Consider that ALL OF US inherit the more visible consequences of Adam's sin--physical death, having to work for our daily bread, etc. None of that is repealed because we did not eat of the forbidden fruit personally.

So why would it make sense that we humans are not, in our natural state, estranged from God by sin?

How did you come to such a poorly reasoned conclusion from the premise of Limited ability when it is so obvious that the limiting of human ability is a consequence of sin and participates in human misgivings about God's goodness? I guess it is a consequence of the limitations on the ability of that much emphasised Protestant Episcopal "good common sense"

 

[Andrew]

Menno you are trying to box up the all knowing into a little 5 letter package.
The Bible tells us clearly that Jesus atonement is for every single sinner on this planet. Not all will believe, not all will respect it, but his salvation is there for the taking for every sinner, promoting the idea that we should go around as Calvinists saying "have you heard the good news? Jesus may or may not have died for your sins!" is not something any believer should condone.
That is exactly what you sound like, it is not part of the good news, it strays the non believer (who already have a terrible time grasping the message) even further away.
It makes you sound arrogant as the teachings are only exclusive to Calvinists.
After learning about Calvinism I found it to be very prideful and boastful for the Calvinists and at the same time very much missing the message of Gods love for all of humanity and his active searching the heart of every man.
You still never answered my question...
Is it superstitious for a Calvinists to pray for Gods mercy on the whole world?

 

[Andrew]

https://youtu.be/PAxcfTYEEOI

why I am I now depressed after watching this?

 

[MoreCoffee]

https://youtu.be/PAxcfTYEEOI

why I am I now depressed after watching this?

That'd be because the video's presentation is depressing.

Just remember

Supercalvinismexpiatesonlyelect no one else has any chance of being made perfect ...

 

[Josiah]

Menno you are trying to box up the all knowing into a little 5 letter package.
The Bible tells us clearly that Jesus atonement is for every single sinner on this planet. Not all will believe, not all will respect it, but his salvation is there for the taking for every sinner, promoting the idea that we should go around as Calvinists saying "have you heard the good news? Jesus may or may not have died for your sins!" is not something any believer should condone.
That is exactly what you sound like, it is not part of the good news, it strays the non believer (who already have a terrible time grasping the message) even further away.
It makes you sound arrogant as the teachings are only exclusive to Calvinists.
After learning about Calvinism I found it to be very prideful and boastful for the Calvinists and at the same time very much missing the message of Gods love for all of humanity and his active searching the heart of every man.
You still never answered my question...
Is it superstitious for a Calvinists to pray for Gods mercy on the whole world?

[MENTION=387]Andrew[/MENTION]




Correct.


Arminus was followed by some latter-day radical followers who came up with a tight, inter-connected (and unbiblical) 5 points in summery of their heresy, their new invention. It might SEEM "logical" to those who know nothing about logic, but ti's really just unbiblical heresy, all interconnected; "A is right because B is right which is right because A is right....."

Calvin was followed by a tiny few latter-day radical followers who noted the heresy of those latter-day Arminianists and responded by countering with opposite 5 points in summery of their heresy, their new invention (don't pin all this on Calvin) but it's really just unbiblical heresy, all interconnected: "A is right because B is right which is right because A is right....."

Same/same




NEITHER can substantiate their radical, new inventions because neither is biblical (not to say PARTS of it aren't, like most heresy there is SOME truth). They can TWIST some Scriptures to CLAIM support but it falls horribly short. And neither has ANY support from Tradition, the Councils, etc. BOTH sides are quick to point out the illogic and unbiblical teachings of the other (each of the sides has been proving the other wrong for over 400 years) but neither sees that they are doing exactly what the other is doing. Both play "the shell game." Both employ some of the most radical, absurd eisegesis ever, both have created a horrible, terrifying new theology. And nearly all Protestants have rejected both. True, both have elements of truth but the systems are heresy, as each side proves of the other.



Realizing their theology is unbiblical and illogical, often both 'sides' try to insist these are the only two options, one of these radical invented heresies of the late 16th Century. So Arminianists will insist they must be right because TULIP is wrong (did I say how illogical both sides are?) and the hyper-Calvinists do the same thing. "You are an Arminianists!" The hyper-Calvinists will say if you note the error or their invention. It's part of "the shell game" both play.


Actually, to their credit, Calvinists have largely acknowledged the heresy of what they now call "HYPER-Calvinism" and have largely abandoned TULIP (especially the "L" part but actually 3 or 4 of the parts as they wer4 originally proclaimed). I personally don't know a single Calvinists who accepts TULIP as originally developed, indeed, all the Calvinists known to me take view close to Lutheranism here, returning to the sound Protestant view of Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide. BUT such is not generally true in hyper-Arminianism. That is more popular than ever.



A blessed Epiphany to all!



- Josiah




.

 

[Josiah]

Josiah, you refuse to acknowledge or see what you have written, which contradicts itself. Deal with that conflict.

There is no conflict, which is why you haven't shown such.

Still waiting for the quotes from me where I state that we are ultimately the cause of our own salvation as you insist I've posted (but you're having enormous problems finding where)...

Still waiting for "everyone" at CH to state they "know" I'm a synergist on justification as you insist I've posted (but you're having enormous problems finding where)...

Still waiting for the verse that states Jesus died for ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY, JUST a few and not all. SOMETHING that states your dogma.... you've had over a year to find that, but... we're waiting.




You claim my position is heresy and a "CONTRADICTION" but you refuse to show that either is the case.

I hold that Jesus died for all (In classic theology, called "Unlimited Atonement") - it doesn't mean all are saved, it does mean Christ died for all. You CLAIM to be in favor of a new dogma that Jesus died for only a few, not all (In classic theology, called "Limited Atonement). But so far, in all these various threads, for over a year, you've not given one verse that remotely supports your position and must TWIST 180 degree, upside down and inside out, all the MANY verses that say the exact, verbatim opposite in the worse eisegsis I've ever witnessed. You TRY to insist there's some "contradiction" in holding that faith is necessary but it is not a contradiction, it is an additional factor.
.



- Josiah




.

 

[MennoSota]

Menno you are trying to box up the all knowing into a little 5 letter package.
The Bible tells us clearly that Jesus atonement is for every single sinner on this planet. Not all will believe, not all will respect it, but his salvation is there for the taking for every sinner, promoting the idea that we should go around as Calvinists saying "have you heard the good news? Jesus may or may not have died for your sins!" is not something any believer should condone.
That is exactly what you sound like, it is not part of the good news, it strays the non believer (who already have a terrible time grasping the message) even further away.
It makes you sound arrogant as the teachings are only exclusive to Calvinists.
After learning about Calvinism I found it to be very prideful and boastful for the Calvinists and at the same time very much missing the message of Gods love for all of humanity and his active searching the heart of every man.
You still never answered my question...
Is it superstitious for a Calvinists to pray for Gods mercy on the whole world?

TULIP only addresses salvation, so...no it does not try to box God in. It expresses God's means of salvation as declared by scripture.

 

[MennoSota]

[MENTION=387]Andrew[/MENTION]




Correct.


Arminus was followed by some latter-day radical followers who came up with a tight, inter-connected (and unbiblical) 5 points in summery of their heresy, their new invention. It might SEEM "logical" to those who know nothing about logic, but ti's really just unbiblical heresy, all interconnected; "A is right because B is right which is right because A is right....."

Calvin was followed by a tiny few latter-day radical followers who noted the heresy of those latter-day Arminianists and responded by countering with opposite 5 points in summery of their heresy, their new invention (don't pin all this on Calvin) but it's really just unbiblical heresy, all interconnected: "A is right because B is right which is right because A is right....."

Same/same




NEITHER can substantiate their radical, new inventions because neither is biblical (not to say PARTS of it aren't, like most heresy there is SOME truth). They can TWIST some Scriptures to CLAIM support but it falls horribly short. And neither has ANY support from Tradition, the Councils, etc. BOTH sides are quick to point out the illogic and unbiblical teachings of the other (each of the sides has been proving the other wrong for over 400 years) but neither sees that they are doing exactly what the other is doing. Both play "the shell game." Both employ some of the most radical, absurd eisegesis ever, both have created a horrible, terrifying new theology. And nearly all Protestants have rejected both. True, both have elements of truth but the systems are heresy, as each side proves of the other.



Realizing their theology is unbiblical and illogical, often both 'sides' try to insist these are the only two options, one of these radical invented heresies of the late 16th Century. So Arminianists will insist they must be right because TULIP is wrong (did I say how illogical both sides are?) and the hyper-Calvinists do the same thing. "You are an Arminianists!" The hyper-Calvinists will say if you note the error or their invention. It's part of "the shell game" both play.


Actually, to their credit, Calvinists have largely acknowledged the heresy of what they now call "HYPER-Calvinism" and have largely abandoned TULIP (especially the "L" part but actually 3 or 4 of the parts as they wer4 originally proclaimed). I personally don't know a single Calvinists who accepts TULIP as originally developed, indeed, all the Calvinists known to me take view close to Lutheranism here, returning to the sound Protestant view of Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide. BUT such is not generally true in hyper-Arminianism. That is more popular than ever.



A blessed Epiphany to all!



- Josiah




.

Luther's followers slept with princes and persecuted the church. Shall we continue with the faults of Lutheranism and it's shortcomings?

 

[Andrew]

TULIP only addresses salvation, so...no it does not try to box God in. It expresses God's means of salvation as declared by scripture.

The atonement is limitless up until the very day of judgment and hell has no power over the body. Not a single person should be injected with the belief that Jesus may not have died for them.

 

[MennoSota]

The atonement is limitless up until the very day of judgment and hell has no power over the body. Not a single person should be injected with the belief that Jesus may not have died for them.

Andrew, does God save sinners or do sinners choose God?
Sinners will naturally reject God because they are in rebellion to God. There is no "injection" of belief that Jesus may not have died for them. They already hate Jesus by nature. What is stated is that men must believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved. That means that rebels must stop rebelling and acknowledge that Jesus is the Sovereign Lord.
Only those whom God makes alive and gives faith will believe. These are the ones for whom Christ atoned their sins.

 

[Andrew]

Andrew, does God save sinners or do sinners choose God?
Sinners will naturally reject God because they are in rebellion to God. There is no "injection" of belief that Jesus may not have died for them. They already hate Jesus by nature. What is stated is that men must believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved. That means that rebels must stop rebelling and acknowledge that Jesus is the Sovereign Lord.
Only those whom God makes alive and gives faith will believe. These are the ones for whom Christ atoned their sins.

So when Jesus says "believe in me" he is really saying "My Father may or may not make you believe in me and you may or may not be picked for his kingdom, I may or may not die for you and even if you believe that you believe you will not know for sure if it's belief from the Father or not"...
Of course because of Total Depravity AKA Original Sin all are rebellious, including yourself, and according to your theology you are not even sure if you are saved or not, so... what is the point?
That Faith comes from God?? Who here disagrees with that?

 

[MennoSota]

So when Jesus says "believe in me" he is really saying "My Father may or may not make you believe in me and you may or may not be picked for his kingdom, I may or may not die for you and even if you believe that you believe you will not know for sure if it's belief from the Father or not"...
Of course because of Total Depravity AKA Original Sin all are rebellious, including yourself, and according to your theology you are not even sure if you are saved or not, so... what is the point?
That Faith comes from God?? Who here disagrees with that?

The person's whom the Father gave him were going to believe. See John 17 and Jesus prayer.

 

[Andrew]

The person's whom the Father gave him were going to believe. See John 17 and Jesus prayer.

"Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me."
John 17:20-21

God has followers and they are his elect and are saved. The Bible says that he will separate the sheep from goats, every believer knows this...
Those who God wills to be saved will be saved, but the disagreement we have is how certain you are that you are chosen and at the same time claim that you may or may not be saved. The Elect of God is Gods personal territory and domain, we cannot understand it precisely but we can know for sure that not all will walk the narrow path and that those who go the way of destruction are not the Body of Christ.
It really is preaching to the choir Menno, it's all white noise to me since no one believes that The Elect = All humanity.

 

[MennoSota]

"Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me."
John 17:20-21

God has followers and they are his elect and are saved. The Bible says that he will separate the sheep from goats, every believer knows this...
Those who God wills to be saved will be saved, but the disagreement we have is how certain you are that you are chosen and at the same time claim that you may or may not be saved. The Elect of God is Gods personal territory and domain, we cannot understand it precisely but we can know for sure that not all will walk the narrow path and that those who go the way of destruction are not the Body of Christ.
It really is preaching to the choir Menno, it's all white noise to me since no one believes that The Elect = All humanity.

Why would I have a doubting faith, Andrew? Is there even such a thing as doubting faith?
It seems you are merely looking for a way to get around God giving His children the faith to believe?