Calvinism Vs Arminian

[MennoSota]

.

Foreknowledge and predestination are NOT the same and must not be confused....

They are entirely different.

Foreknowledge: To KNOW something before it happens. For God this is absolute, for us it can still be pretty certain. I know the sun will rise tomorrow.

Predestination: To CAUSE something to happen. It is an ACTIVE thing. I will not cause the sun to rise tomorrow.



Does the Bible say God foreknows who will have faith? Yes, He knows everything.
Does the Bbile say God PREDESTINES those who will have faith? Yes, He causes faith.



Now, yes, a tiny few hyper-Calvinists infuse this with the (horrible and wrong) Greek philosophy of FATE, and they turn what is pure Gospel to terrifying Law, and make the whole point the opposite of what Scripture says, that God predestines MOST people to eternally fry in hell. It's a point rejected by classic, orthodox Christianity (and probably 90% of Calvinists) but it is the "U" of TULIP, the whole point is that God CAUSES people to eternally fry in hell because God wants that, "gets off" on that, is "glorified" by that. Some modern hyper-Calvinists wiggle on this (so horrible and unbiblical it is) by saying that God only PASSIVELY predestines them. But of course, that's an oxymoron, it is impossible to "actively cause passively." It's just a way to use a word from TULIP while reversing ti's meaning, trying to evade the horrible teaching of TULIP that they know is wrong but don't want to admit.



- Josiah




.

To atone means to make amends, to repair a wrong. Biblically, it means to remove the guilt of man.

Does God remove the guilt of all men or is it only the guilt of all those whom God saves that have their guilt removed?

 

[Arsenios]

? You will acquire foreknowledge by freely choosing it?

You will know yourself from the life you live which God has always foreknown...

God does more than foreknew.

Of course...

God predestined.

I prefer the translation "fore-ordained"...

God does not leave things to the random choice of men, having foreknown the possible choices.

You are right - He fore-knows the exact choices we are making...

God predestined the choice that will be made

From the perspective of fallen man, that is true, but the Bible instructs us differently...

Whom God foreknew, these also He fore-ordained to be conformed to His Son...

The whole of Divine Providence is based on this Foreknowledge...

[/quote]because God chose whom He would give faith.[/QUOTE]

He fore-knew who would receive it...

He sees the future from the present, the past from the future, and the future from the past...

Welcome to God's Omniscience...

No violation of human will is the Fore-Knowledge of God...

But from the perspective of fallen man awash in the good+evil of fallen creation, there cannot be both human will and divine will on earth...

But there is, and to deny it is the monothelite heresy...


Arsenios

 

[MennoSota]

You will know yourself from the life you live which God has always foreknown...



Of course...



I prefer the translation "fore-ordained"...



You are right - He fore-knows the exact choices we are making...



From the perspective of fallen man, that is true, but the Bible instructs us differently...

Whom God foreknew, these also He fore-ordained to be conformed to His Son...

The whole of Divine Providence is based on this Foreknowledge...

because God chose whom He would give faith.

He fore-knew who would receive it...

He sees the future from the present, the past from the future, and the future from the past...

Welcome to God's Omniscience...

No violation of human will is the Fore-Knowledge of God...

But from the perspective of fallen man awash in the good+evil of fallen creation, there cannot be both human will and divine will on earth...

But there is, and to deny it is the monothelite heresy...


Arsenios

Fore-ordained and predestined are the same thing. Before the foundation of the world those who are elect are fore-ordained (predestined) to be adopted by God. The book of Life is already written. Those on the list will be saved because God has fore-ordained (predestined) it to be so. This is God's Sovereign right, not ours.

 

[Josiah]

Foreknowledge and predestination are NOT the same and must not be confused....

They are entirely different.

Foreknowledge: To KNOW something before it happens. For God this is absolute, for us it can still be pretty certain. I know the sun will rise tomorrow.

Predestination: To CAUSE something to happen. It is an ACTIVE thing. I will not cause the sun to rise tomorrow.



Does the Bible say God foreknows who will have faith? Yes, He knows everything.
Does the Bbile say God PREDESTINES those who will have faith? Yes, He causes faith.



Now, yes, a tiny few hyper-Calvinists infuse this with the (horrible and wrong) Greek philosophy of FATE, and they turn what is pure Gospel to terrifying Law, and make the whole point the opposite of what Scripture says, that God predestines MOST people to eternally fry in hell. It's a point rejected by classic, orthodox Christianity (and probably 90% of Calvinists) but it is the "U" of TULIP, the whole point is that God CAUSES people to eternally fry in hell because God wants that, "gets off" on that, is "glorified" by that. Some modern hyper-Calvinists wiggle on this (so horrible and unbiblical it is) by saying that God only PASSIVELY predestines them. But of course, that's an oxymoron, it is impossible to "actively cause passively." It's just a way to use a word from TULIP while reversing ti's meaning, trying to evade the horrible teaching of TULIP that they know is wrong but don't want to admit.



- Josiah



.

To atone means to make amends, to repair a wrong. Biblically, it means to remove the guilt of man.

1. Your "reply" has nothing whatsoever to do with the post you claim to respond to.

2. You promised you've placed me on your "ignore" list.

3. This is the traditional/classic meaning of the "U".... "This doctrine teaches that God’s election of some to salvation and some to reprobation is entirely unconditional. God, in His sovereignty, predestines who will be saved and who will not." The word "predestine" means "to cause, to bring about." The word "foreordained" has the same meaning.




.




.

 

[MennoSota]

To atone means to make amends, to repair a wrong. Biblically, it means to remove the guilt of man.

Does God remove the guilt of all men or is it only the guilt of all those whom God saves that have their guilt removed?
(Josiah refuses to answer the second paragraph. Watch him spin this...)

 

[Josiah]

Does God remove the guilt of all men or is it only the guilt of all those whom God saves that have their guilt removed?
(Josiah refuses to answer the second paragraph. Watch him spin this...)

1. You stated you'd put me on your ignore list....


2. The "L" in TULIP means verbatim what you yourself said: "Christ died only for the church." It is to repudiate the view of all other Christians (and of course of the Bible) that Christ died for all. You have yet to produce even one Scripture that states that Christ died for ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY, JUST a LIMITED few. Which is the "L" of TULIP. And all you can do with the many, many Scriptures that flat-out, verbatim, state the EXACT OPPOSITE of this dogma is to delete the words that contradict you and insert the opposite.


3. The "U" in TULIP is that God predestined all to either heaven or hell. Predestine means to CAUSE (not simply to foreknow). Thus it means to CAUSE most to fry in hell as His desire and His action.




.

 

[Andrew]

So you shouldn't deny that his election, choosing and predestination is limited rather than unlimited. If it was unlimited then all would be saved.
To atone means to make amends, to repair a wrong. Biblically, it means to remove the guilt of man.
Does God remove the guilt of all men or is it only the guilt of all those whom God saves that have their guilt removed?

I believe you misuse the word "predestined" God hasn't 'predestined' hell for anyone.
I've actually been reading Calvins biblical commentary and you have already shown us that you disagree with his take on Salvation but I recommend you start from Genesis and get the full "Calvin Experience" instead of treading outside into your own theology and labeling it Calvinist. God loved his creation, he so loved the world, did he predestine an oxymoron and preplan that the majority of his greatest creation go straight to hell?
This website has a hoard of free books on theology, find a section in calvin that claims what you claim since you cannot give us any biblical support that 'Christ did not die for the Sin of the world' and post it here for us if you want us to believe that you are even a Calvinist.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/calvin/index.htm

 

[MennoSota]

I believe you misuse the word "predestined" God hasn't 'predestined' hell for anyone.
I've actually been reading Calvins biblical commentary and you have already shown us that you disagree with his take on Salvation but I recommend you start from Genesis and get the full "Calvin Experience" instead of treading outside into your own theology and labeling it Calvinist. God loved his creation, he so loved the world, did he predestine an oxymoron and preplan that the majority of his greatest creation go straight to hell?
This website has a hoard of free books on theology, find a section in calvin that claims what you claim since you cannot give us any biblical support that 'Christ did not die for the Sin of the world' and post it here for us if you want us to believe that you are even a Calvinist.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/calvin/index.htm

Andrew, how many people are born in sin? Are sinners going to go to heaven if God does not intervene?
What you seem to struggle with is the fact that Adam's sin brought a curse upon all Adam's offspring. If God chooses to do nothing to reconcile humans, where will humans be sent after physical death?
What I showed you was how YOU can pluck a few sentences out of context to make something look like it says something other than what the author meant. By the way...nice job. It reminds me of how MC plucks verses out and has them mean something else.
That being said, I have never worshipped Calvin. He, like us all is not infallible. Next time, however, tell me you're quoting his comments about verses found in the Bible. I spoke honestly with no context to understand. I have learned my lesson. I won't trust your methodology a second time.

 

[Andrew]

Andrew, how many people are born in sin? Are sinners going to go to heaven if God does not intervene?
What you seem to struggle with is the fact that Adam's sin brought a curse upon all Adam's offspring. If God chooses to do nothing to reconcile humans, where will humans be sent after physical death?
What I showed you was how YOU can pluck a few sentences out of context to make something look like it says something other than what the author meant. By the way...nice job. It reminds me of how MC plucks verses out and has them mean something else.
That being said, I have never worshipped Calvin. He, like us all is not infallible. Next time, however, tell me you're quoting his comments about verses found in the Bible. I spoke honestly with no context to understand. I have learned my lesson. I won't trust your methodology a second time.

I only asked if you agreed with a statement.
So what if it was John Calvin? You answered honestly and that's all I asked for.
Your defense is that you don't worship Calvin as a god. No one ever assumed that.
You are definitely a God fearing man and believer, I can say with all my might that you are 100% in Gods Elect... but according to you if I even say to anyone that "God loves you and Christ died for you" that I am most likely lying. That's what we are all trying to get you to understand, no one is going to agree with what you ask in your questions to us, because we are sure we would be lying (if even a little).

 

[Josiah]

according to you if I even say to anyone that "God loves you and Christ died for you" that I am most likely lying.

... that's EXACTLY the teaching of the "L" of TULIP. The dogma is "Jesus died only, exclusively, solely, just for a LIMITED few." A minority. So, yes, of course, that means the odds are NOT to any given person (including the one you see in the mirror). Of course, the "L" means that no one can tell anyone (including self) that Jesus is THEIR Savior (in fact, probably isn't) or that God forgives them or loves them or even wants them to be blessed (add to this the "U" of TULIP which means that God desires and CAUSES most people to fry eternally in hell).


Again, the BASIS of all this terrible, unbiblical MESS is something right: Monergism. But the Bible is thrown out and a LOT of speculation is applied, in order to come up with a tight, interconnected, supposedly "logical" construct. Problem is, most of it is in direct, verbatim opposition to Scripture (and I'D hold God is smarter than a few latter-day hyper-Calvinists) and results in a terrible, terrifying doctrine that, among other things, denies faith and means that NO ONE can have even a guess about whether God loves them, whether God offers them anything, whether Christ died for them, whether their faith in Christ is actually of any relevance because they can't know if Jesus is THEIR Savior or if God is causing them to go to heaven or hell (but odds are.....).


What is interesting is to see the "full circle." Calvinism was born out of a protest of the speculations of Catholicism, the RCC designating itself The Smart One and coming up with all kinds of speculation to come up with stuff clearly contrary to Scripture or perhaps just entirely unfounded by Scripture or Tradition or the Councils: self making stuff up. But what did these very few latter-day hyper-Calvinists do? The EXACT THING they rebuked the Catholic Church for doing (but IMO, often worse). Good news? Many Calvinists never bought this and today, it's hard to find a Calvinists who embraces TULIP at least in its original form, it's almost universally repudiated as "hyper-Calvinism." Please do NOT think that the extreme, radical stuff MennoSota is parroting is Calvinism.




- Josiah




.

 

[Albion]

Let us be sure we know what Hyper-Calvinism is. It is not Calvinist taken seriously.

Here is the explanation of what it is:

https://www.gotquestions.org/hyper-calvinism.html

Note that the term does not refer simply to God predestining anyone to salvation but also to the conclusion that because he does predestine people it is accomplished without the need for them to be evangelized or brought to the Gospel in any other way.

To my knowledge, there is only one small Reformed (i.e. Calvinist) denomination, the Protestant Reformed Church, which fits the bill out of all the different Reformed and/or Presbyterian denominations (in America).











.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Isn't hypercalvinism people taking Calvinism to its logic demanded conclusions without recourse to "mystery" or "enigma" or "paradox".

Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God be called according to God’s purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God’s mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity.

Furthermore, we must receive God’s promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in holy Scripture: and, in our doings, that Will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto us in the Word of God.

The implied fate of those who are not chosen is that they will be left without salvation or any means of being saved because it is allegedly fundamentally impossible for them to believe the gospel to the saving of their souls. As [MENTION=394]MennoSota[/MENTION] often says "they are dead" and "dead men don't hear the gospel and respond to it".

Being "dead in trespasses and sins" they cannot respond to preaching, tracts, a bible, or any other means of grace. Dead men (and women) do nothing we've been told.

Thus it appears that the dead will be left for dead and their fate is eternal death whatever that may be. The Lord, Jesus Christ, spoke of eternal punishment. One presumes that is what awaits the dead in sins.

Call it double predestination as some do or ignore it nevertheless the direction of logic is from death in sins to eternal punishment and it is part of "God's eternal decree" evidently; unless mystery, enigma, or paradox is invoked to raise a barrier of smoke that hides the sad predestined eternal punishment of the dead in sins.

 

[Josiah]

Let us be sure we know what Hyper-Calvinism is. It is not Calvinist taken seriously.

Here is the explanation of what it is:

https://www.gotquestions.org/hyper-calvinism.html

Note that the term does not refer simply to God predestining anyone to salvation but also to the conclusion that because he does predestine people it is accomplished without the need for them to be evangelized or brought to the Gospel in any other way.

To my knowledge, there is only one small Reformed (i.e. Calvinist) denomination, the Protestant Reformed Church, which fits the bill out of all the different Reformed and/or Presbyterian denominations (in America).











.

IMPORTANT to keep this in mind.....

A lot of people WRONGLY equate the radical, new, invention of TULIP with Calvinism. While MennoSota proves such hyper-Calvinists still exist, they are NOT typical of Calvinism. Indeed, it seems to me nearly all Calvinists repudiate this stuff and label it "HYPER-Calvinism." A Presbyterian pastor I "met" at another website stressed this, noting that most Calvinists consider TULIP to simply be a pretty flower - and he applauded that.

Folks should not confuse the stuff MennoSota is posting (endlessly) with Calvinism. While I don't agree with everything in Calvinism (Duh, I'm a Lutheran!), there is MUCH admirable in that faith community: above all, the monergism that Lutheranism and Calvinism share. We apply it a bit differently, but share it completely.

 

[Albion]

The implied fate of those who are not chosen is that they will be left without salvation or any means of being saved because it is allegedly fundamentally impossible for them to believe the gospel to the saving of their souls. As @MennoSota often says "they are dead" and "dead men don't hear the gospel and respond to it".

Being "dead in trespasses and sins" they cannot respond to preaching, tracts, a bible, or any other means of grace. Dead men (and women) do nothing we've been told.

IMPORTANT to keep this in mind.....

A lot of people WRONGLY equate the radical, new, invention of TULIP with Calvinism. While MennoSota proves such hyper-Calvinists still exist, they are NOT typical of Calvinism.

That isn't what the term Hyper-Calvinism means, however. The link I gave spells it out very well.

 

[Josiah]

Isn't hypercalvinism people taking Calvinism to its logic demanded conclusions without recourse to "mystery" or "enigma" or "paradox".

I largely agree....


The BASIS of all this radical, wild stuff is sound. But these few latter-day RADICAL Calvinists looked at Arminianism... RIGHTLY noted much of it is wrong... and simply over-reacted, constructing an identical, point-by-point, argument ALSO claimed to be "logical" in a tight, neat, interconnected package. It ends up being at least as wrong as what it condemns.... for EXACTLY the same reasons. And yes, it's almost funny to see their ENDLESS debate (lasting over 400 years now) and both do exactly what they condemn the other of doing, both correctly noting how unbiblical the other is. It's why most Christians keep out of their debate (including most Calvinists).


Yes. Both are fine examples of egoism and of eisegesis..... and of an abandonment of mystery. In the words of my Greek Orthodox friend, "A lot of Christians don't know how to shut up." "A lot of Christians insist on messing things up."


But as a Protestant, the part that most amazes me about both hyper-Calvinism and hyper-Arminianism is both go "full circle." BOTH begun as protests of Catholicism's speculations, imputing new dogmas, unwillingness to leave well enough alone, extreme egoism, making the pure speculations of self into divisive dogma. But then they do EXACTLY THE SAME THING (often worse.... IMO, predestination to hell, Christ dying for only a few are examples of dogmas much worse than Purgatory or the Assumption of Mary or Transubstantiation).


Lutherans are at least as monergistic as Calvinists..... we affirm that Jesus is the Savior (not self).... but we affirm that there is much MYSTERY (a favorite word of Lutherans, lol) in how all this "cranks out". This is a MIRACLE that GOD does... and the "mechanics" of it, the HOW God does the miracle, is mostly left as "mystery" (as is generally the case with miracles) but we affirm that it IS God who does it. There is a humility in Lutheranism, in sharp contrast to both Catholicism and HYPER-Calvinism and HYPER-Arminianism. Not a full comparison, but when I watched my son being born (about 11 months ago), I saw a DIVINE MIRACLE and I gave God 100% of the credit and praise for what HE did. Now, I took biology.... I know enough about reproduction... but I saw a MIRACLE and I embrace this boy as God's GIFT, God's DOING. God gives life (physical and spiritual) - exactly how... well..... far beyond our puny brains to comprehend (and largely irrelevant).




.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

That isn't what the term Hyper-Calvinism means, however. The link I gave spells it out very well.

Thanks for the link. Somehow the reference was coming across as a veiled slur, rather than what a hyper-Calvinist is in reality. I would not put Menno in that class at all

 

[Albion]

I'm glad for the explanation. "Hyper" does seem at first glance to be a pejorative, doesn't it? But for better or worse, the actual meaning of this term (which is ordinarily only used in Calvinist circles) is important to this discussion.

 

[MennoSota]

Isn't hypercalvinism people taking Calvinism to its logic demanded conclusions without recourse to "mystery" or "enigma" or "paradox".

Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God be called according to God’s purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God’s mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity.

Furthermore, we must receive God’s promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in holy Scripture: and, in our doings, that Will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto us in the Word of God.

The implied fate of those who are not chosen is that they will be left without salvation or any means of being saved because it is allegedly fundamentally impossible for them to believe the gospel to the saving of their souls. As [MENTION=394]MennoSota[/MENTION] often says "they are dead" and "dead men don't hear the gospel and respond to it".

Being "dead in trespasses and sins" they cannot respond to preaching, tracts, a bible, or any other means of grace. Dead men (and women) do nothing we've been told.

Thus it appears that the dead will be left for dead and their fate is eternal death whatever that may be. The Lord, Jesus Christ, spoke of eternal punishment. One presumes that is what awaits the dead in sins.

Call it double predestination as some do or ignore it nevertheless the direction of logic is from death in sins to eternal punishment and it is part of "God's eternal decree" evidently; unless mystery, enigma, or paradox is invoked to raise a barrier of smoke that hides the sad predestined eternal punishment of the dead in sins.

Nice cop-out, MC. The Bible actually has passages that affirm what Calvin presented and which I present.
What you attempt to do is claim that God has been too obscure for us to understand his means of salvation. Unfortunately for you, we have the Bible and God is not unclear in regards to His election, choosing and predestination.
What God NEVER declares is man's free-will as the means of salvation.

 

[MennoSota]

If one is going to coin a term and call it "hyper-calvinism," that person would have to point to Christians who have neglected their role in reaching out to the world. These people would not obey the commission of Jesus to "Go into all the world." Instead, like the steward who buried his talent, they would not invest their time in the preaching of the gospel, stayting: "Since God will save His elect, I do not need to go or to speak words of reconciliation. God will do it." That person will have failed to love Christ in obedience. That person could be coined a "hyper-calvinist." I have never personally met someone like this, but they may be out there.

 

[Andrew]

Your focus should not be on the Elect, your focus should be on preaching the gospel to the world. God's focus is on the Elect. God does not preach the gospel to the world.