Calvinism Vs Arminian

[Andrew]

That acronym does not claim what you say it does.

I suggest you read someone other than the ignorant folk who denigrate the acronym here at CH.

https://www.ligonier.org/blog/tulip-and-reformed-theology-introduction/

Read it and gain more understanding than Jo-Jo.

You claim that Christ's atonement is limited to a few whom God has pre selected thus you confirm that God also selected the majority for which the atonement is pre rejected -for and by God as he willed it from the beginning...
This juxtaposition makes God out to be an oxymoron and I believe your theology has either lost it's original marbles or has been defunct since its conception, falling short of acceptance by those -many of whom -claim to be Gods children.
I mean really Patrick how else am I expected to think when someone hands me a TULIP?

 

[MennoSota]

You claim that Christ's atonement is limited to a few whom God has pre selected thus you confirm that God also selected the majority for which the atonement is pre rejected -for and by God as he willed it from the beginning...
This juxtaposition makes God out to be an oxymoron and I believe your theology has either lost it's original marbles or has been defunct since its conception, falling short of acceptance by those -many of whom -claim to be Gods children.
I mean really Patrick how else am I expected to think when someone hands me a TULIP?

Was God require to atone for anyone?

Here's the definition of atonement.
Atonement theologically speaks of*God's acting in human history to reestablish the original relationship between God and man by dealing with*sin. To atone means to make amends, to repair a wrong. Biblically, it means to remove the guilt of man.*
Man is a sinner (Rom. 5:8) and cannot atone for himself. Therefore, it was the love of the Father that sent Jesus (1 John 4:10) to die in our place (1 Pet. 3:18) for our sins (1 Pet. 2:24). Because of the atonement, our fellowship with God is restored (Rom. 5:10).*
https://carm.org/dictionary-atonement

 

[MennoSota]

Was God require to atone for anyone?

Here's the definition of atonement.
Atonement theologically speaks of*God's acting in human history to reestablish the original relationship between God and man by dealing with*sin. To atone means to make amends, to repair a wrong. Biblically, it means to remove the guilt of man.*
Man is a sinner (Rom. 5:8) and cannot atone for himself. Therefore, it was the love of the Father that sent Jesus (1 John 4:10) to die in our place (1 Pet. 3:18) for our sins (1 Pet. 2:24). Because of the atonement, our fellowship with God is restored (Rom. 5:10).*
https://carm.org/dictionary-atonement

Since this is the biblical definition of atonement, can you see the immense problem that unlimited (universal) atonement presents?

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Pause for thought. If election is truly unconditional then there is absolutely no condition that applies before election happens.

Do you need to hear the gospel before you believe it? Is that a condition that generally applies to election?

What is said in holy scripture about this?

Romans 10:5-21 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them. 6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above: ) 7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) 8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; 9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. 12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. 13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? 17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. 18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world. 19 But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you. 20 But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me. 21 But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.[/COLOR]

There is a condition that applies to election - one must hear the gospel to believe it and one must believe to be elect.

Unconditional Election
https://www.ligonier.org/blog/tulip-and-reformed-theology-unconditional-election/

[quote="Unconditional Election" link]However, in the case of these twins, God reversed the process and gave the blessing not to the elder but to the younger. The point that the Apostle labors here is that God not only makes this decision prior to the twins’ births, He does it without a view to anything they would do, either good or evil, so that the purposes of God might stand.​

[/quote]

Methinks there is a problem... (Don't tell R.C. Sproul)

Eta - There's an inherent problem with the final thought from the 'election' link as well. There's an assumption there that what man may/may not do could (in some way) cause the purposes of God not to stand. In the end, what we do/don't do would never stand in the way of the ultimate will of God and his purposes.

 

[MennoSota]

Methinks there is a problem... (Don't tell R.C. Sproul)

Eta - There's an inherent problem with the final thought from the 'election' link as well. There's an assumption there that what man may/may not do could (in some way) cause the purposes of God not to stand. In the end, what we do/don't do would never stand in the way of the ultimate will of God and his purposes.​

No, you are claiming something that Sproul does not say or infer. You have simply misunderstood.​

 

[Andrew]

Was God required to atone for anyone?

No creature should ever question their Creator's requirements. How silly.
I agree that we as rebellious heirs of Adams transgression and natural sinners do not want what is "fair" DEATH.
I understand that we are in complete ruin in Gods eyes but sin did not just come solely from man, it came first through disobedient angels
To whom is the lake of fire allotted?
The Devil and his angels and every anti Christ spirit and false prophet that follow.

God is Love and God wills that not one perish.

"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand."
Ephesians 6:12-13

 

[MennoSota]

No creature should ever question their Creator's requirements. How silly.
I agree that we as rebellious heirs of Adams transgression and natural sinners do not want what is "fair" DEATH.
I understand that we are in complete ruin in Gods eyes but sin did not just come solely from man, it came first through disobedient angels
To whom is the lake of fire allotted?
The Devil and his angels and every anti Christ spirit and false prophet that follow.

God is Love and God wills that not one perish.

"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand."
Ephesians 6:12-13

Let me rephrase so you can't weasel out.
Has God promised to save anyone? Is there a verse that promises all humans that God will save them because God is obligated?

 

[Andrew]

Let me rephrase so you can't weasel out.
Has God promised to save anyone? Is there a verse that promises all humans that God will save them because God is obligated?

Nope, there is not one verse in the Bible that stretches at any point that we have any control or dominant will over God.

 

[MennoSota]

Nope, there is not one verse in the Bible that stretches at any point that we have any control or dominant will over God.

That's not even close to what I asked or said.
Where does God promise and obligate Himself to save people whom He has not first chosen?

 

[Andrew]

That's not even close to what I asked or said.
Where does God promise and obligate Himself to save people whom He has not first chosen?

I dunno, didn't he promise his chosen people/the Israelites a Messiah?
Were they gentile?

 

[MennoSota]

I dunno, didn't he promise his chosen people/the Israelites a Messiah?
Were they gentile?

Have you not read who the children of the promise are? Have you not read about being grafted in? Have you not read that not all Israel is Israel?
Pick up your Bible, Andrew.

 

[MoreCoffee]

No, you are claiming something that Sproul does not say or infer. You have simply misunderstood.

I see that for you the opinions of "blessed Sproul" decide the issue, so much so that you recommend Sproul's opinions as defining opinions for deciding the confines of the U of TULIP.

Thus spake Sproul and thus it must be.

Yet saint Paul, a more worthy worthy perhaps than R C Sproul was.

Saint Paul spoke of hearing the gospel as a precondition for believing it.

And even though it may seem a trivial precondition because it is so obvious yet it is a precondition nevertheless.

And it has profound practical implications.

Because - as saint Paul reasons - how shall they (people in general, but specifically those who believe) believe unless they hear the gospel.

And how shall they hear the gospel unless somebody preaches it to them.

And this leads to a question:

Only people who believe are elect and they must hear the gospel to believe
yet the gospel is not preached everywhere and to everyone
Some live their life without ever hearing the gospel
Many, perhaps the vast majority of human beings who have ever lived, have not heard the gospel.
In 33 AD how many in China, India, the Americas, the pacific ocean islands, Russia, France, Great Britain, And all the distant parts of the earth heard the gospel?
Today how many in Russia, Europe, South America, India, Africa hear the gospel - I mean the message that [MENTION=394]MennoSota[/MENTION] says is the gospel.
So does "Sovereign election" mean that those who do not hear will perish without being elect despite no one being sent to preach the gospel to them?
​

Evidently it does.

And what of infants who cannot (according to [MENTION=394]MennoSota[/MENTION]'s theology) believe and hence cannot be baptised because belief is necessary before baptism.
How many infants who die in infancy can be elect if they do not believe?
How does R C Sproul answer that?

I think he baptised babies, because he was not a Baptist.

Maybe that is why Sproul preferred to call it Sovereign Election?
Because that way babies, and those who never heard the gospel could possibly be elect by Sovereign election … maybe … possibly?

 

[Josiah]

Most Lutherans are synergists

Laughably absurd. As everyone knows.


[MENTION=394]MennoSota[/MENTION], instead of your constant throwing out absurd things entirely unsubstantiated, how about showing this silly accusation has any truth in it. I challenge you to this: QUOTE THE LUTHERAN CONFESSIONS AS THEY ADDRESS JUSTIFICATION AND UNDERLINE THE WORDS THAT INDICATE THAT LUTHERANS REJECT THAT JESUS IS THE SAVIOR AND TEACH THAT FALLEN UNREGENERATE MAN MUST COOPERATE AND DO THEIR PART IN ORDER TO BE JUSTIFIED.


You won't. Because you know you can't. We all know it.


This is just more of the absurd, illogical rubric of hyper-Calvinists: There are only two positions - radical hyper-Calvinism or radical hyper-Arminianism, so if a person isn't one, ergo they are the other. Since I (like nearly every other Christian) doesn't agree with TULIP, ergo I'm a synergistic Arminianist. Just as you've repeatedly . It's silly. It's amazingly illogical. It's like saying because I don't agree that a certain Ford Mustang is white, ERGO I insist that it's black. Maybe it's red, lol. It's just one of the illogical games some hyper-Calvinists play....


Now, rather than these games, how about presenting the Scripture that states that God's grace is "irresistable." And we're all still waiting for the verse that says that Jesus died ONLY for the church.





.

 

[MennoSota]

I see that for you the opinions of "blessed Sproul" decide the issue, so much so that you recommend Sproul's opinions as defining opinions for deciding the confines of the U of TULIP.

Thus spake Sproul and thus it must be.

Yet saint Paul, a more worthy worthy perhaps than R C Sproul was.

Saint Paul spoke of hearing the gospel as a precondition for believing it.

And even though it may seem a trivial precondition because it is so obvious yet it is a precondition nevertheless.

And it has profound practical implications.

Because - as saint Paul reasons - how shall they (people in general, but specifically those who believe) believe unless they hear the gospel.

And how shall they hear the gospel unless somebody preaches it to them.

And this leads to a question:

Only people who believe are elect and they must hear the gospel to believe
yet the gospel is not preached everywhere and to everyone
Some live their life without ever hearing the gospel
Many, perhaps the vast majority of human beings who have ever lived, have not heard the gospel.
In 33 AD how many in China, India, the Americas, the pacific ocean islands, Russia, France, Great Britain, And all the distant parts of the earth heard the gospel?
Today how many in Russia, Europe, South America, India, Africa hear the gospel - I mean the message that [MENTION=394]MennoSota[/MENTION] says is the gospel.
So does "Sovereign election" mean that those who do not hear will perish without being elect despite no one being sent to preach the gospel to them?
​

Evidently it does.

And what of infants who cannot (according to [MENTION=394]MennoSota[/MENTION]'s theology) believe and hence cannot be baptised because belief is necessary before baptism.
How many infants who die in infancy can be elect if they do not believe?
How does R C Sproul answer that?

I think he baptised babies, because he was not a Baptist.

Maybe that is why Sproul preferred to call it Sovereign Election?
Because that way babies, and those who never heard the gospel could possibly be elect by Sovereign election … maybe … possibly?

Yes, many die in their sins, having never heard the gospel. Thus it is incumbent upon us to...GO...just as Jesus commanded.
God, as the Sovereign whom humans are rebelling against, is not obligated to reconcile rebels to himself. He will, however, reconcile those whom He chooses to reconcile. This is His right as the Sovereign King in His Kingdom.
God may extend grace to infants. We read in 2 Samuel where David's infant child dies and David declares that he will go to see his child one day. God put that statement there for a reason. I believe it indicates an extension of grace to these tiny ones who are born in rebellion to the King.
Scripture is filled with passages (not just a sentence) expressing the five general views of Reformed theology.
Jo-Jo and you seem to think there is no scriptural evidence. That's your ignorance speaking. I simply call you to read your Bible and let go of your traditions.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yes, many die in their sins, having never heard the gospel. Thus it is incumbent upon us to...GO...just as Jesus commanded.
God, as the Sovereign whom humans are rebelling against, is not obligated to reconcile rebels to himself. He will, however, reconcile those whom He chooses to reconcile. This is His right as the Sovereign King in His Kingdom.
God may extend grace to infants. We read in 2 Samuel where David's infant child dies and David declares that he will go to see his child one day. God put that statement there for a reason. I believe it indicates an extension of grace to these tiny ones who are born in rebellion to the King.
Scripture is filled with passages (not just a sentence) expressing the five general views of Reformed theology.
Jo-Jo and you seem to think there is no scriptural evidence. That's your ignorance speaking. I simply call you to read your Bible and let go of your traditions.

So the U of TULIP is wrong, and maybe a S will do as substitute so you'd have TSLIP. Except the L is gone and the I too. You have TSP then. Well, maybe you have TSLIP but others, Lutherans for example, seem to be at TSP maybe, or possibly TP.

 

[MennoSota]

So the U of TULIP is wrong, and maybe a S will do as substitute so you'd have TSLIP. Except the L is gone and the I too. You have TSP then. Well, maybe you have TSLIP but others, Lutherans for example, seem to be at TSP maybe, or possibly TP.

MC, do you think you will merit God's salvation by your own goodness?

 

[MoreCoffee]

MC, do you think you will merit God's salvation by your own goodness?

As every faithful Catholic does I too rely on the mercy and grace of the Lord, Jesus Christ, for my salvation and comfort in this life and the next.

 

[MennoSota]

As every faithful Catholic does I too rely on the mercy and grace of the Lord, Jesus Christ, for my salvation and comfort in this life and the next.

So...your salvation is unmerited?

 

[Josiah]

So the U of TULIP is wrong, and maybe a S will do as substitute so you'd have TSLIP. Except the L is gone and the I too. You have TSP then. Well, maybe you have TSLIP but others, Lutherans for example, seem to be at TSP maybe, or possibly TP.

Lutherans have the "T" (because we are Monergists) but we put it in the opposite way, "Jesus is the Savior"

Lutherans have half of the "P" - election to faith. But we reject the opposite, we have no election to damnation.

Lutherans reject the rest of TULIP as either wrong or just entirely unsupported speculation.

TULIP is unique to a tiny minority of Calvinists (Calvinists refer to them as "hyper-Calvinists" and generally repudiate them); Calvinists in turn are a fairly small minority of Protestants. Hyper-Calvinists and hyper-Arminianists have been (correctly) pointing out the errors of each other for 400 years, getting nowhere because both systems are tight, interconnected constructions and both just play "the shell game" ("A must be right because B is, and B is right because A is." So why is A right? Because B is. So why is B right? Because A is). And both insist there are only TWO positions: hyper-Calvinism and hyper-Arminianism.




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

So...your salvation is unmerited?

Yes, God's grace to me is unmerited that is why it is grace, and salvation is by grace so all the saved are saved by grace not by works. No one merits salvation even though many have done meritorious good works by the grace of God. Salvation is by the grace of God, it is an act of mercy not a payment of a debt.