Calvinism vs. Arminianism

[reformed1689]

Of course. Even so, let's remember what the passages actually say.

I think a cause of much misunderstanding of the Bible is people may sometimes subtly reword a passage in their mind to make it align a little better with something else they think, and then forget that they've done that. So the idea gets implanted in the mind, but not actuall what the Scripture says. I'm not saying you are doing that here. But I am saying that the verse in mention doesn't make the statement you make.

Predestination is not spoken of as towards salvation, being justified, for instance, instead, towards being conformed to Jesus' image. The difference is the salvation itself, is that what is predetermined, or the result of salvation? In this passage, it is the result, and not the salvation itself.

Much love!

Ephesians 1:5

 

[marks]

Stoop down because I said you are isolating Scripture? If you think that is stooping down you really are way to sensitive.

Let's go back to what you actually wrote:

you really should learn to not isolate Scriptures and look at the whole.

And to point to things like this, "way too sensitive". Sure. More like, way too observant for your taste.

There's no need to try to put this off onto me when I point out your indescretions.

Much love!

 

[marks]

No. He is offering something that humans do not want. There is a difference.

No difference. Not at all. An offer He has no intention to fulfill, because He has no intention to save them. Others He saves, but these He doesn't. His choice. So the offer of salvation? Empty words.

Much love!

 

[reformed1689]

Let's go back to what you actually wrote:

you really should learn to not isolate Scriptures and look at the whole.

And to point to things like this, "way too sensitive". Sure. More like, way too observant for your taste.

There's no need to try to put this off onto me when I point out your indescretions.

Much love!

You should learn to not be so sensitive AND to not isolate verses and instead look at the whole. There was no indiscretion on my part. I do not care if the truth offends you.

 

[reformed1689]

No difference. Not at all. An offer He has no intention to fulfill, because He has no intention to save them. Others He saves, but these He doesn't. His choice. So the offer of salvation? Empty words.

Much love!

Take it up with God. I understand you don't like His ways. That's your problem.

 

[marks]

You should learn to not be so sensitive AND to not isolate verses and instead look at the whole. There was no indiscretion on my part. I do not care if the truth offends you.

I imagine you say all this to deflect from yourself.

You presume I'm sensitive. I'm observant.

You presume I isolate verses as some disparagment. As if there is something wrong with considering a single statement of Scripture. As if this mean I neglect other parts. As if. As if I'm not looking at the whole.

Rather than give a response to my content, you make negative comments about me. Just noticing!

I wish we were focusing on truth!

But you want to focus on airing your negative opinion of me instead. Pity!

Much love!

 

[marks]

I understand you don't like His ways.

Why are you so driven to disparage?

I mean, seriously! Out of the abundance of the heart?

Much love!

 

[justbyfaith]

Because you don't know what hyper-calvinism and calvinism is as I stated before. If you lump them together we truly cannot have a genuine discussion on this because you don't grasp the basics.

[~QUOTE="justbyfaith, post: 958725, member: 7886"]Go over my assessment of Calvinism in the OP and show me what I have said that is referring to hyper-Calvinism and then show what non-hyper-Calvinism teaches on the subject; so I can get a better understanding of what non-hyper-Calvinism really is.

I'm not saying that you have to do it.

Just that it would be a good discussion for me, very likely.

Thanks.[~/QUOTE]

 

[justbyfaith]

[~QUOTE="justbyfaith, post: 958768, member: 7886"]
As concerning 3...

It seems to me that the point of Limited Atonement indicates that if someone is of the non-elect, they cannot be saved even if they do what it takes to be saved.

I have argued this point with Calvinists before.

I have said that if someone does what it takes to be saved, that it proves that they are of the elect.

But it really does seem to me that they have made point after point that have the implication that if you are not of the elect, you cannot be saved and that God knows whether or not you are one of His elect and therefore He might cast you out if you come to Him but are of the non-elect.

John 6:37 would tell us differently, of course.

Calvinists that I have contended with believe that if someone does what it takes to be saved, they may not be saved because if they are of the non-elect they cannot be saved no matter what they do.

This doctrine is based in the idea that we cannot save ourselves by anything that we might do but that God does all the saving.

Even to the exclusion of the reality that if we place our faith in Jesus, that faith gives us access into grace (Romans 5:2).[~/QUOTE]

Nothing anyone "does" saves them. Or do you believe in works-based salvation?

So, you appear to be contending for the idea that if someone does what it takes to be saved, they may not be saved because they may not be of God's elect.

1) That does not promote assurance of salvation; which is supposed to be a strong point of Calvinism; and,

2) John 6:37 tells us that whoever comes to Jesus He will in no wise cast out. Will He cast them out if He deems them non-elect before they make a decision to receive Christ?

 

[justbyfaith]

Again, a misunderstanding of the Calvinist position. The blood of Christ was sufficient to save all, but only effectual for the elect. Because only the elect will follow Him.

Again, will Jesus "reject" the "non-elect"?

Because obviously, He knows who the non-elect are from eternity past.

So, if a non-elect person does what it takes to receive salvation (such as what is prescribed in Romans 10:8-13 or Acts of the Apostles 2:38-39), will Jesus cast them out for that they were not His elect?

Am I speaking of hyper-Calvinistic doctrine here, or does it seem to be your view, who claim to be non-hyper-...?

 

[reformed1689]

I imagine you say all this to deflect from yourself.

You presume I'm sensitive. I'm observant.

You presume I isolate verses as some disparagment. As if there is something wrong with considering a single statement of Scripture. As if this mean I neglect other parts. As if. As if I'm not looking at the whole.

Rather than give a response to my content, you make negative comments about me. Just noticing!

I wish we were focusing on truth!

But you want to focus on airing your negative opinion of me instead. Pity!

Much love!

Negative opinion, kind of like you have done this whole post? Can we say hypocrite?

 

[reformed1689]

Again, will Jesus "reject" the "non-elect"?

He won't have to, the non-elect will never come to him to be rejected.

So, if a non-elect person does what it takes to receive salvation (such as what is prescribed in Romans 10:8-13 or Acts of the Apostles 2:38-39), will Jesus cast them out for that they were not His elect?

It would never happen. It is outside the realm of possibility.

Am I speaking of hyper-Calvinistic doctrine here, or does it seem to be your view, who claim to be non-hyper-...?

It seems you actually just don't understand what you are talking about. You are speaking in hypotheticals that are not realistic.

 

[reformed1689]

But it really does seem to me that they have made point after point that have the implication that if you are not of the elect, you cannot be saved and that God knows whether or not you are one of His elect and therefore He might cast you out if you come to Him but are of the non-elect.

It's not that the non-elect cannot be saved, it is more of they will not be saved.

 

[reformed1689]

[~QUOTE="justbyfaith, post: 958725, member: 7886"]Go over my assessment of Calvinism in the OP and show me what I have said that is referring to hyper-Calvinism and then show what non-hyper-Calvinism teaches on the subject; so I can get a better understanding of what non-hyper-Calvinism really is.

I'm not saying that you have to do it.

Just that it would be a good discussion for me, very likely.

Thanks.[~/QUOTE]

I've tried to do it with the first point but you keep going into hypotheticals and arguments that I have not actually made.

 

[reformed1689]

Why are you so driven to disparage?

I mean, seriously! Out of the abundance of the heart?

Much love!

What you call disparage, I call speaking truth. Was Jesus disparaging the Pharisees when He called them a brood of vipers?

 

[friend of]

No. He is offering something that humans do not want. There is a difference.

Okay, but if He knows humans do not want it, then why offer it in the first place?

 

[justbyfaith]

He won't have to, the non-elect will never come to him to be rejected.

It would never happen. It is outside the realm of possibility.

So, you're saying that the only people who will do what it takes to receive salvation are the elect; and that the non-elect cannot or will not come to Him, correct?

So, if someone does come to Him and do what it takes to be saved, they are the elect, is that right?

But if they don't do what it takes to be saved, they are the non-elect?

Does that not define the elect and non-elect on the basis of their decision to either receive or reject Christ (election according to foreknowledge)?

How then do they not have a choice in the matter? or, is it only hyper-Calvinism that teaches that we do not have a choice in the matter?

Does the Lord somehow hinder the non-elect from coming to Him?

How is that not the hyper-Calvinistic view (according to your article) that God doesn't love the non-elect?

Can God truly love someone if He has created a heaven that they can go to and then perfectly prevents them from going there and the alternative is everlasting burnings? As if to slap them in the face with all of those who do end up in that heaven who have eternal pleasures at His right hand while they are suffering eternally in hell?

This is love in your opinion?

 

[justbyfaith]

I've tried to do it with the first point but you keep going into hypotheticals and arguments that I have not actually made.

I gave my article in the OP that addresses the five points as they coincide with one another.

Maybe you could do a more extensive post that addresses all five points and how I have misrepresented them by giving the hyper-Calvinistic viewpoint and then refuting it as a straw man.

 

[reformed1689]

I gave my article in the OP that addresses the five points as they coincide with one another.

Maybe you could do a more extensive post that addresses all five points and how I have misrepresented them by giving the hyper-Calvinistic viewpoint and then refuting it as a straw man.

Too much to do in one post. That's why I asked you to go one by one on each point.

 

[justbyfaith]

Too much to do in one post. That's why I asked you to go one by one on each point.

Well then, let us continue our discussion of the "T" in TULIP that we are currently discussing.

Do you have a response to my last post?

Or, perhaps you would like to move on to the U and what I said about it?