The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

Gideon, your point is taken I am not presenting my view I am quoting Tulip by
Duane Edward Spencer


These 5 points or doctrine positions were formulated by the Great Synod of Dort in reply to a document called "Remonstrance"
This "protest" WAS PRESENTED to the STATE of HOLLAND by the disciples of a Dutch seminary Jacob Hermann.



The only question I would have do God want to save everyone?

Although Gideon and I differ quite a bit on this particular topic, I think he's done a great job describing the two positions.

Also keep in mind that a lot of people who claim to be Calvinists or Arminians don't really hold much in common with either.

_________________
Στηθι εδραιος, ως ακμων τυπτομενος. - Ignatius |II Timothy 4:2| All Scripture is NKJV, unless a translation from the Greek text or otherwise noted.
M.A. Theological Studies (New Testament), Faith Seminary, Tacoma WA
Member, Evangelical Theological Society, North American Patristics Society.
Assistant Editor and contributing author of several published and forthcoming publications.

My Mother told me that my Dad (who was a non-denominational baptist pastor) was a Cal-minian. I'm not sure what points he held to in either camp but I can certainly understand his position.

Take Numbers 16:5 for example : " and he spoke to Korah and all his company, saying, “Tomorrow morning the Lord will show who is His and who is holy, and will cause him to come near to Him. That one whom He chooses He will cause to come near to Him."(NKJV)... It's clear in this passage that God chose whom He wanted to save, and destroy whom He wanted to destroy.

And Romans 9:15-18 makes a compelling argument for Calvinism: "15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens."(NJKV); and Romans 9:21 "Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?"(NKJV).

So are we to think that God forces true Christians to love him like a programed robot? What kind of love is that? That is not love at all. We can't force people to love us, although loving them first definitely helps.

The Arminian will quote 1 Timothy 2:4 "God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."(NKJV) This verse seems to strongly oppose predestination election.

However, I disagree with the arminians who say that God has done all he can do (on the cross) to save us/you, and now it's up to us/you. Because this certainly wasn't the case when Christ saved Paul on the road to Damascus.

So perhaps God works in both ways. He saves us according to His good will as in we don't have a choice, and leaves others to their own will and lets the chips fall where they may. As confusing as it may seem, I am glad to admit that God's understanding is far greater then my own. So having said that and still searching for truth, I currently leaning toward Calvinism predestination, the doctrine of election because there seems to more scriptures backing it up (it seems to be plastered all over the bible). Either way, its not essential to salvation. But while holding to this view, when I see my Savior in heaven He can't say to me, "so you thought you played a part in your salvation huh?, Haha." But the Calvinist, if asked, will say, "I give You all the credit, thank you" (of course this is all hypothetical). Which looks better? Saying to God that you had no part in your salvation, or coming to our Lord with idea that we were able to take a small part, in that by choosing Him we received Him? I choose to give Him all the credit.

Just like the Calvinist, the Arminian Christian acknowledges that he can do nothing to merit salvation, and so, like his brother, he would also give all the glory (credit) to God for his salvation.

_________________
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity!

Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NET Bible Study Environment
Pastors Pro-Life Resource Center
Biblical Eldership

Well said Gideon, I love your answers and humility, wisdom that you displace on the forum. My question is however, isn't "us" choosing Christ, a human action. I think many Christians unknowing state it wrong when they say, "when I accepted Christ", it puts most of the emphasis on them and not what Christ did for them. In my experience and understanding (in which I do not fully trust), I think God draws us to Him, gives us ability to see the gospel and our sinful condition, and we merely react to Him by recognizing our sin, repenting, and receiving Him in faith.

Having said that, I did read this morning in Joshua 24:22 "So Joshua said to the people, “You are witnesses against yourselves that you have chosen the Lord for yourselves, to serve Him”(NJKV). So this may seem to suggest we have a choice. Check mark down for the Arminian column. However, we do know that this didn't last for long for it didn't take long for their descendants (majority of...) to stray, in which God "had to raise up prophets" in attempt bring them back to obey the Law.

I'm going to stay fairly mutual at this point, for it's not essential Christian doctrine. You can say that you choose and received Christ based on what Christ has done and I'll accept that.

this is 1 reason i don't get so concerned about what Calvin?/Arminius said or didn't say -- the focus should be what does God Say

bookends, you might enjoy reading James White's The Potter's Freedom. It is a rebuttal of Norm Geisler's Chosen But Free. White deals with all of the passages you've mentioned and many more. I don't really recommend Geisler's book because it does a frankly terrible job explaining his views, and left me more confused than before I read it. Perhaps Gideon can recommend a better work supporting Arminian views.

For now I would caution that you make sure to restrict using passages that specifically speak of New Covenant (i.e. NT) salvation. Numbers 16:5 is about the proper distribution of authority and tasks in a new theocracy. Josh 24 is about Israel renewing their covenant with God to not worship false gods. Neither is really dealing with individual salvation, especially individual salvation under the New Covenant.

Paco, personally, I think the issue is both larger and more important than the views of two 16th century theologians because it has to do with who God is and who man is. Yes, "what does God say" is the issue, but we are human and none of us, even the Patriarchs and Apostles, have perfect understanding. Therefore, I think any wise Christian will thoughtfully and prayerfully study what others have said. I mean, we have 2,000 years of information from which to gain!

Gideon, you have done a great job of highlighting the issues in this post and in the previous one.

Both Calvinism and Arminianism hold similar views on the depravity of man.

Both recognize that man is incapable of choosing to be in a relationship with God unless God first initiates that relationship.

The main differences:

Arminians believe God initiates that relationship with everyone, Calvinism teaches that God only initiates that relationship with those who will be saved.

Arminians believe that man can, in rebellion towards God, resist God's invitation to be in a relationship with him. Calvinists believe that God's grace is irresistible.


Some of the weaknesses I see in the Calvinist position:

The definition of what constitutes a "work" doesn't align with a normal everyday understanding; its definition demonstrates the kind of linguistic gymnastics employed by orthodox Judaism rather than an the understanding of the term used in everyday speech. To explain what I mean, sometimes a child will do something to merit the gift i.e. good grades, good behavior, etc... and sometimes a child has done nothing to merit a gift they are given. When a parent gives gifts to their children, they never speak of how their children have merited that gift simply by the act of accepting that gift from their parents; if a child has done something to merit the gift it is the action worthy of merit that a parent describes. However, the idea that the act of accepting a gift is a "work" that causes one to merit that gift is precisely how Calvinism defines "work." It reminds me of the Jewish people who have refrigerators which leave the light on during the Sabbath because they believe that they have done "work" if they open the door and the light turns on, but that they have not done "work" if the light was already one before they opened the door. Those outside of Judaism see the absurdity in this understanding of "work" i.e. the same exact actions were performed in both cases.

Calvinism fails to recognize that terms like predestination and foreknowledge are anthropomorphisms used to describe the actions of an atemporal God. I have a lot of respect for Calvin and believe he was one of the most logical and thought out theologians in history, but I think theologians today have an advantage that Calvin did not because advances in physics have given us a picture of atemporality that Calvin never saw. Many of the philosophical discussions about the interaction between the atemporal world of God and the temporal world of man were barely touched on in Calvin's lifetime because science had not even begun to grapple with ideas about the relationship between time and space. I have often wondered what Calvinism would look like if Calvin had lived in the age of modern physics.

I personally cannot accept Calvinism because I do not see biblical support for the idea that man cannot rebel against God when God has shown him grace and I see that God often commands us to "choose" to follow him, and it makes no sense to me that God would command us to do something he will not permit us to do. That being said, I am probably as close as one can possibly be to the line of Calvinistic doctrine without crossing that line and accepting it. I think that Calvinism has a better grasp on topics like the sovereignty of God and the assurance of our salvation than do the typical treatments of these topics within Arminianism. While I personally do not accept the Calvinists position on the perseverance of the Saints, I do believe that the rejection of salvation is not easy or accidental and the continual cycle of being "in" and "out" of salvation taught in some Arminian circles is biblically unjustifiable. Hebrews 6, seems to me to teach both the idea that Salvation is something one can reject and that it rejecting salvation is a serious and deliberate choice that has eternal consequences. I do understand that Calvinists interpret this passage as describing someone who was never saved but the description given in this passage appears to me to describe someone who had a true faith in God.

I would recommend the book "Predestination & Freewill: four views," it is a debate style book where each author presents an article and the remaining three present rebuttals to that article. The authors are John Feinberg, Norman Geisler, Bruce Reichenbach, and Clark Pinnock.

I personally think Geisler has done an excellent job presenting his views and has dealt well with resolving the conflict between the temporal and atemporal.

Thank you for the kind words, Bookends. I also dislike the phrase, "when I accepted Christ." To me, that almost sounds as if someone accommodated the Lord. I did not accept him; he accepted me. And, as you suggest, it sounds as though the individual initiated the relationship. Neither of those thoughts would be true, and the language we use does shape the way we think. I think it is more appropriate to refer to the day when the Lord revealed himself to me and I believed in Christ, surrendering my life to him. He took the initiative. He sought me out. He spoke to me. He opened my eyes. He broke my heart by showing me how sinful I was and how he loved me and gave himself up for me anyway. And he filled me with joy when he asked me to be his. All I did was say, "Thank you, thank you, Lord!", as I continue to do every day.

Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing! To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever! Amen!

That is also my perspective.

I would never say that, although I know many do. The Arminian view of salvation is that God is always the initiator. We never choose him; he chooses us. The picture (in terms of Ancient Near East culture) is one of a king who chooses a maiden to be his bride. She cannot choose him. The choice is his to make. All she can do is rejoice when the king asks her to be his wife and gratefully say "Yes!" Or she could very foolishly say "No." But she could never, ever initiate the marriage (covenant) relationship. If the king does not choose her, she has no hope of ever becoming his bride.

_________________
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity!

Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NET Bible Study Environment
Pastors Pro-Life Resource Center
Biblical Eldership

Perhaps you could include a quote or citation of where Calvin taught this? Claiming that "accepting" or "deciding" is "work" may be valid or invalid, but the issue for me is that the choice itself seems to be what merits salvation for many (not all) Arminians. In other words, God cannot save me, no matter how much He tries or wants to, until I have "accepted" Him. It's the old "take hold of the rope" argument that many (including Geisler) uses. A person cannot be saved from drowning unless he grabs a hold of the rope thrown from shore/the boat/the top of the cliff. God is powerless to save you unless you act by "grabbing the rope." I think that is why many criticize the Arminian idea of salvation as a "work". Moreover, consistent Arminians also believe one can "let go of the rope," as it were, by falling from faith. A lot of extreme Arminians also add the requirement that one not sin too much or they will be kicked out of grace. Thus, a person's salvation depends on first acting to accept salvation, then by upholding one's salvation by keeping themselves in faith and not sinning. The Arminian view of universal previenent grace (discussed below) also seems to root salvation not in God's grace, but in man's choice, since every person has an equal chance to either believe or reject the Gospel. Something inherent in the person becomes the deciding factor, rather than God's will. Granted, however, anthropopmorphisms stand for things - things usually designed to help us understand God better. I don't think Arminians have any better explanation than Calvinists here. What aspect of temporality does believing God chooses the elect in eternity past based on knowledge of a person's future actions solve that believing God chooses the elect in eternity based solely on His own will does not? That God decides in eternity is common to both systems. For me this is the place where I agree with Calvinism the closest (having already agreed with Luther on this topic). The Scriptures place every single person in rebellion against God and dead in sin (which is why they can't "grab the rope" - because they're already dead). Hardly anyone disagrees that without God's grace, no person would believe. The argument is over to whom that grace is given, and that grace's effect. Arminians (mostly) basically teach that God gives enough grace to bring the person to the point of belief through the universal removal of Adam's guilt (prevenient grace), and that God's "draw" can be resisted and rejected. Calvinists affirm that only the elect are given regenerating grace, and that this grace is infallibly effectual at drawing the elect to belief. Calvinists do not teach that God actively blocks those wanting to believe from doing so. Rather, they teach that no one desires God, and that everyone who comes to belief was called to do so and was enabled through regeneration. The picture isn't a multitude of people clamoring to be saved and God rejecting all but a few. Rather it is the opposite; a multitude of sinners rebelling against God and God graciously saving those whom He chooses from the mob. The problem is that "faith," "believe," "saved" or any of the other concomitant phrases are entirely absent from the passage. Moreover, if φωτίζω means "saved" then John 1:9 (where the word is also used) teaches universal salvation. The passage literally says, "That was the true light, which enlightens all men..." 1 Cor 4:5 also has the word φωτίζω. Here Paul uses it to describe when the Lord will "bring to light (enlighten) the hidden things of darkness." Paul uses it in a similar way in Eph 1:18, where Paul prays that the Ephesians would be "enlightened" to know the blessings of God, and in 2 Tim 1:10, where the gospel is "revealed" (φωτίσαντος) by the coming of Jesus. John likes to use the term in Revelation (Rev 18:1, Rev 21:23, Rev 22:5) to mean that God's glory will one day light the earth. In none of these passages does φωτίζω speak of salvation. Just some fodder to chew.

Hey Gideon, I like your maiden/king analogy, but in the ANE, the bride-to-be had no say in the matter. Whether she was willing or not, if the king chose her, she was married to the king.

Of course she had a choice. Not a desirable choice, perhaps, depending upon her station in life, but a choice nonetheless.

_________________
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity!

Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NET Bible Study Environment
Pastors Pro-Life Resource Center
Biblical Eldership

i agree

my pt was often times folks get hung up on what these 2 cats said or didn't say -- we need to research what God Said 1st & foremost -- but, of course, we have a great wealth of opinions with which to peruse, study, & test against Scripture

God Saved me for whatever reason -- my salvation is secure in Him & i played, play, & will play no role in it -- what i must & will continue to do is heed His Word & follow the Spirit & ask forgiveness

Now Gideon, don't let our modern sensibilities and liberties color your view of history. Read Esther. To quote Ken Campbell, in Marriage and Family in the Biblical World, during ANE marriage arrangements, "There is no indication that the bride was in any way involved in the negotiations, nor that she was required to make a formal declaration consenting to the marriage"*. Even in Roman society, a bride's consent was "assumed unless she made it clear she did not agree, and it was only proper for her to disagree if her paterfamilias [the patriarch of the family] had chosen a man of bad character."** That began to change in the later Graeco-Roman era, when the consent of both families, as well as the bride and groom was usually required.

*Ken M. Campbell, Marriage and Family in the Biblical World 10.
** Ken M. Campbell, Marriage 151.

Amen!

Robert, my point was that any volitional act involves a choice. Even if one is not culturally or legally afforded a say, a person always has choices when it comes to what he or she will do in a given situation. The only question is whether one is willing to make certain choices and to bear the consequences. To illustrate, Christians in Muslim nations are not presently free to proselytize among Muslims. And Muslims are not free to convert to Christianity. But those cultural and legal straits do not negate the reality that both Christians and Muslims living in those environs can make choices contrary to what is "allowed."

_________________
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity!

Forum Code of Conduct
The Bible NETWork Doctrinal Statement
The NET Bible Study Environment
Pastors Pro-Life Resource Center
Biblical Eldership