The Question that Bamboozles Calvinist and Arminian Alike, and me too

[Furor]

This is a serious thread, and I would like a serious answer to this question. I don't want to be subjected to a broadside of scriptural references with no explanation. I don't want to hear from somebody who has to type half their post in capitals just to convey their meaning. I certainly don't want to hear from any Calvinists or Arminians seeking to convince me that their side is correct. I, and many others (I hope) would just like a good, clean, simple answer to this good, clean, simple question.

Calvinists and Arminians:

What is the ultimate point of your ceaseless infighting?

I guess a secondary question, though of great import, would be, "How does your argument serve Christ?"

[john-philip]

This is a serious thread, and I would like a serious answer to this question. I don't want to be subjected to a broadside of scriptural references with no explanation. I don't want to hear from somebody who has to type half their post in capitals just to convey their meaning. I certainly don't want to hear from any Calvinists or Arminians seeking to convince me that their side is correct. I, and many others (I hope) would just like a good, clean, simple answer to this good, clean, simple question.

Calvinists and Arminians:

What is the ultimate point of your ceaseless infighting?

I guess a secondary question, though of great import, would be, "How does your argument serve Christ?"

BECAUSE YOU'RE WRONG! That's what.

Genesis 1:1
John 3:16
Luke 2
Revelation 5:5
Exodus 3-8

And that's why you should be an open calvinst who believes in middle knowledge. BECAUSE.

[8320john]

This is a serious thread, and I would like a serious answer to this question. I don't want to be subjected to a broadside of scriptural references with no explanation. I don't want to hear from somebody who has to type half their post in capitals just to convey their meaning. I certainly don't want to hear from any Calvinists or Arminians seeking to convince me that their side is correct. I, and many others (I hope) would just like a good, clean, simple answer to this good, clean, simple question.

What is the ultimate point of your ceaseless infighting?

Calvinists and Arminians:

I guess a secondary question, though of great import, would be, "How does your argument serve Christ?"

Actually it is not infighting at all but two very different world views concerning calling and election. Since you asked the question I am fairly well convinced you are acquainted with the opposing doctrines.

The correct view serves the purpose of Christ by stating aright the ways and means of arriving at the gates of the Kingdom of God.

"Are Arminians saved?"

Probably far more Arminians are saved in our culture than "calvinists." It is not Calvinism that I am interested in defending nor determinism by their definition (or anyone else's definition for that matter) but the teaching of Scripture.

"Is it really important?"

Yes from a theological point of view and from a evangelistic point of view.

"If one embraces Calvinism over Arminianism is one or the other less a man or woman of God?"

In my view...NO!

"Is one or the other a more consistent Christian in his/her Biblical understanding?"

In my view...YES!

"Will the tension between the "Calvinist" and the Arminian cease after the close of this present week?"

NO!!

"When will it cease?"

At the PAROUSIA of Yeshua I would imagine.

What do you think?

[Xmansmommy]

This is a serious thread, and I would like a serious answer to this question. I don't want to be subjected to a broadside of scriptural references with no explanation. I don't want to hear from somebody who has to type half their post in capitals just to convey their meaning. I certainly don't want to hear from any Calvinists or Arminians seeking to convince me that their side is correct. I, and many others (I hope) would just like a good, clean, simple answer to this good, clean, simple question.

Calvinists and Arminians:

What is the ultimate point of your ceaseless infighting?

I guess a secondary question, though of great import, would be, "How does your argument serve Christ?"

Blessings Furor! I would say that while there is a great deal of arguing between Arminians and Calvinists, many sincerely seek to discuss and perhaps reason with one another. I think for the most part we are all truly trying to share what we believe to be true. I do realize that the attacks come from both sides but in my experience it is much more often that a Calvinist will start a thread insisting the Arminian can't answer such and such a question. I think it stems from having the mindset that if you don't believe such and such you aren't a Christian. In my experience here on TWeb that tends to be the view of many although not all Calvinists. I trust that nobody will take my words as being disrespectful or argumentative. Just stating my observation.

[Kevin Wayne]

I can already smell this one going to the Locker Room. :eek:


What I see myself as doing is trying to help others get a backbone and confident that they can know God too. When I see convoluted, lengthy arguments that are intelligent sounding I like to show why its all hot air ...or at least not impenetrble.

People who have studied are sometimes in a postion to lord it over others. I hate others feeling like they have to knuckle under to that. There's a big BIG tendency to throw a lot of things in posts that have nothing to do with the topic at hand... argument by obfuscation!

In short, I want the "Arminans" to get bolstered and stand up with the confidence that they can read the Bible and take God at his word completely, without some "New Schoolmaster" getting in the way.

So I see myself as protecting the Sheep, or helping to at least.

[Ormly]

A poor question is asked. The better question would be: What is the proper starting point for answering why God created in the beginning? Most here only see history from the fall. But it really goes much further back than that. The fact is that isn't recognized is because "fallen" church, both reform and orthodox, keeps us in the quandry of the ways and means concerning redemption and nothing else, stopping way short of understanding God's ultimate purpose for man per Paul's teaching from his own experience of Christ Jesus ... that satisfied the issues in his life and is meant to satisfy ours as well.

[8320john]

A poor question is asked. The better question would be: What is the proper starting point for answering why God created in the beginning? Most here only see history from the fall. But it really goes much further back than that. The fact is that isn't recognized is because "fallen" church, both reform and orthodox, keeps us in the quandry of the ways and means concerning redemption and nothing else, stopping way short of understanding God's ultimate purpose for man per Paul's teaching from his own experience of Christ Jesus ... that satisfied the issues in his life and is meant to satisfy ours as well.

I for one would appreciate your exposition regarding why God created in the beginning And take us further back into the Mind of God before the creation. Ultimate purpose is a worthy subject, please expand as you are so led.

[geebob]

What is the ultimate point of your ceaseless infighting?

It is not pointless at all to disagree with a view that is most tragic that suggests that God from all eternity decided to pass over some and leave them with no true hope to escape an eternity of torment and furthermore, his ordination which cannot be thwarted has with in it the reason for their rebellion and "deserved" punishment.

The character of God is at stake here. Does it matter that God passionately loves everyone and really desires all to be saved or is it okay that there is a class of reprobates, created in the image of God, loved and adored by parents, spouses, and children deeply and intensly who were virtually created just to be thrown away for eternal agony.

The church has taught reprobation and as it is a most tragic and grievious doctrine, it needs to be dealt with. It is one thing to say that people are damned because they rejected him where they could've accepted his grace. At least they had a chance. But is far worse to suggest that they had no chance because God didn't care enough for them and in fact, it was his plan from the beginning.

[GoBahnsen]

It is not pointless at all to disagree with a view that is most tragic that suggests that God from all eternity decided to pass over some and leave them with no true hope to escape an eternity of torment and furthermore, his ordination which cannot be thwarted has with in it the reason for their rebellion and "deserved" punishment.

The character of God is at stake here. Does it matter that God passionately loves everyone and really desires all to be saved or is it okay that there is a class of reprobates, created in the image of God, loved and adored by parents, spouses, and children deeply and intensly who were virtually created just to be thrown away for eternal agony.

The church has taught reprobation and as it is a most tragic and grievious doctrine, it needs to be dealt with. It is one thing to say that people are damned because they rejected him where they could've accepted his grace. At least they had a chance. But is far worse to suggest that they had no chance because God didn't care enough for them and in fact, it was his plan from the beginning.Don't be shy geebob. Just go right ahead and take advantage of this thread to platform and preach your view.

Maybe the larger question here is: does doctrine really matter? Or can we somehow have a religion with no real boarders, we just say the same words and phrases, but don't define what we mean by them...for the sake of unity on some level? Unity at all cost?

[Nang]

Maybe the larger question here is: does doctrine really matter?

Exactly.

There is only one true Gospel.

Calvinists believe it is the Gospel of Grace. (According to the will of Creator)

Arminians believe it is a gospel of humanistic decision. (According to the will of creatures)

Huge difference, and only one view can be correct.

I, for one, do not post to just argue against the humanists, but to stand as a faithful witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ before the face of my Lord God.

Nang

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

I, for one, do not post to just argue against the philosophy driven determinists who cannot exegete correctly, but to stand as a faithful witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ before the face of my Lord God.

Wake up, Nang. Calvinism is not the Gospel.

[Xavier]

Don't be shy geebob. Just go right ahead and take advantage of this thread to platform and preach your view.

But I'm sure you'll give Nang another POTD for hers, right?

[Tercel]

There is only one true Gospel.

Calvinists believe it is the Gospel of Man, created by men in the 16th century. (According to the wills of Calvin and Luther)

Arminians believe it is a gospel of Jesus Christ, taught by Christ himself. (According to the will of God)

Huge difference, and only one view can be correct.

I, for one, do not post to just argue against the humanists, but to stand as a faithful witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ before the face of my Lord God.

[/parody]

More seriously...

I can see the reason Arminians would want to stop Calvinism - calvinistic ideas can be scary to non-believers and might scare them away from Christianity. If Arminianism is right and men have free will, then it is important to recognise that and act accordingly.

But I can't see a reason for Calvinists to want to stop Arminianism. If Calvinism is right and everything happens according to the will of God, then:
a) Clearly God has willed Arminianism to exist, otherwise it wouldn't.
b) What's the point of Calvinists trying to convince people, argue with people, or do anything like that when what they believe is determined by God anyway?

So I can see a reason for the Arminian to argue, but not the Calvinist.

Of course, I personally argue against both, because I think both are wrong and are significant corruptions of Christianity. A religion that teaches mere belief in Jesus and denies the value and importance of doing good is not biblical Christianity.

[GoBahnsen]

But I'm sure you'll give Nang another POTD for hers, right?....and just when I thought you and I were on the mend.

[Nang]

Of course, I personally argue against both,

Not by posting a parody defending the Arminians' side, you don't.




because I think both are wrong and are significant corruptions of Christianity. A religion that teaches mere belief in Jesus and denies the value and importance of doing good is not biblical Christianity.

A gospel of works corrupts the true Gospel of Grace.

To accuse others of denying the importance of doing good is an argumentative strawman at best and/or an exhibition of theological ignorance at worse.



Nang

[Xavier]

(Arminianism as) A gospel of works [...] is an argumentive strawman at best and outright theological ignorance at worse.

Nang

There, that's better...

I'd also like to point out that doctrinal regeneration is a heresy.

Cheers.

[Xavier]

A gospel of works corrupts the true Gospel of Grace.

In answer to the thread's question, I argue for two purposes...

1) Gain a better understanding of theology and the opinions of my peers.
2) Corrent inane and ignorant statements like the one Nang has just provided.

Because I tend to think that the Truth is glorified in the truth.

Yours,
Xavier

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

Nang
What you need to begin to understand is that Luthers' issues with the RCC was not the same as Pauls' issues with the Jews. When Paul talks about Faith vs. works, he doesn't mean generic good works, he means works of the law.
Don't we now do good works because we are justified? Remember what James said.

[Nang]

In answer to the thread's question, I argue for two purposes...

1) Gain a better understanding of theology and the opinions of my peers.
2) Corrent inane and ignorant statements like the one Nang has just provided.

Because I tend to think that the Truth is glorified in the truth.

Yours,
Xavier

If you believe the gospel consists of human works, then you have not yet had the veiled lifted to see Truth.

It is good thing I have arrived to give you a better understanding of theology and some of my opinions. :wink:

Nang

[Xavier]

If you believe the gospel consists of human works, then you have not yet had the veiled lifted to see Truth.

If you believe that Arminianism is a gospel consisting of human works, then you have not yet had the veiled lifted to see REALITY.

And you certainly don't have enough knowledge to begin engaging in a intellegent debate. (You know, one where you don't make up the opposition's position as you go along... :ahem:)

[Nang]

Don't we now do good works because we are justified? Remember what James said.

I agree with what you say (remembering what James said).



A person does not do good works to get saved.

A person does good works because they are saved.



Salvation (faith) is not gained by doing good works.

Salvation (faith) is proven and evidenced by doing good works.

Nang

[National Intelligence Director Phoenix]

I personally would make a distinction.

I don't like "arguing" over such an issue if it becomes a reason that we would break fellowship. I would prefer to worship alongside my Arminian and Calvinist brothers and sisters and have them encourage me and help me and I them, than to be without their support. I need as much help as I can get in this battle!

Having said that, I don't mind the discussion if it's for the purpose of iron sharpening iron. It's only when it becomes an article that we disband fellowship over that I have a problem. For instance, Calvinist4Him and I get along great. He's a Calvinist. I'm not. A Cup of No and I are close friends. He's YEC. I'm OEC. A new poster here, Stat23MJ is a pre-tribber and I'm a preterist. We get along just fine.

That's the thing. Do we agree on who Jesus is? Then let us worship together.

[Nang]

And you certainly don't have enough knowledge to begin engaging in a intellegent debate.

Maybe not . . .but at least I am smart enough to know how to spell "intelligent." :tongue:



Nang

[Xavier]

[QUOTE=Xavier]

And you certainly don't have enough knowledge to begin engaging in a intellegent debate. QUOTE]

Maybe not . . .but at least I am smart enough to know how to spell "intelligent." :tongue:

Nang

But apparently not smart enough to figure out vB tags... :ahem:

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

:lol: You guys.......

[Tercel]

To accuse others of denying the importance of doing good is an argumentative strawman at best and/or an exhibition of theological ignorance at worse.We are justified by good works.
We go to heaven/hell based on our good works (or lack of them).

You deny both of the statements above. Hence you deny the importance of good works.

I firmly support and believe both of the statements above. Calvinism and Arminianism both firmly reject both of the statements above. Hence I deny and reject both Calvinism and Arminianism. Clear? I argue against them because they falsely lead people to think that God is pleased with people if they "believe". Christians who believe, but do not do good works are going to hell, it's that simple. Jesus said to the Pharisees "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cross sea and land to make a single convert, and you make the new convert twice as much a child of hell as yourselves." (Mat 23:15). The same thing can be said to many modern Christians.

From my point of view there's no real difference between Calvinists and Arminians. Arminians are just Calvinists with their view on foreknowledge corrected slightly.

TheAnalogman is absolutely right: When Paul talks about faith vs works he is talking about works of the law. The New Perspective has helped bring this home to theologians. The Bible says absolutely nothing against good works, and a lot regarding the importance of them.

[Thomas2003]

Exactly.

There is only one true Gospel.

Calvinists believe it is the Gospel of Grace. (According to the will of Creator)

Arminians believe it is a gospel of humanistic decision. (According to the will of creatures)

Huge difference, and only one view can be correct.

I, for one, do not post to just argue against the humanists, but to stand as a faithful witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ before the face of my Lord God.

Nang

Good answer - ditto that for me. :yes:

[Ormly]

If you believe the gospel consists of human works, then you have not yet had the veiled lifted to see Truth.

It is good thing I have arrived to give you a better understanding of theology and some of my opinions. :wink:

Nang

Well why don't you begin be giving us all a better understanding of God's grace. You are exhibiting a very elementary view of that which leaves out much hope for the one crying out to God in despair. But then with Calvinism that's all there in those who have embraced it and then find themselves in lifes struggles unless of course you wish to believe blind faith is a "graced" attribute.

[smaller]

Calvinists and Arminians:

What is the ultimate point of your ceaseless infighting?

I guess a secondary question, though of great import, would be, "How does your argument serve Christ?"

It's a quantifiable scriptural fact that wherever The Word is sown satan comes immediately to steal same.

So.

All these "disputes" are an open look at that quantifiable fact of satanic theft and these things are not representative of Love, but of demons who control the minds of these slaves.

In short, anti-spiritual slavery. The cruelest form of slavery on the planet. It is so easy to spot. Really, just look at their "final solution." Look at their "common doctrine." It's all about damning their fellow man. Any common simpleton can see their fruit is rotten to the core. Your's may be as well. It just depends on how good your controllers are at obfuscation.

The accuser of the brethren reigns in the Churches of the world and "they" are very proud of it!

The "god" of this world is the ruler of those who do not love their fellow man deeply, from their hearts.

What a sad display.

And those who promote the truth of God's effective love for all mankind are ridiculed and scorned. This is yet another sign from above.

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves."

Children of hell, all about hell, preaching hell, giving hell.

enjoy!

smaller

[Spinyn00bman]

I just want to break in here and say that I really like the word Bamboozle.

It is one of my favorites.

OK...let the eternal argument continue.....

[.Mr.White.Socks]

Calvinists are correct regarding God's Soveriegnty. Arminianists are correct about universal atonement. The problem is that Calvinism came up with limited atonement to put people in hell, and Arminianism came up with free will to put people in hell. The argument is not really about how to save a few, but about how to damn the majority of mankind. Each side denies a plain Scriptural truth of atonement found in the other system's theology, just to promote a mistranslated, misunderstood doctrine of eternal torment. Remove the eternity of hell, place punishment within the context of the aions/ages, and the two systems of Calvinism and Arminianism would compliment each other nicely.

Maverick

[Furor]

Thanks to everyone who has provided an answer, except to those of you who seem focused on beating their respective drums. Tercel, in particular, seems to have hit the nail on the head for me with his (her?) first post.

My view of this dispute is not that the correct answer does not matter, but rather that it does not matter to us. Unless the Calvinist earnestly counsels that Christians should simply sit at home and await the shuffling of their personal coil to find out if they are of the elect, I can see no reason why the conduct of a Calvinist and an Arminian should differ in any regard. It is in this way that I believe the debate to be functionally useless.

On a technical level, clearly the answer is important, for it is of God. There is a right answer, and it has tremendous implications. The problem, though, is that we can not really arrive at that answer no matter how hard we try. We won't know until it's all over. To spend actual valuable time arguing over something that is a conclusion both foregone and ineffable seems to me anti-Christian.

Many would hesitate to call Christianity a faith of pragmatism, but it is, in truth, the very ultimate example thereof. No better explanation exists for the paradoxes that drive the entire world. When we start to move away from the fierce practicality of the Christian faith, chosing instead to mire ourselves in debates about subtleties, we diminish our value to both God and the world at large. It seems, to me, to be a kind of disgrace.

For my own part, I am an Arminian, though a layman Arminian. I am not a philosopher, or a theologian, nor even an amateur enthusiast in those fields. I base my position only on what seems to make sense from a standpoint of worldly service and my own intuitive and internal satisfaction. Perhaps my chance may change some day, though I hold it unlikely.

In any event, I would like to pose a second uneducated question, strictly for Calvinists, though I will do it in another thread to be made shortly. It would not do to transgress against my own OP, after all.

[Jaltus]

I disagree with the post above me, and in doing so I will answer the OP, I hope.

Furor,

You claim to not be a theologian, yet here you are talking about God. To be a theologian all one must be is alive. The dead no longer are theologians, for they no longer study God but either serve Him or are punished by Him. The living, however, seek God or run from God. Either form is a way of study.

How does this answer the OP?

I think ANYTHING that pushes us into Scripture is a good thing. While I disagree with many of the bretheren here on TWeb over unessential doctrines (much as Nick said), still I value them as brothers in Christ, and He Himself as the firstborn brother over us all, that we all have the right to inherit.

What does Paul say in Philippians? All that matters is that the gospel is preached, whether from false motives or pure, or, in the case of our current debate, whether with correct theology or wrong.

We are Christians because we follow Christ, not because we follow the church, Calvin, or Wesley.

[Ormly]

delete

[Ormly]

We are Christians because we follow Christ, not because we follow the church, Calvin, or Wesley.

Well you just lost a bunch brothers, I'm afraid, who believe Calvin to the only way -- which makes you and I a heretic.

[geebob]

Thanks to everyone who has provided an answer, except to those of you who seem focused on beating their respective drums. Tercel, in particular, seems to have hit the nail on the head for me with his (her?) first post.

I'm not sure if your including my post in your assesment in the first part of this comment, but it has been alleged by others that I have.

You've really loaded your own question by ruling out any answers from an arminian or calvinist perspective as either may be percieved as "arguement" for the position.

and what about insisting that only the practical issues matter. The cocnerns of either group can be construed as having practical consequences.

The most important "practical" issue is that we we are to love God with all our heart and all our being and love our neighbors as ourselves. And if we are to love our neighbors as ourselves, we are to be concerned with whether we can be confident that God loves them as much as he does us, and you can't have that in calvinism. Hence THAT is why the issue matters. So why would you rule this concern out just because it favors free will theism over calvinism?

If a doctrine causes God to look severly flawed and perhaps even evil, don't you think that this would have a practical consequences for example in the great commision? Such views are a barrier to many in comeing to the faith and their concerns deserve to be taken seriously especially when we are commanded to disciple them.

The problem, though, is that we can not really arrive at that answer no matter how hard we try.

as the proverbs say, ask God for wisdom and he will give it to you. After all, we haven't recieved a spirit of confusion. Could it be that because we are reading calvinist and arminian concerns into scripture that it looks impossible?

pushing the mystery button is not an act of humility when it is done so dogmatically. Have you truly saught information on this to the point where you can authoritatively say for all of us that it is a mystery? Just because there is a controversy here doesn't mean that the truth is unavailable. If that were the case, then we should give up the whole christian cause as controversies abound.

[Tercel]

What does Paul say in Philippians? All that matters is that the gospel is preached, whether from false motives or pure, or, in the case of our current debate, whether with correct theology or wrong.What does Paul say in Galatians? Even should an angel from heaven preach another gospel, they ought to be condemned. Presumably what upset Paul about this "other gospel" was that it's theology was severely wrong.

[Nang]

Well why don't you begin be giving us all a better understanding of God's grace.

Good idea! I will prepare a post on that very subject soon.

You are exhibiting a very elementary view of that which leaves out much hope for the one crying out to God in despair.

Number 1 lesson about grace . . .without it no one cries "out to God in despair."

". . There is none who seeks after God." Romans 3:11b



But then with Calvinism that's all there in those who have embraced it and then find themselves in lifes struggles unless of course you wish to believe blind faith is a "graced" attribute.

Not too sure I understand this statement, but I will say that faith is an attribute of God, not man; therefore, faith must come as a gift of God to those who stand in His favor (grace).

And since faith comes from God, and in fact is authored by Jesus Christ, it can hardly be described as "blind." The entire Bible is a revelation of ~the~ source and object of the Christian faith; the Lord Himself.

Nang

[Ormly]

Good idea! I will prepare a post on that very subject soon.



Number 1 lesson about grace . . .without it no one cries "out to God in despair."

". . There is none who seeks after God." Romans 3:11b





Not too sure I understand this statement, but I will say that faith is an attribute of God, not man; therefore, faith must come as a gift of God to those who stand in His favor (grace).

And since faith comes from God, and in fact is authored by Jesus Christ, it can hardly be described as "blind." The entire Bible is a revelation of ~the~ source and object of the Christian faith; the Lord Himself.

Nang

You education is wrong -- consequently your understanding is flawed. You are left with a handicap only you can correct. God's gives you His grace that you might. But you won't because you think you are OK -- you have no need. A reprobate also thinks that way. What makes you to be any different than him since you both are living for "self"? Sanctification is the absence of "self".



And since faith comes from God, and in fact is authored by Jesus Christ, it can hardly be described as "blind." The entire Bible is a revelation of ~the~ source and object of the Christian faith; the Lord Himself.



It doesn't come from God. It comes from hearing about Him. It's your responsibility to not ignore truth [His grace] when it slaps you in the face, not His. The Pharisee's did that. When you "listen" with open inner ears, you or anyone, can hear Him or, for that matter, see Him, . Why stop short? YOUR faith in Christ must convert you to something. That something depends on you, not God. YOU must take hold of what God has already given, i.e., His Grace. When YOUR faith truly becomes established IN Christ you will see it is then that God will begin to GIVE YOU HIS faith that you have HIS Mind and you will live in His life.

[Chytraeus]

This is a serious thread, and I would like a serious answer to this question. I don't want to be subjected to a broadside of scriptural references with no explanation. I don't want to hear from somebody who has to type half their post in capitals just to convey their meaning. I certainly don't want to hear from any Calvinists or Arminians seeking to convince me that their side is correct. I, and many others (I hope) would just like a good, clean, simple answer to this good, clean, simple question.

Calvinists and Arminians:

What is the ultimate point of your ceaseless infighting?

I guess a secondary question, though of great import, would be, "How does your argument serve Christ?"

I'm new to this, and this thread caught my eye, because it cut right to the heart of the matter. Calvinists are convinced that Arminians are wrong because they give an unbiblical emphasis on the free will of man. On the other hand, Arminians are convinced that Calvinists are wrong because their doctrine of "double predestination" makes God out to be a cruel tyrant who damns most of creation before they have taken their first breath. It sounds to me like both of them have very valid arguments against the other's point of view, and perhaps they would do well to listen a little harder, and pontificate a little less.

However, I have much more respect for a Calvinist or an Arminian who understands their position and is willing to defend it than I do for those who think that the Church would be much better off if we would just throw all the doctrinal text books in the garbage. The Church cannot continue to exist without doctrine. In fact, all believers of any stripe, wheather they know it or not, are theologians, for we all have some concept of who we think God is and how we think He works.

Biblically speaking, the Calvinists are right in denying the use of the free will of man in the salvation of the sinner. Paul says over and over again in his epistles that we are saved by grace, through faith, and not be works. If the free will of man is in any way involved in salvation, even if by the small act of making a choice for God, then that choice becomes a work. Not a very impressive work, but a work none the less. And although the work does not look very big, it becomes the most important work of all, for it is the final determination between weather a man goes to heaven or hell. If it depends upon your choice, then you can boast, "I chose God, but those lost sinners chose sin." But Paul said that salvation was by grace without works so that we would not have any room to boast. Therefore our choice cannot play a roll in our salvation, our justification before God.

However, the Arminians are correct is their belief that the Calvinist view of predestination paints God in a very ungodly light. John tells us that God loved the world so much that He gave his only begotten Son. Paul and Peter make it very clear that God desires all people to be saved, and Paul makes the very strong statement that Christ Jesus took away the sin of the world. All of these statements make the Calvinist doctrine of limited attonement and double predestination unbiblical. They claim that Christ only gave His life for those who were chosen, and that His death is not effective for those predestined for damnation. They flatly contradict the Word of God.

This leaves us with something that appears to be a paradox. My free will has nothing to do with my salvation, as God has done all the work and I can only receive His grace by faith. However, God sent His Son to pay the penalty for the sins of every one, but not all of them believe and therefore receive the benifits of that sacrifice. Why is it that although Jesus died for all, and God does all the work in salvation, even giving us the faith that recieves the grace, as St. Paul says in Ephesians, and God desires everyone to be saved, that not everyone is saved? The answer is that no one can ever answer that question. God has not chosen to reveal that answer. You can search His Word from cover to cover, and the answer just isn't in there.

Both Calvinism and Arminianism are man's attempts to answer the unanswerable question. Calvin reasoned that if salvation all depends on God, and not upon any work by man, then damnation must also be determined by God. Arminius reasoned that this view made God look more like a monster, and therefore reasoned that the deciding factor between those who were saved and those who were not must lay in man himself. Calvin makes God out to be unjust, and Arminius makes God out to be weak. Neither choice is acceptable, and neither is biblical. Embrace the unanswerable question. Salvation is God's free gift to all who believe. Faith is not a choice, but a passive reception of the grace of God through Christ Jesus. Damnation is caused by the sins and the unbelife of man. God is not to blame, He did all for their salvation and they rejected the gift. God gave His Son, He sent preachers of the Gosple, He gave them His clear Word, and they chose not to believe it. They have no one but themselves to blame, while we who believe have no one but God to thank, for we had nothing to do with it.

So, why the endless debates about doctrine? Because it matters. Salvation and the character of God are important, and all of eternity hangs on what the right answer is to many of those questions. So, argue and debate away, but remember to take time to listen to the arguments of your opponents in the debate, and search the Word of God to see if the things they say are true. In the end, God is true, and all men are liers.

[geebob]

The answer is that no one can ever answer that question.

according to your own advice at the end of your post, we should listen carefully to the areguements of others and to come to the conclusion that we can't have any answers ignores that today we are in a better position than calvin or arminius to figure out these problems, and part of that is recognizing that by reading our calvinist/arminian debate into paul and other scripture authors may very well leave one thinking no answer can be arrived at. But it's not a position of humility to conclude that you know everything about the discussion to assert that no answer can be arrived at. As your handling of some of the prooftexts shows, there are some things you yourself still have to learn about what scripture really says in some of these old prooftexts.

[Furor]

I disagree with the post above me, and in doing so I will answer the OP, I hope.
I have been rebuked! D:

Furor,

You claim to not be a theologian, yet here you are talking about God. To be a theologian all one must be is alive. The dead no longer are theologians, for they no longer study God but either serve Him or are punished by Him. The living, however, seek God or run from God. Either form is a way of study.
I beg your pardon. I mean to say that I have no formal or even amateur training in this field.

How does this answer the OP?

I think ANYTHING that pushes us into Scripture is a good thing. While I disagree with many of the bretheren here on TWeb over unessential doctrines (much as Nick said), still I value them as brothers in Christ, and He Himself as the firstborn brother over us all, that we all have the right to inherit.
I agree with you on this, to a point. If it pushes us into Scripture but away from each other, however, whose end is really served? Certainly not God's.

What does Paul say in Philippians? All that matters is that the gospel is preached, whether from false motives or pure, or, in the case of our current debate, whether with correct theology or wrong.
I don't really see Paul saying that at all. It reads to me like a man making the best of a bad situation.

Or, to put it more accurately, Paul is not saying that we should preach the Gospel for deceitful or wicked reasons, but rather that deceitful or wicked circumstances can have the edge taken off them by turning them into opportunities for the spreading of said Gospel.

Without a tacit admission on your part that this argument is itself is deceitful, wicked, or a "bad situation," the comparison doesn't really stand. Thanks for lending grist to my mill, though. :)

We are Christians because we follow Christ, not because we follow the church, Calvin, or Wesley.
Exactly! Christians for and by Christ. Not because we have free will or are subject to divine predetermination.

Again, this underscores wonderfully (to my grossly simple eye, anyway) the functional injury of this debate.

I'm not sure if your including my post in your assesment in the first part of this comment, but it has been alleged by others that I have.
I was referring, for the most part, to Nang.

You've really loaded your own question by ruling out any answers from an arminian or calvinist perspective as either may be percieved as "arguement" for the position.
Fair enough. How would you change the question?

I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as though you're saying that we can only know the real importance of the debate after we've determined which side is correct. Help?

and what about insisting that only the practical issues matter. The cocnerns of either group can be construed as having practical consequences.

The most important "practical" issue is that we we are to love God with all our heart and all our being and love our neighbors as ourselves. And if we are to love our neighbors as ourselves, we are to be concerned with whether we can be confident that God loves them as much as he does us, and you can't have that in calvinism. Hence THAT is why the issue matters. So why would you rule this concern out just because it favors free will theism over calvinism?
I am saying that, if the dispute between Calvinism and Arminianism did not exist, and was not fomented at every turn by both sides, the instances of Christians looking down on fellow Christians would be significantly diminished. That's what this argument is doing. It is strictly divisive.

If a doctrine causes God to look severly flawed and perhaps even evil, don't you think that this would have a practical consequences for example in the great commision? Such views are a barrier to many in comeing to the faith and their concerns deserve to be taken seriously especially when we are commanded to disciple them.
I agree with you, as it happens. I am not convinced that the Great Commission is actually reconcilable with Calvinism. However, such partisan pronouncements are not my goal, here. This thread, and the question it contains, are an effort to convince Calvinists and Arminians alike that, regardless of the validity of either of their arguments, it is quite simply the case that they will be doing the more Christian thing by serving the world than by condemning each other. Every hour spent arguing with another Christian over whether he's really saved or not (for indeed, this is what it boils down to) is an hour given over to darkness. We have this wonderful lamp, but all we're doing is shining it in each other's eyes.

I guess what I'm asking is this:

Would it be better for half of Christendom to preach falsely than for all of Christendom to stop preaching altogether until it resolves this dispute? Can this dispute be resolved?

as the proverbs say, ask God for wisdom and he will give it to you. After all, we haven't recieved a spirit of confusion. Could it be that because we are reading calvinist and arminian concerns into scripture that it looks impossible?
Job tells us that not all of the wisdom of God is meant for man. Alexander Pope says much the same thing, for what it's worth. I firmly believe that there are things that man is not meant to definitively know, and that this is most likely one of them. What God does with His property is His business. As He has not deigned to give us a definitive protocol in this regard, it seems almost disrespectful to become obsessed with such a detail.

pushing the mystery button is not an act of humility when it is done so dogmatically. Have you truly saught information on this to the point where you can authoritatively say for all of us that it is a mystery?
I can not say, and have not said anything with authority. I have no authority. I am a layman in every possible way.

Just because there is a controversy here doesn't mean that the truth is unavailable. If that were the case, then we should give up the whole christian cause as controversies abound.
You may indeed be right. As I have taken great pains to admit, however, I have only arrived at this position by simplicity rather than complexity. I do not insist I am right, though I like to fancy I am. The truth, as you say, is, at worst, presently unavailable to me. Maybe it will change. And there's the thread.

I would also like to offer accolades to Chytraeus for his lengthy and well-considered contribution. I am moved by much of it. Kudos.

[Nang]

I guess what I'm asking is this:

Would it be better for half of Christendom to preach falsely than for all of Christendom to stop preaching altogether until it resolves this dispute?

God forbid!

That is the present attitude within the churches today . . .unity at all costs, even at the price of eliminating truth.

The churches today, by and large, are either teaching false gospels that tickle the ears, or they are not preaching gospel (Holy Scripture) at all. This will never resolve the dispute between truth and error, but will only incur God's wrath against the organized churches.

To declare that God's truth cannot be known, is to deny God's truth. It is a cop-out and just another form of unbelief.[/I]




[i]Can this dispute be resolved?

There is no dispute amongst the body of believers saved by the Holy Spirit of Christ. The dispute lies without. (Ephesians 4:3-6)

In fact, the dispute separates the "sheep" from the "goats," for the elect of God will preach the Gospel of Grace according to the will and word of God, and the outsiders will consider it foolishness and counter with a multitude of falsehoods.

Ultimately the dispute will be settled at the judgment throne of Christ.

Nang