Calvinism vs. Arminianism

[puritan lad]

Revival is something that happens to a culture, not a church. Revival is when people truly turn to Christ as both Savior AND LORD. Divorce rates go down. Crime Decreases. Churches open, porn shops close, and drug and alcohol rehabs close down due to lack of business. If these things aren't happening, then there is no revival, regardless of what happens in a church (most churches think that a revival is something that you schedule). For a study on what a true revival entails, try the Great Awakening. Be forewarned, however, that this revival didn't include the syrupy sermons that we hear today. You may be offended at the preaching of Jonathan Edwards (Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God) and George Whitefield. Revival require true repentance, (2 Chron 7:14), something which the modern church growth movement is moving away from.

As far as your question on a theocracy, you are in one, whether you like it or not. It is inescapable. He has "all authority...in Heaven and on earth". Our job, with His authority, is to make disciples of all nations, not to sit back and watch our faith constantly be defeated as we build bomb shelters and await some mythical "rapture" event. That kind of faith, according to Jesus, is worthless (Matthew 5:13). It is a result of church growth marketing, free-will theology, and just plain bad endtimes theology. (Premillennialists, no matter how you slice it, expect the church to fail in the Great Commission. This failure, in turn, becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy). The Bible says that it will succeed (Psalm 22:27-28).

[ochotseat]

Revival is something that happens to a culture, not a church. Revival is when people truly turn to Christ as both Savior AND LORD. Divorce rates go down. Crime Decreases. Churches open, porn shops close, and drug and alcohol rehabs close down due to lack of business.
).

Some neighborhoods are like that.

As far as your question on a theocracy, you are in one, whether you like it or not.

Our government is a republic, not a theocracy. Since I'm a believer, I probably wouldn't have a problem with a theocracy, but some Americans would.

[Jbuza]

So eat drink and be merry for your either the elect or your not? Jesus says whosoever believeth.

I feel that the two positions can exist together.

Mustn't we choose to accept Christ? CAn't free will and predestination be the same thing? I guess we are predestined for heaven because of some quality we posses? Whoever confesses Jesus before men Jesus will confess him before His Father.

I understand your position, but I believe the elect are those you accept Jesus, not the other way around.

[puritan lad]

So eat drink and be merry for your either the elect or your not? Jesus says whosoever believeth.

True, but John 3:16 does not address how "whosoever" comes to believe in the first place. You can't just throw "free will" salvation into John 3:16 and ignore John 6:44, 65.

Mustn't we choose to accept Christ? CAn't free will and predestination be the same thing?

No. Our wills are not totally free. We are by nature children of wrath and slaves to sin.

I guess we are predestined for heaven because of some quality we posses? Whoever confesses Jesus before men Jesus will confess him before His Father.

I understand your position, but I believe the elect are those you accept Jesus, not the other way around.

Romans 9:11 disagrees, as does John 1:12-13, and many others.

[Fortigurn]

So eat drink and be merry for your either the elect or your not? Jesus says whosoever believeth.

True, but John 3:16 does not address how "whosoever" comes to believe in the first place. You can't just throw "free will" salvation into John 3:16 and ignore John 6:44, 65.

You'll find that Romans 10 deals with this (it's easy to see why Calvinists stop at the end of Romans 9).

[puritan lad]

So eat drink and be merry for your either the elect or your not? Jesus says whosoever believeth.

True, but John 3:16 does not address how "whosoever" comes to believe in the first place. You can't just throw "free will" salvation into John 3:16 and ignore John 6:44, 65.

You'll find that Romans 10 deals with this (it's easy to see why Calvinists stop at the end of Romans 9).

Really? Please Expound. Show me where the Bible teaches Salvation by Human Ability (otherwise known as Salvation by works), or where any of the points of Arminianism are taught. The Bible is very clear. God elected those whom He would save from the foundation of the world. Christ came to "secure (their) eternal redemption" (Heb. 9:12) while the wicked were created for "the day of destruction" (Prov. 16:4). This may be uncomfortable to some, but the Word is clear.

[Jbuza]

So eat drink and be merry for your either the elect or your not? Jesus says whosoever believeth.

True, but John 3:16 does not address how "whosoever" comes to believe in the first place. You can't just throw "free will" salvation into John 3:16 and ignore John 6:44, 65.

You'll find that Romans 10 deals with this (it's easy to see why Calvinists stop at the end of Romans 9).

Really? Please Expound. Show me where the Bible teaches Salvation by Human Ability (otherwise known as Salvation by works), or where any of the points of Arminianism are taught. The Bible is very clear. God elected those whom He would save from the foundation of the world. Christ came to "secure (their) eternal redemption" (Heb. 9:12) while the wicked were created for "the day of destruction" (Prov. 16:4). This may be uncomfortable to some, but the Word is clear.

Romans 10:10 - For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

You must have been refereing to this and others in that chapter. It could easily read "God causes man to believe in his beart and causes him to confess with his mouth unto salvation"

I am the elect because I do believe in my heart and I do confess God with my mouth (although I don't as often as I should )

I guess there was no choice for me, I was deluding myself when I chose to stop following myself and turn to God. Perhaps God loves me more then those He damned to Hell before the foundations of the world.

Anyone who will turn to God, God will make him one of the Elect. Don't resign yourself to your destiny Seek God, HE promises If you seek him you will find him.

1 day is as 1000 years with God and 1000 years is as a day. Yes God knew who the elect were going to be before the foundations of the world. They are those that CHOOSE him.

[puritan lad]

I am the elect because I do believe in my heart and I do confess God with my mouth (although I don't as often as I should :cry: )

I don't disagree. But who gave you the heart to confess? (Ez. 36:26). Who controls the king's heart (Prov. 21:1)? What separates your heart from that of the unbeliever? It was God who changed your heart, otherwise you would have never confessed Him with your mouth.

I guess there was no choice for me, I was deluding myself when I chose to stop following myself and turn to God. Perhaps God loves me more then those He damned to Hell before the foundations of the world.

But you didn't choose Him. He chose you. And yes (get ready for a theological bombshell), He does love His elect more than He loves the vessels of wrath which He prepared for destruction. God loved Jacob and hated Esau.

Anyone who will turn to God, God will make him one of the Elect. Don't resign yourself to your destiny Seek God, HE promises If you seek him you will find him.

The problem is that natural man does NOT seek God of his own accord (Romans 3). This is why we must be born again.

1 day is as 1000 years with God and 1000 years is as a day. Yes God knew who the elect were going to be before the foundations of the world. They are those that CHOOSE him.

"Christ did not die for any upon condition, if they do believe; but He died for all God's elect, that they should believe."

JOHN OWEN

[Fortigurn]

So eat drink and be merry for your either the elect or your not? Jesus says whosoever believeth.

True, but John 3:16 does not address how "whosoever" comes to believe in the first place. You can't just throw "free will" salvation into John 3:16 and ignore John 6:44, 65.

You'll find that Romans 10 deals with this (it's easy to see why Calvinists stop at the end of Romans 9).

Really? Please Expound.

Romans 10 shows how people come to God - they are drawn by the preaching of the Word.

Show me where the Bible teaches Salvation by Human Ability (otherwise known as Salvation by works), or where any of the points of Arminianism are taught.

You are shifting the goal posts. I am not talking about 'savlation by human ability', AKA 'salvation by works'. I am talking about how people come to an understanding of, and faith in, the gospel.

The Bible is very clear. God elected those whom He would save from the foundation of the world. Christ came to "secure (their) eternal redemption" (Heb. 9:12) while the wicked were created for "the day of destruction" (Prov. 16:4). This may be uncomfortable to some, but the Word is clear.

This sort of works in the KJV, but modern translations make the Word a little too clear for Calvinist comfort.

Of course, it's also a little strange that Christianity had to wait for over 1,500 years before someone stumbled across this critical dogma.

[puritan lad]

Romans 10 shows how people come to God - they are drawn by the preaching of the Word.

No argument here. However, God's Word ALWAYS serves the purpose that it was intended, even if the person who hears it ends up in Hell.

Show me where the Bible teaches Salvation by Human Ability (otherwise known as Salvation by works), or where any of the points of Arminianism are taught.

This sort of works in the KJV, but modern translations make the Word a little too clear for Calvinist comfort.

Fair enough. Expound the modern translation of Proverbs 16:4 for me.

Of course, it's also a little strange that Christianity had to wait for over 1,500 years before someone stumbled across this critical dogma.

Ever hear of Paul? Augustine? Aside from 500+ years of Roman corruption due to acceptance of the Pelagian Heresy, this was THE doctrine of salvation in the church.

[Fortigurn]

Romans 10 shows how people come to God - they are drawn by the preaching of the Word.

No argument here. However, God's Word ALWAYS serves the purpose that it was intended, even if the person who hears it ends up in Hell.

But you don't believe that people are drawn by the preaching of the Word. You believe they are drawn by the inworking of the Holy Spirit, heedless of their will.

Show me where the Bible teaches Salvation by Human Ability (otherwise known as Salvation by works), or where any of the points of Arminianism are taught.

This sort of works in the KJV, but modern translations make the Word a little too clear for Calvinist comfort.

Fair enough. Expound the modern translation of Proverbs 16:4 for me.

Sure. Here's the foonote from the New English Translation (a conservative evangelical translation, dated 2002):

God ensures that everyone's actions and the consequences of those actions correspond—certainly the wicked for the day of calamity. In God's order there is just retribution for every act.

Makes sense to me. But it's not Calvinism, is it?

Ever hear of Paul?

Well that's begging the question, isn't it? But isn't it a shame God omitted it from the Old Testament?

Augustine?

Even Calvin said Augustine wasn't good enough. What Calvin did was take Augustine's idea and push it further - somewhere it never was in the first place.

Aside from 500+ years of Roman corruption due to acceptance of the Pelagian Heresy, this was THE doctrine of salvation in the church.

Ok, so basically you claim that Paul taught it (which of course is begging the question), and then acknowledge that even Augustinism was unknown for 500 years (pity it doesn't even appear prior to Pelagius - and by the way, I'm not a Pelagian, and Arminianism is not Pelagianism).

Then it's another long and lonely 1,000 years to Calvinism. Says it all really.

[puritan lad]

Sure. Here's the foonote from the New English Translation (a conservative evangelical translation, dated 2002):

God ensures that everyone's actions and the consequences of those actions correspond—certainly the wicked for the day of calamity. In God's order there is just retribution for every act.

Makes sense to me. But it's not Calvinism, is it?

In that case, we are all doomed. The very definition of grace is that those who are saved will NOT receive "just retribuation". Besides, I'm not interested in the "footnotes" from the 2002 translation. I'll take it for what it says, that God made the wicked for the Day of Destruction. Nothing whatsoever is said about their acts.

Well that's begging the question, isn't it? But isn't it a shame God omitted it from the Old Testament?

I believe I just answered that above. (There are many others of course, but you are free to browse my complete list.

Then it's another long and lonely 1,000 years to Calvinism. Says it all really.

Not nearly true, but I'm sure that the Catholic Church will welcome you back to their fold, indulgences and all.

[Fortigurn]

Sure. Here's the foonote from the New English Translation (a conservative evangelical translation, dated 2002):

God ensures that everyone's actions and the consequences of those actions correspond—certainly the wicked for the day of calamity. In God's order there is just retribution for every act.

Makes sense to me. But it's not Calvinism, is it?

In that case, we are all doomed. The very definition of grace is that those who are saved will NOT receive "just retribuation".

There's this thing called 'repentance' (which, of course, doesn't mean much in the Calvinist theology).

Besides, I'm not interested in the "footnotes" from the 2002 translation. I'll take it for what it says, that God made the wicked for the Day of Destruction. Nothing whatsoever is said about their acts.

The problem is that the Hebrew here doesn't say 'God made the wicked for the Day of Destruction'. Like I said, your doctrine works fine in the KJV, but not in an accurate translation. I could give you another 4 or 5 translations which say the same - none of which see an eschatological reference here either.

Well that's begging the question, isn't it? But isn't it a shame God omitted it from the Old Testament?

I believe I just answered that above. (There are many others of course, but you are free to browse my complete list.

Well I can't accept an inaccurate translation of Proverbs 16:4, but I'll see what else you have.

Then it's another long and lonely 1,000 years to Calvinism. Says it all really.

Not nearly true, but I'm sure that the Catholic Church will welcome you back to their fold, indulgences and all.

Not nearly true? Let's have a list of all the people who believed TULIP from the 1st century to the 16th.

And I'm fairly sure you know by now that my beliefs aren't even remotely close to those of the RCC. That was a cheap shot. I expected better of you.

[bizzt]

There's this thing called 'repentance' (which, of course, doesn't mean much in the Calvinist theology).

Can you make your addresses to Puritan Lad a little more civilized especially when you are talking with a Brother in Christ. Both you may have differences but one that is not is you are both Born Again with the Blood of Christ. The Rest are details

[puritan lad]

There's this thing called 'repentance' (which, of course, doesn't mean much in the Calvinist theology).

Can you make your addresses to Puritan Lad a little more civilized especially when you are talking with a Brother in Christ. Both you may have differences but one that is not is you are both Born Again with the Blood of Christ. The Rest are details :!:

It also shows an ignorance of Calvinism in general. We thrive on the necessity of "repentance".