The Real Difference on Election (Reformed vs. Arminian theology) Thomas McClintock

[sparkman]

[h=2]The Real Difference On Election[/h]I was thinking recently about the doctrine of election, and I asked myself what really constitutes the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism on this doctrine? Does it really consist in Calvinism’s fixed number of elect, and Arminianism’s unfixed number? This cannot be, logically speaking. Arminianism must believe in a fixed number of saved people. How else can they posit that God only elected those He foresaw would have faith? Would they really want to say that God foresaw incorrectly or could foresee incorrectly, and that some of those God thought would come to faith did not, in fact, come to faith? Of course, open theists would hold this position, but not your average Arminian.

I had been used to attacking the problem from a different angle. I had seen Reformed authors use this argument: if God foresaw who would come to faith, then isn’t a given person’s final destiny somehow fixed, and if so, then by whom or what?

Now, however, I see the issue a bit differently. If God can actually foresee who will be saved, then even in the Arminian position, the number of the saved is fixed, ultimately speaking, even if people can lose their salvation in the Arminian system. The Arminian cannot say that God would be mistaken in His foreknowledge, unless they are willing to go whole hog into the open theist position. So, if the number of saved people is fixed, then that cannot be the ultimate point of difference between Calvinism and Arminianism. The point of difference must lie elsewhere.

The previous paragraph makes it plain that Arminians also believe in limited atonement. They also believe that Christ’s death will not save all people from condemnation. Of course, their version of it is still different from the Reformed view (they believe, typically, that Christ’s death doesn’t actually save anyone, just makes salvation possible, and they also believe that this limited efficacy is applicable to everyone. What they go on to believe implicitly, it seems in most cases, is that salvation only does ever come to some, and not to others, so even in whatever saving efficacy they hold Christ’s death to have, it is still limited).

When we consider the five points of Calvinism, it becomes clear that unconditional election is the ultimate point of difference. To put it in a very vernacular way, does God love me because He loves me, or does He love me because I am so lovable? Is the cause of salvation to be found in us or in God? Arminians believe that the ultimate tipping point is our faith, especially because they believe God’s grace is resistible. And yet, as many Reformed have pointed out, they are (happily!) inconsistent on this point, since they pray to God for salvation for themselves and for others. Why pray to God if we are the ones who ultimately determine our own destiny? What can God do about it? Arminians really are aware in their heart of hearts that salvation comes from the Lord.

 

[sparkman]

To summarize the above article, unless you deny God's exhaustive foreknowledge, a given person's fate is already determined. God's perfect knowledge CANNOT be proven wrong. So, the outcome is already known, and has been known by God since eternity past.

Therefore, Christ's sacrifice is only effective for this limited number of people. Limited atonement.

You can claim that it was potentially effective for everyone if you want, but it's a meaningless distinction. The salvation of every person is already secured or lost, so the atonement isn't effective for anyone God knows is going to be lost. This conclusion is UNAVOIDABLE.

Isaiah 46:9-10 is proof that God knows the end from the beginning.

By the way, this is why many open theists hold a view of God that denies his sovereignty and his exhaustive foreknowledge. In their attempt to deny these truths, they attempt to reduce God to a man-like level and suppose that He lives life in sequence.

Often, they claim God chooses not to know some details of the future, but this is ridiculous because he'd have to know which details to not know in order to limit his knowledge of the future.

Anyways, in the Reformed position, God saves the person totally by his grace, and achieves the salvation of the individual from beginning to end. He is the God who saves, not potentially saves.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Arminianism must believe in a fixed number of saved people. How else can they posit that God only elected those He foresaw would have faith?

And this is exactly why BOTH Calvinism and Arminianism are in error. They both believe that God elects sinners for salvation, even though the Bible teaches that God elects those who are saved to perfection and glorification (Rom 8:29,30) – to be conformed to the image of His Son.

That is so plain, yet it is missed, because people have automatically assumed that God elects sinners for salvation. But that would be a total violation of the finished work of Christ and the Gospel message.

I had been used to attacking the problem from a different angle. I had seen Reformed authors use this argument: if God foresaw who would come to faith, then isn’t a given person’s final destiny somehow fixed, and if so, then by whom or what?

Now we are being introduced to the error of Predeterminism. Again Predeterminism is not taught in Scripture.

The previous paragraph makes it plain that Arminians also believe in limited atonement. They also believe that Christ’s death will not save all people from condemnation. Of course, their version of it is still different from the Reformed view (they believe, typically, that Christ’s death doesn’t actually save anyone, just makes salvation possible, and they also believe that this limited efficacy is applicable to everyone.

Again both Calvinism and Arminianism are mistaken about the Atonement, and put a humanistic spin on God’s truth. Just because all sinners will not obey the Gospel does NOT mean that all could not obey. And if all would obey the Gospel, then all would be saved. And this would confirm that the Atonement is UNLIMITED.

Christians should understand that there is a THIRD OPTION to the errors of Calvinism and Arminianism. And that is to actually BELIEVE WHAT GOD SAYS about salvation, and simply ignore the doctrines and traditions of men, particularly theologians who spin a web.

 

[Bogadile]

Isaiah 46:9-10 I would like to see some opentheist tackle this text. Should be great fun.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Isaiah 46:9-10 is proof that God knows the end from the beginning.

There is a huge difference between God knowing the end from the beginning, and God pre-determining the end from the beginning. If as you mistakenly believe, God has pre-determined everything, then the Great White Throne Judgment would be a farce (God forbid!). But because God has NOT pre-determined everything, the books are opened, and another book is opened, which is the Book of Life. According to Scripture, the Book of Life has the names of all human beings, but as they fail to believe the Gospel their names are BLOTTED OUT of the Book of Life. So that in itself repudiates and refutes your idea of Pre-determinism.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Isaiah 46:9-10 I would like to see some opentheist tackle this text. Should be great fun.

Open Theism is as nonsensical as Pre-determinism. They both try to put God in a box.

 

[trofimus]

Woo hoo and here comes trofimus with his leibnizian best world view

 

[Nehemiah6]

Woo hoo and here comes trofimus with his leibnizian best world view

Here is what Leibniz believed: The principle of sufficient reason states that everything must have a reason or a cause. The modern formulation of the principle is usually attributed to Gottfried Leibniz.That does not mean that everything must be pre-determined. Of course everything has a reason or a cause, and that is simply the Law of Cause and Effect (or the Law of Sowing and Reaping).

 

[trofimus]

Here is what Leibniz believed: The principle of sufficient reason states that everything must have a reason or a cause. The modern formulation of the principle is usually attributed to Gottfried Leibniz.That does not mean that everything must be pre-determined. Of course everything has a reason or a cause, and that is simply the Law of Cause and Effect (or the Law of Sowing and Reaping).

"But if the foreknowledge of God has nothing to do with the dependence or independence of our free actions, it is not so with the foreordinance of God, his decrees, and the sequence of causes which, as I believe, always contribute to the determination of the will.

And if I am for the Molinists in the first point, I am for the predeterminators in the second, provided always that predetermination be taken as not necessitating.

In a word, I am of opinion that the will is always more inclined towards the course it adopts, but that it is never bound by the necessity to adopt it."

Leibniz, Theodicy

---

Foreknowledge does not make events more certain than they already are, but is possible only because events are certain.

 

[Johnny_B]

And this is exactly why BOTH Calvinism and Arminianism are in error. They both believe that God elects sinners for salvation, even though the Bible teaches that God elects those who are saved to perfection and glorification (Rom 8:29,30) – to be conformed to the image of His Son.

That is so plain, yet it is missed, because people have automatically assumed that God elects sinners for salvation. But that would be a total violation of the finished work of Christ and the Gospel message.

Now we are being introduced to the error of Predeterminism. Again Predeterminism is not taught in Scripture.

Again both Calvinism and Arminianism are mistaken about the Atonement, and put a humanistic spin on God’s truth. Just because all sinners will not obey the Gospel does NOT mean that all could not obey. And if all would obey the Gospel, then all would be saved. And this would confirm that the Atonement is UNLIMITED.

Christians should understand that there is a THIRD OPTION to the errors of Calvinism and Arminianism. And that is to actually BELIEVE WHAT GOD SAYS about salvation, and simply ignore the doctrines and traditions of men, particularly theologians who spin a web.

N6 your understanding of Romans 8:29 is good, but you discount 8:30, not only does He predestined then to gloification, but He also, predestines, calls, justifies and glorifies, how does He do all those but only choses/elects those that are glorified?

8:30 "And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified."

You are right IF everyone obeyed the Gospel that would make the atonement unlimited, since we know not all have obeyed that makes the atonement limited, by your own logic, you keep making great aplolgetics for limited atonement.

N6 let me ask you this, you believe that the sins of the world were placed on Christ, right? If so, would the Father be unjust for sending people to hell for sins Christ paid for in His atoning work?

 

[Nehemiah6]

N6 your understanding of Romans 8:29 is good, but you discount 8:30, not only does He predestined then to gloification, but He also, predestines, calls, justifies and glorifies, how does He do all those but only choses/elects those that are glorified?

The Bible says that election is according to FOREKNOWLEDGE, and that fully satisfies the teaching that those who are saved are elected for glorification. God -- knowing beforehand who will obey the Gospel -- elects those individuals to be eventually perfected (1 John 3:1-3).

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. (1 Pet 1:1,2).

You are right IF everyone obeyed the Gospel that would make the atonement unlimited, since we know not all have obeyed that makes the atonement limited, by your own logic, you keep making great apolgetics for limited atonement.

Again, knowing that all will not obey the Gospel does not nullify what Christ ACTUALLY ACCOMPLISHED at the Cross. And this is where all the misunderstanding comes from. What God and Christ accomplished is limitless. How sinners respond to that is quite another matter.

N6 let me ask you this, you believe that the sins of the world were placed on Christ, right? If so, would the Father be unjust for sending people to hell for sins Christ paid for in His atoning work?

Not at all. Why? Because God Himself has laid down the conditions for the Atonement to become effective -- repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 20:21).

This is represented in the Parable of the Great Banquet (Luke 14:16-24) where all were invited to the banquet, but many made excuses at to why they would not (or could not come). Therefore For I say unto you, That none of those men which were bidden [and made excuses] shall taste of my supper. I have added in square brackets "and made excuses" since those are the ones who would not taste of his supper.

Now did those excuses nullify the reality of the Banquet or the invitation to come? So it is with the Atonement.

 

[Johnny_B]

The Bible says that election is according to FOREKNOWLEDGE, and that fully satisfies the teaching that those who are saved are elected for glorification. God -- knowing beforehand who will obey the Gospel -- elects those individuals to be eventually perfected (1 John 3:1-3).

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. (1 Pet 1:1,2).

Again, knowing that all will not obey the Gospel does not nullify what Christ ACTUALLY ACCOMPLISHED at the Cross. And this is where all the misunderstanding comes from. What God and Christ accomplished is limitless. How sinners respond to that is quite another matter.

Not at all. Why? Because God Himself has laid down the conditions for the Atonement to become effective -- repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 20:21).

This is represented in the Parable of the Great Banquet (Luke 14:16-24) where all were invited to the banquet, but many made excuses at to why they would not (or could not come). Therefore For I say unto you, That none of those men which were bidden [and made excuses] shall taste of my supper. I have added in square brackets "and made excuses" since those are the ones who would not taste of his supper.

Now did those excuses nullify the reality of the Banquet or the invitation to come? So it is with the Atonement.

N6 I want to say I appreciate that you are taking the time to discuss this with me, it helps me see things that I have missed and need to look to the Scriptures to see that what I believe is in the Scriptures, again Thanks You!!!

I am glad you brought up I Peter 1:2, because it is in context with 1:3-25 and the word "foreknowledge" or "prognosis" which means, "according to the predestination of God the Father" and verse 3 says “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,”

We are born again "according to the predestination of God the Father," I Peter 1:3, also follow the context on to I Peter 1:17-21, "known from time past" From BAGD lexicon 2nd edition. It is by His great mercy, that we are born again. We seem to have forgotten the word "mercy" which BAGD defines as "mercy, compassion,, pity, clemency" for Titus 3:5, I Peter 1:3, Ephesians 2:4, Hebrews 4:16. Mercy in English mean "compassion or forgiveness shown toward someone whom it is within one's power to punish or harm." Google, this fits how God has mercy on us, He has the power to punish us for the sins we have commited, yet He forgives and has compassion on us, because of His great mercy and love toward us/Church/elect/sheep.

I Peter 1:17-21 “And if you call on him as Father who judges impartially according to each one's deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile,18 knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold,19 but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.20 He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you21 who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.”

Then we read what Paul wrote using the same Greek word in Romans 8:29-30 “For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.”

Here the word, "foreknew" is the same Greek word as used in I Peter 1:2, 20 and we will see Acts 2:23, "prognosis" BAGD interpets it this way in context, "Choose beforehand" as we will see in Acts 2:23 reading into the word "foreknowledge" the idea that the Lord looked down the cooridors of time to see who was going to obey the Gospel and choose them because He foreknew that they would obey the Gospel. Begs the question, using the same exegesis to interpret the same word when applies to Jesus and His being, "slain before the foundations of the world" or "according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God." in Acts 2:23. This would mean that the Father had to look down the coridoors of time and seen that Jesus would obey Him to be cruxified and this is how Jesus was the Father's Chose One or David's offspring in Psalm 89:1-3? Which would mean that it could not have been "according to the definte plan and foreknowledge of God," it would be the forseen plan of God, according to the obediance of Christ on the cross.

Now we go back to the book of Acts 2:22-24 first, then we'll look at Psalm 89:1-3

“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know—23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men24 God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.”

The same Greek word as in I Peter 1:2, 20 is the same as in Romans 8:29 and Acts 2:23, the BAGD the standard in Greek-English Lexicons never mentions the idea of the Father looking down the coridoors of time to see who will obey in the electing/choosing process. I will post Pauls own interpretation of "foreknew/foreknowledge", "chosen/elect" is by "grace" Paul gives his definition of grace and how it is not by works, otherwise it would not be grace. Lets not forget what Paul said in Titus 3 and how grace is not by works of righteousness. Which would be repentance, faith, believing or anything that we can do to receive salvation. Here's what Paul writes in Romans 11:1-6

“I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin.2 God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel?3 “Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life.”4 But what is God's reply to him? “I have kept for mys to recieve salvationelf seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.”5 So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace.6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.”

Paul again in Titus 3:3-7 “For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another.4 But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared,5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,7 so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.”

Finally showing the Christ is the Father's chosen one, Psalm 89:1-3 “I will sing of the steadfast love of the Lord, forever; with my mouth I will make known your faithfulness to all generations.2 For I said, “Steadfast love will be built up forever; in the heavens you will establish your faithfulness.”3 You have said, “I have made a covenant with my chosen one; I have sworn to David my servant:4 ‘I will establish your offspring forever, and build your throne for all generations.’”

Praise the Lord that it is all Him and His foreknowledge, because if it has anything to do with us and being obedient, it will fail evertime. I believe He elects us to glorification as well as to salvation. As I have mentioned before, when you hear the words "president elect" does that mean that this person made a choose to be president and once that decision was made he became elect? The word elect/election means the same thing, weather we are talking about public office or God's salvation, an elect person does not place themselves in the position of ________ elect.

 

[7seasrekeyed]

well, after reading the op and the following post, my impression is he is overthinking the entire thing to the point of contradiction

an illogical conclusion that makes me go 'whaaaaaaaa?'

I don't even want to get into it, but just posting my impression anyway

being neither C or A, I'm not understanding why some think we have to 'pick' one at all

is there some kind of 'safe zone' in these things that somehow satisfies the personal space of those who insist it is one or the other?

like lining up all the duckies, viewing them and going 'yeah I'm good'

no intent in sarcasm towards the op because I am not even sure what he believes

 

[John146]

Isaiah 46:9-10 I would like to see some opentheist tackle this text. Should be great fun.

9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,
10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
11 Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.
12 Hearken unto me, ye stouthearted, that are far from righteousness:
13 I bring near my righteousness; it shall not be far off, and my salvation shall not tarry: and I will place salvation in Zion for Israel my glory.

Open theist? I'm not sure, but the context of this passage is God's foreknowledge of the end result. Revelation tells us that the Lord will be ruling and reigning on the throne forever and ever. This has been declared from the beginning. Everything else in between, I'm not so sure. One has to change or read into the text. One things for sure, Israel is part of the Lord's long term plans.

 

[Johnny_B]

well, after reading the op and the following post, my impression is he is overthinking the entire thing to the point of contradiction

an illogical conclusion that makes me go 'whaaaaaaaa?'

I don't even want to get into it, but just posting my impression anyway

being neither C or A, I'm not understanding why some think we have to 'pick' one at all

is there some kind of 'safe zone' in these things that somehow satisfies the personal space of those who insist it is one or the other?

like lining up all the duckies, viewing them and going 'yeah I'm good'

no intent in sarcasm towards the op because I am not even sure what he believes

Safe zone, no, it's kind of like Michael in the Godfather, the more you trying to use the Bible the more they say your a Calvinist, which I am not. Becuase I don't believe in infant baptism, I do not believe the Church replacing Israel, I believe that they are still God's people. The Israelites that believe now are the children of promise and that Israel is a state again and that God in His sovereignty brought them back to the land, because of His love for the fathers (Romans 11:28) and the promises He made to them. I do not understand how a person can believe that the Father brings people to salvation in His sovereignty, but can not bring a people back to a land that He promised them with that same sovereignty. I just do not understand it, I've tried calling myself a Jesusist and people would say so you a jesuit, then when I would say I am a Paulist, they thought I was part of the Gentiles groups that follow Paul and his teachings, not Jesus and Jews are to follow Jesus and not Paul, so I stopped saying that as well. So as much as one will try to not be asscociated with one or the other, they will place you in one of those two groups, not matter how hard you try to seperate from those two, by posting only Scripture to show what you believe.

The problem is that those that say they are Arminians are not Arminians,they are Pelegian or semi-Pelegian, both were determined to be heresy. Pelegian in 529 A.D.and semipelegian in 1577 A.D. Those that say they are Biblical with it's slant towards man for the beginning of salvation are Pelegain, not saying they are heretics, just saying that what they believe is pretty much what Pelagius believed and if they deny origianl sin and predestination, they are in line with Pelagius. Semipelegians are closer to Arminius. Here's what Wiki has on them,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semipelagianism

I believe in the Biblical Doctrines of Grace, that man can do nothing to please God (Romams 8:7-8) to merit His unmerited favor (grace) on thier lives(Romans 11:5-6). If God does not intervine by awaking us from spiritual death (Ephesians 2:5), to be able to see the kingdom of God (John 3:3), so that we can repent/believe/have faith (Ephesians 1:13), then He seals us with the Spirit of promise(Ephesians 1:13), so that our faith can grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (II Peter 3:18).

I go to a Church that is Baptist Reformed and in thier attempt to identify with Calvin goes to the point that they will not call the state of Israel, Israel, they keep calling it Palistine. They are young and did come out of dispensationalist type Churches and in thier atempt to be associated to Calvin, will not call Israel, Israel. I understand why Luther and Calvin thought that Israel would never be a state again. I think it is one step to far, Calvin or Luther did not have the advantage that we have, in Israel being a state again. In Luther Calvin's day the land of Israel was no more then a wasteland that was full of nomads. Even the holy city of Jerusalem wasn't in great shape either, by his time the muslims had taken all the stones that were used in the graveyards, they stole to use to pave the roads around the city of Jerusalem.

That is another reason I will not say I am a Calvinist, he did not have all the information that we have today. Not only with Israel, but even in the Greek, the discovery of the dumb sites in Egypt in the winter of 1899-1900 gave us more understanding of the koiné Greek and we have the Dead Sea Scrolls that helped with OT understanding as well.

 

[Johnny_B]

9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,
10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
11 Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.
12 Hearken unto me, ye stouthearted, that are far from righteousness:
13 I bring near my righteousness; it shall not be far off, and my salvation shall not tarry: and I will place salvation in Zion for Israel my glory.

Open theist? I'm not sure, but the context of this passage is God's foreknowledge of the end result. Revelation tells us that the Lord will be ruling and reigning on the throne forever and ever. This has been declared from the beginning. Everything else in between, I'm not so sure. One has to change or read into the text. One things for sure, Israel is part of the Lord's long term plans.

You are right, it is about God's foreknowledge and Him accomplishing His sovereign will.

 

[valiant]

There is a huge difference between God knowing the end from the beginning, and God pre-determining the end from the beginning. If as you mistakenly believe, God has pre-determined everything, then the Great White Throne Judgment would be a farce (God forbid!). But because God has NOT pre-determined everything, the books are opened, and another book is opened, which is the Book of Life. According to Scripture, the Book of Life has the names of all human beings, but as they fail to believe the Gospel their names are BLOTTED OUT of the Book of Life. So that in itself repudiates and refutes your idea of Pre-determinism.

The argument is not that God has predetermined everything, but that He has predetermined who should be saved. Man has rejected God of his own free will. But there is nothing in man that will seek salvation apart from God's saving activity.

 

[John146]

The argument is not that God has predetermined everything, but that He has predetermined who should be saved. Man has rejected God of his own free will. But there is nothing in man that will seek salvation apart from God's saving activity.

The story of Jonah says otherwise...

 

[Nehemiah6]

The argument is not that God has predetermined everything, but that He has predetermined who should be saved.

If this fallacy were really true, then God would have predetermined that all of humanity will be saved, since that is what He has provided in Christ. Or do you deny that the Bible says this (John 3:17) or God really does not mean what He says, since these are the very words of God our Savior?

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

 

[Willie-T]

[h=2]The Real Difference On Election[/h]I was thinking recently about the doctrine of election, and I asked myself what really constitutes the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism on this doctrine? Does it really consist in Calvinism’s fixed number of elect, and Arminianism’s unfixed number? This cannot be, logically speaking. Arminianism must believe in a fixed number of saved people. How else can they posit that God only elected those He foresaw would have faith? Would they really want to say that God foresaw incorrectly or could foresee incorrectly, and that some of those God thought would come to faith did not, in fact, come to faith? Of course, open theists would hold this position, but not your average Arminian.

I had been used to attacking the problem from a different angle. I had seen Reformed authors use this argument: if God foresaw who would come to faith, then isn’t a given person’s final destiny somehow fixed, and if so, then by whom or what?

Now, however, I see the issue a bit differently. If God can actually foresee who will be saved, then even in the Arminian position, the number of the saved is fixed, ultimately speaking, even if people can lose their salvation in the Arminian system. The Arminian cannot say that God would be mistaken in His foreknowledge, unless they are willing to go whole hog into the open theist position. So, if the number of saved people is fixed, then that cannot be the ultimate point of difference between Calvinism and Arminianism. The point of difference must lie elsewhere.

The previous paragraph makes it plain that Arminians also believe in limited atonement. They also believe that Christ’s death will not save all people from condemnation. Of course, their version of it is still different from the Reformed view (they believe, typically, that Christ’s death doesn’t actually save anyone, just makes salvation possible, and they also believe that this limited efficacy is applicable to everyone. What they go on to believe implicitly, it seems in most cases, is that salvation only does ever come to some, and not to others, so even in whatever saving efficacy they hold Christ’s death to have, it is still limited).

When we consider the five points of Calvinism, it becomes clear that unconditional election is the ultimate point of difference. To put it in a very vernacular way, does God love me because He loves me, or does He love me because I am so lovable? Is the cause of salvation to be found in us or in God? Arminians believe that the ultimate tipping point is our faith, especially because they believe God’s grace is resistible. And yet, as many Reformed have pointed out, they are (happily!) inconsistent on this point, since they pray to God for salvation for themselves and for others. Why pray to God if we are the ones who ultimately determine our own destiny? What can God do about it? Arminians really are aware in their heart of hearts that salvation comes from the Lord.

That last paragraph, especially, clearly shows this guy has totally missed the idea of God's love.