Calvinism vs. Arminianism: Good article

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Yes, and if he's getting it from Jesse Morrell, it is most certainly in error.

Jesse Morrell claims he has sinned only once since salvation, so he doesn't even understand what sin is.

And, I know he's used the spurious "Long Letter of Clement" to support his positions regarding this topic. This "Long Letter" has the genuine words of Clement in it, but adds spurious materials to teach heresy. He's been caught with his shoddy scholarship.

He also claims Jesus was not our propitiation, and he is an open theist. He tries to align himself with Arminians, but he's not even evangelical.

If someone wants to use early church fathers here, they should quote the source of their information so we can verify it. If Jesse Morrell is the source, it will be struck down instantly as lacking credibility. One only needs to listen to his teachings on YouTube to determine he's confused.

Here's some videos about Morrell and Pelagianism by Keith Thompson. Keith can be intense but he documents his facts:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP3N5XgdDcI&list=PLGX4mNJduw9rQxrl5Q1Y3nW5p-F2plUTq

I can post what the pre-Augustine church fathers wrote about free will. Has nothing to do with Morrell or pelagianism. It would be edifying to compare what they wrote with what Calvin wrote.

 

[sparkman]

I can post what the pre-Augustine church fathers wrote about free will. Has nothing to do with Morrell or pelagianism. It would be edifying to compare what they wrote with what Calvin wrote.

Go ahead, but why not use the Bible and quote from Scripture?

By the way, some of the church fathers misunderstood some things. For instance, Origen was knowledgeable in some topics, but he cut his testicles off.

So, being a church father doesn't mean one is infallible. That's Roman Catholicism

I think you should argue from the Bible.

 

[NayborBear]

"The fundamental issue between Calvinism and Arminianism is whether fallen man has the moral power to incline himself to God’s offers of help, or whether God must do an initial work of re-creation in the soul before the person has the power to say yes to the Gospel. "


When Lord God breathed the breath of life into man, and made him a living soul, is that not every man/woman? Or, am I missing something here? Is this "breath of life" not God? May not be the Covenant God (yet), to any certain individual, yet, as long as that individual is "sucking air", He's THERE!

May not be striving WITH the individual's (gimme some points for "politicol correctness", being gender neutral and all ) spirit, but, HE, shall never leave, NOR FORSAKE, anyone, this side of the grave.

Now, for any person to say that He who breathed this breath of life into an individual, can manipulate (leverage) any person into giving cause for any individual to come unto repentance, as having conceived this thought of their own free will, is limiting the unlimited POWER (LOVE) of God, is it not?

 

[Grandpa]

If you can't answer the questions I have about Calvinism, to clear up the ignorance that you imply that I have about it, don't complain when I make comments about it.

Total depravity is kind of self-explanatory, before and after regeneration.

Before regeneration a person is totally depraved being mostly selfish and vain in all endeavors and lacking purity and righteousness.

After regeneration a person knows where their selfishness and vanity comes from and where their purity and righteousness comes from.

So, is a person totally depraved after regeneration? No. But they aren't perfected yet either. They wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.


Arguing with someone about free-will is a fools endeavor. A person who has read the bible and still believes there is good in them to make good choices can't be persuaded otherwise. You can't tell a depraved person that they are depraved. They can't be because they are so good... A person has to see it for themselves.


But its totally explained in the bible, by the Lord Jesus Himself. The person who thinks he is good says to the Lord, 'Lord Lord, didn't we do all these good works in your name?'
The person who is justified is the one who says 'have mercy on me Lord, a sinner'.


Jeremiah 9:23-24
[SUP]23 [/SUP]Thus saith the Lord, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches:
[SUP]24 [/SUP]But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the Lord which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the Lord.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Go ahead, but why not use the Bible and quote from Scripture?

By the way, some of the church fathers misunderstood some things. For instance, Origen was knowledgeable in some topics, but he cut his testicles off.

So, being a church father doesn't mean one is infallible. That's Roman Catholicism

I think you should argue from the Bible.

It's pointless for me to start without having Calvin's position clearly stated first. I know he believed in total depravity. I just need to get my head around exactly what he meant by that. I think we can all agree (except for pelagian-minded folk) that man's nature is depraved, but I suspect that the degree and effect of that after regeneration may not bring so much agreement. And that is what I'd like to explore vis-a-vis Calvin's position.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Here's Calvin on original sin. My question is, did he believe this to be the state of regenerate man. I believe the answer to that is yes. Concupiscence, btw, is what Augustine believed transmitted the substance of sin during sex from one generation to the next.

Extracts from Christianae Religionis Institutio (Institutes of the Christian Religion) Calvin Op. ii. 3I sq. (edition of 1559) Book II. chap. i

Therefore original sin is seen to be an hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature diffused into all parts of the soul . . . wherefore those who have defined original sin as the lack of the original righteousness with which we should have been endowed, no doubt include, by implication, the whole fact of the matter, but they have not fully expressed the positive energy of this sin. For our nature is not merely bereft of good, but is so productive of every kind of evil that it cannot be inactive. Those who have called it concupiscence [a strong, especially sexual desire, lust] have used a word by no means wide of the mark, if it were added (and this is what many do not concede) that whatever is in man from intellect to will, from the soul to the flesh, is all defiled and crammed with concupiscence; or, to sum it up briefly, that the whole man is in himself nothing but concupiscence. . . .​

 

[sparkman]

It's pointless for me to start without having Calvin's position clearly stated first. I know he believed in total depravity. I just need to get my head around exactly what he meant by that. I think we can all agree (except for pelagian-minded folk) that man's nature is depraved, but I suspect that the degree and effect of that after regeneration may not bring so much agreement. And that is what I'd like to explore vis-a-vis Calvin's position.

Yes..by the way I don't like to use the word "Calvinist". I prefer monergist above all the terms, but Reformed isn't so bad.

The problem is that no one knows what you are talking about if you use the word "monergist".

Some people like to accuse Calvinists of worshiping John Calvin or being baptized in the name of Calvin, etcetera. I personally haven't even read Institutes. I accepted what is called "Calvinism" simply by reading the Bible.

 

[John146]

"In conformity, therefore, to the clear doctrine of Scripture, we assert by an admirable and immutable counsel, God is once for all determined who he would admit to salvation and whom he would condemn to destruction; even the fall of Adam and Eve with all of its consequences was ordained by the admirable counsel of God." John Calvin

Call it want you want, Calvin says God is the author of sin...every sin committed, as evil as man can get, is the admirable counsel of God at work. No thank you. You can have that God if you want him.

This is a very good question that many ask. However, If everything is under God's authority then he has to allow it to happen. do we then say God is the author of sin? Of course not. Yet because he allows it in a sense he has ordained that it will happen. He is not the author of sin.

 

[John146]

Was God's wrath ever against an elect?

Are all children of the elect, elect?

Did John Calvin, a RCC priest, believe in infant baptism for regeneration?

How do you know you are one of the elect? Can you ever know until death?

 

[John146]

[h=1]Romans 10:9King James Version (KJV)[/h]"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

According to the plain words of the Bible, which comes first: believing or salvation? Has a man ever been saved before believing? Was that man saved before the foundation of the world? Thou shalt be saved, not thou hast been saved.

 

[John146]

[h=1]Joshua 24:15King James Version (KJV)[/h]"[FONT=Helvetica Neue, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]And if it seem evil unto you to serve the [/FONT]Lord[FONT=Helvetica Neue, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif], choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the [/FONT]Lord[FONT=Helvetica Neue, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]."

The Holy Spirit giving us these words through Joshua asked the Israelites to exercise their will and decide which God they will serve. Joshua chooses the one true God. Does God give us the freedom of to choose? If He determines, then it's not choice.[/FONT]

 

[KennethC]

Both have bad teachings in their doctrines, and neither one should be followed as the the Truth !!!

Those who argue or debate against and say they are not Calvinist's but follow a OSAS doctrine are still under his false teachings.

Augustine a RCC member went apostate in the middle of the 4th century and started his eternal security doctrine stating that apostasy and falling away both were impossible. John Calvin who was a RCC member but left the church and one of the first pastor's in the Protestant reformation movement adopted Augustine's doctrine but changed some of the teachings as well as changed the name to what we see today as once saved always saved !!!

Calvinism also takes free will out of the equation even though the bible shows all throughout it that we are given the right to choose !!!

Arminianism is closer to the truth as described in God's word, however they still have some teaching issues such as on the end times.

With all that being said I don't follow or play into any man made terms or theologies because man is fallible and every man made doctrine contains their issues; Some worse then others !!!

 

[KennethC]

It seems like your view reflects more a Pelagian view, which was refuted by Augustine. Pelagianism is widely understood as heretical.

Besides this, the argument of Calvinists is from SCRIPTURE and not from the church fathers. Augustine understood Scripture in this regard, and so did Paul. As far as I am concerned, Augustine was a Paulist, and Paul was taught by Jesus.

Stick to Scripture and argue from that...and Calvinists have the exegetical support to back up their doctrines.

I think you need to do more research on Augustine, and you will find out he went apostate in his teachings in the middle of the 4th century. That is when he started his eternal security doctrine that Calvin later adopted but changed some of its teachings !!!

Augustine was not a Paulist, unless you mean that he misused Paul's teachings as Peter stated.

Then I would agree because the teaching which Paulinians now defend act as though Paul taught a different gospel message and teachings then what Jesus taught. That is false !!!

 

[ForthAngel]

"In conformity, therefore, to the clear doctrine of Scripture, we assert by an admirable and immutable counsel, God is once for all determined who he would admit to salvation and whom he would condemn to destruction; even the fall of Adam and Eve with all of its consequences was ordained by the admirable counsel of God." John Calvin

Call it want you want, Calvin says God is the author of sin...every sin committed, as evil as man can get, is the admirable counsel of God at work. No thank you. You can have that God if you want him.

Ordained in the sense of "to make holy" or "ordain for divine purpose". I think consecrate would be a better term honestly. All things work together for the good of those who love God. How could this be if he is not sovereign over both the good and the bad? We see an example of this in the Old Testament when Joseph was sold into slavery by his brothers. Joseph later tells them "What you intended for evil, God intended for good." This is what he means by ordained. All is planned out. God did not cause Adam and Eve to eat the fruit, but he ordained it for the purpose of good, namely, the coming Messiah. Everything works together, both good and evil, for his glory. He does not author sin, but the sin committed is ordained and made to work for the good of those who love him and for his own glory.

 

[ForthAngel]

Paul seemed to believe in total depravity of man:

Romans 3
as it is written:“None is righteous, no, not one;
[SUP]11 [/SUP] no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
[SUP]12 [/SUP]All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”
[SUP]13 [/SUP]“Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive.”
“The venom of asps is under their lips.”
[SUP]14 [/SUP] “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”
[SUP]15 [/SUP]“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
[SUP]16 [/SUP] in their paths are ruin and misery,
[SUP]17 [/SUP]and the way of peace they have not known.”
[SUP]18 [/SUP] “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

 

[phil36]

Here's Calvin on original sin. My question is, did he believe this to be the state of regenerate man. I believe the answer to that is yes. Concupiscence, btw, is what Augustine believed transmitted the substance of sin during sex from one generation to the next.

Extracts from Christianae Religionis Institutio (Institutes of the Christian Religion) Calvin Op. ii. 3I sq. (edition of 1559) Book II. chap. i

Therefore original sin is seen to be an hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature diffused into all parts of the soul . . . wherefore those who have defined original sin as the lack of the original righteousness with which we should have been endowed, no doubt include, by implication, the whole fact of the matter, but they have not fully expressed the positive energy of this sin. For our nature is not merely bereft of good, but is so productive of every kind of evil that it cannot be inactive. Those who have called it concupiscence [a strong, especially sexual desire, lust] have used a word by no means wide of the mark, if it were added (and this is what many do not concede) that whatever is in man from intellect to will, from the soul to the flesh, is all defiled and crammed with concupiscence; or, to sum it up briefly, that the whole man is in himself nothing but concupiscence. . . .​

Hi HeRoseFromTheDead,

Why did you quote this part of 'institutes' to back up your argument ?

Surely, you have read through the whole institutes. Did you read chapter 3?

 

[John146]

What am I going to be judged for? The things God predetermined me to do. What are the lost going to be judged on at the GWTJ? Can you imagine, "You are hereby declared guilty based upon your unbelief in my Son in which I predetermined your unbelief anyway! Guilty!" Strange stuff man.

 

[John146]

Can someone answer these?

Was God's wrath ever against an elect?

Are all children of the elect, elect?

Did John Calvin, a RCC priest, believe in infant baptism for regeneration?

How do you know you are one of the elect? Can you ever know until death?

 

[ForthAngel]

What am I going to be judged for? The things God predetermined me to do. What are the lost going to be judged on at the GWTJ? Can you imagine, "You are hereby declared guilty based upon your unbelief in my Son in which I predetermined your unbelief anyway! Guilty!" Strange stuff man.

Same question was posed and answered in Romans 9:

9 I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— [SUP]2 [/SUP]that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. [SUP]3 [/SUP]For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers,[SUP][a][/SUP] my kinsmen according to the flesh. [SUP]4 [/SUP]They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. [SUP]5 [/SUP]To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.


[SUP]6 [/SUP]But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, [SUP]7 [/SUP]and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” [SUP]8 [/SUP]This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. [SUP]9 [/SUP]For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” [SUP]10 [/SUP]And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, [SUP]11 [/SUP]though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— [SUP]12 [/SUP]she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” [SUP]13 [/SUP]As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

[SUP]14 [/SUP]What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! [SUP]15 [/SUP]For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” [SUP]16 [/SUP]So then it depends not on human will or exertion,[SUP][b][/SUP] but on God, who has mercy. [SUP]17 [/SUP]For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” [SUP]18 [/SUP]So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.


[SUP]19[/SUP]You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” [SUP]20 [/SUP]But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” [SUP]21 [/SUP]Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? [SUP]22 [/SUP]What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, [SUP]23 [/SUP]in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— [SUP]24 [/SUP]even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? [SUP]25 [/SUP]As indeed he says in Hosea,


“Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’
and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’”
[SUP]26 [/SUP]“And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’
there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”



[SUP]27 [/SUP]And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the sons of Israel[SUP][c][/SUP] be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved, [SUP]28 [/SUP]for the Lord will carry out his sentence upon the earth fully and without delay.” [SUP]29 [/SUP]And as Isaiah predicted,


“If the Lord of hosts had not left us offspring,
we would have been like Sodom
and become like Gomorrah.”

 

[phil36]

What am I going to be judged for? The things God predetermined me to do. What are the lost going to be judged on at the GWTJ? Can you imagine, "You are hereby declared guilty based upon your unbelief in my Son in which I predetermined your unbelief anyway! Guilty!" Strange stuff man.

Aren't all men already guilty if they have not believed? I am amazed at God's grace that he has chosen to save any..thats more the point.. Amazing grace.