1+1 = Creating A New Doctrine (Eternal Security?)

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

QuestionTime

Senior Member
Feb 16, 2010
1,420
7
38
#1
Greetings,

In this thread I aim to take a completely different approach on the Calvinism vs Arminianism issue. What I aim to do in this thread is to take 1 scripture that appears to support Calvinism, and add 1 scripture that appears to support Arminianism. Adding the two scriptures together we will begin to create a new doctrine. Then we will add another verse supporting Calvinism. Then we will add another verse support Arminianism. We will keep adding verses and see just what sort of doctrine that we end up with!


Now, it is my promise to you all that I will take a completely unbiased approach on this issue.

1+1=2
2+1=3
3+1=4
etc..

Are you game?

Alright, the first two scriptures we will add together are:

John 6:44 (King James Version)

44No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

This verse is simply stating a matter of fact, that no man can come to Jesus unless the Father draws him. This verse does not say how many will be drawn. It does not say whether all men or whether only some men will be drawn.

Deuteronomy 30:19 (King James Version)
19I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

This verse states that this vast group of people (The entire body of Israelite people in the desert) were given a choice to do good or to do evil, to live and be blessed, or to die and be cursed. This choice was given to the entire group, not just to some. Choosing life undoubtedly means to follow God in the correct manner that He has ordained, not just choosing to do good works or live an outwardly righteous life.

Combining the scriptures together I believe would read like this: No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him - therefore - since I have drawn all of you, I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life.

Knowing that God did choose Israel, we have to conclude that He then gave them a choice afterward whether or not to love Him. Drawing them was not the end of the matter, they still were required to choose. I would say it this way: God opened their eyes to His existence and His nature, and now that they understood Him, they were under obligation to make a choice whether or not to love Him.

Alright, the next verse is a verse supporting Calvinism. Which verse would you all prefer I add next?

Quest
 

QuestionTime

Senior Member
Feb 16, 2010
1,420
7
38
#2
I wanted to add one more important point. While God did call all of Israel and give all of Israel a choice, He did not call all people, just that specific group called Israelites.

Therefore, we have a new doctrine thus far of God choosing a specific group of people, and then giving them a choice. This is half Calvinism and half Arminianism, as it ought to be.


I want to build this new doctrine from the verses present, not with other verses in mind.

Quest
 
Last edited:

phil36

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2009
5,900
125
0
#3
I think it is a dangerous thing to try and make a '''NEW'''' Doctrine from verses..

Plus I think you are forgetting both Calvinists and Arminians will use these all these verses and love them :) D.A Carson was once doing a talk and he uses all these and said that all are true, He Is a promina=ent New Testament Scholar, and reformed. So there is nothing new in what you are saying QT, what the point I disagree with is the Idea of trying to start something new or a new Doctrine, when there is really no new Doctrine there to start, unless a false one?

Phil


Phil
 
Jan 8, 2009
7,576
16
0
#4
Why is God able to preserve His Word in the canon of scripture, but not able to preserve sound doctrine, such that the doctrines taught by the Reformers was required?
 

VW

Banned
Dec 22, 2009
4,579
9
0
#5
There is actually no reason to debate this issue, as it distracts from Jesus, and the simplicity of devotion to Him. Really, what does it matter? If you are moved by the Spirit to preach to one, then God has, as the Lord says, chosen to draw Him through Jesus. And if he receives, then He will save that one. Whether God chooses to save one over another is the dangerous thought, because the temptation is to then become His judge. It is the same principle of judging others by the Law, because you then become a judge of the Law, and of the Lawgiver.
 
S

Shwagga

Guest
#6
John 15:16
You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask the Father in My name He may give you.

Joshua 24:15
And if it seems evil to you to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.
 
Jan 8, 2009
7,576
16
0
#7
Why didn't the early church seem to debate these things?
a) because they had better things to do, such as avoid being eaten by the lions
b) because there was only one view in christianity, either for or against eternal security.
c) because they hadn't thought about it yet.
 
S

Shwagga

Guest
#8
Why didn't the early church seem to debate these things?
a) because they had better things to do, such as avoid being eaten by the lions
b) because there was only one view in christianity, either for or against eternal security.
c) because they hadn't thought about it yet.
I'll circle A!

Now we are just trying to avoid people from getting our carpets dirty in our churches.
 

QuestionTime

Senior Member
Feb 16, 2010
1,420
7
38
#9
There is actually no reason to debate this issue, as it distracts from Jesus, and the simplicity of devotion to Him. Really, what does it matter? If you are moved by the Spirit to preach to one, then God has, as the Lord says, chosen to draw Him through Jesus. And if he receives, then He will save that one. Whether God chooses to save one over another is the dangerous thought, because the temptation is to then become His judge. It is the same principle of judging others by the Law, because you then become a judge of the Law, and of the Lawgiver.
Read John Wesley's sermon "Free Grace" and you will understand why this is such a passionate issue. It's about defending God's character as holy, just and perfect.

John Wesley:
1. This premised, let it be observed, that this doctrine represents our blessed Lord, "Jesus Christ the righteous," "the only begotten Son of the Father, full of grace and truth," as an hypocrite, a deceiver of the people, a man void of common sincerity. For it cannot be denied, that he everywhere speaks as if he was willing that all men should be saved. Therefore, to say he was not willing that all men should be saved, is to represent him as a mere hypocrite and dissembler.

Quest
 

phil36

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2009
5,900
125
0
#10
Read John Wesley's sermon "Free Grace" and you will understand why this is such a passionate issue. It's about defending God's character as holy, just and perfect.

John Wesley:
1. This premised, let it be observed, that this doctrine represents our blessed Lord, "Jesus Christ the righteous," "the only begotten Son of the Father, full of grace and truth," as an hypocrite, a deceiver of the people, a man void of common sincerity. For it cannot be denied, that he everywhere speaks as if he was willing that all men should be saved. Therefore, to say he was not willing that all men should be saved, is to represent him as a mere hypocrite and dissembler.

Quest
One minute you agree with Wesley then the next you don't...

Phil
 

VW

Banned
Dec 22, 2009
4,579
9
0
#11
Read John Wesley's sermon "Free Grace" and you will understand why this is such a passionate issue. It's about defending God's character as holy, just and perfect.

John Wesley:
1. This premised, let it be observed, that this doctrine represents our blessed Lord, "Jesus Christ the righteous," "the only begotten Son of the Father, full of grace and truth," as an hypocrite, a deceiver of the people, a man void of common sincerity. For it cannot be denied, that he everywhere speaks as if he was willing that all men should be saved. Therefore, to say he was not willing that all men should be saved, is to represent him as a mere hypocrite and dissembler.

Quest
God does not need us to defend His character. The best witness to the world about God's character is that we walk in His love. Jesus said that if we have love for one another, then all people will know that we are His disciples. That is the witness to God's holiness, the only one that He has approved.

This is one of the reasons that I quit reading other's words.

In His love,
vic