The BASIC Difference between Arminians and Calvinists

[crossnote]

Balance is key, if man acts without God moving first his endeavors fail if God moves but man fails to act then again their endeavors fail.

The Calvinist most likely would serve you this passage...

For He says to Moses, "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION." So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. (Rom 9:15-16)

How would you handle it?

 

[Nehemiah6]

So would you say that
The Armenians come loaded with the "man does" verses while the Calvinists come loaded with the"God does" verses?

Not really. Calvinists deliberately misinterpret and misapply Bible verses. Arminians seem to ignore many verses. So in the end both are making a mishmash of Gospel truth.

 

[Nehemiah6]

The Calvinist most likely would serve you this passage... For He says to Moses, "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION." So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. (Rom 9:15-16) How would you handle it?

With another Bible verse (Rom 11:32): For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

God sent Christ into the world so that in fact He might have mercy on all (John 3:17). But all must obey the Gospel in order to experience the grace and mercy of God. And all have not obeyed the Gospel (Rom 10:16)

 

[lenna]

I thought I was quite clear (IMHO) of the basic difference...
The Armenians come loaded with the "man does" verses while the Calvinists come loaded with the"God does" verses.
I believe the truth lies in the middle with both true but God as the first Mover.

I think you should read my post again and then soulweaver 's post 8

you know, never mind. I don't need another hair spitting argumentative debate . I understood you but you in your response to post 8 you went with emphasis, so from difference to emphasis

maybe you don't quite know what you are 'emphasizing' yourself and the differences have been explained ad infinitum in this forum

I'm not really either anyway and you certainly are not going to settle anything

 

[Blain]

The Calvinist most likely would serve you this passage...

For He says to Moses, "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION." So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. (Rom 9:15-16)

How would you handle it?

Honestly I would tell them this verse is a poor excuse for ttheir reasoning it has nothing to do with it at all, if people want an excuse to not be accountable and be slothful maybe buddism would fit them better.

 

[Blain]

Like how does mercy have to do with it honestly? Am I just missing something?

 

[crossnote]

I'm not really either anyway and you certainly are not going to settle anything

Never said I was trying to settle the issue.

 

[crossnote]

Like how does mercy have to do with it honestly? Am I just missing something?

Their point is 'God will have mercy upon whom He will' and they view man's choice as a pot in the potter's hands..

 

[wattie]

The Armenians come loaded with the "man does" verses while the Calvinists come loaded with the"God does" verses.
I believe the truth lies in the middle with both true but God as the first Mover.

Yeah..

I take it that a calvinist does not call out for eternal salvation.


I take it that Armenians believe eternal salvation can be undone.

I see not calling out for salvation not sitting with John 3:16 or Romans 10


I see losing salvation not sitting with John 3:16 either and John 5:24 plus a whole raft of other verses

 

[crossnote]

Yeah..

I take it that a calvinist does not call out for eternal salvation.


I take it that Armenians believe eternal salvation can be undone.

I see not calling out for salvation not sitting with John 3:16 or Romans 10


I see losing salvation not sitting with John 3:16 either and John 5:24 plus a whole raft of other verses

Interesting but I'm not sure what you mean by 'does not call out for eternal salvation'.

 

[Bbrdrd]

Both demonstrate the mistake of holding too tight to a systematic theology. The Bible creates tension on numerous issues that it ackowledges two opposed things without explaining how the tension is resolved. Faith vs works in the manner Paul and James use them, man's will vs God's sovereignty. To resolve these tensions completely is to go against the Biblical witness, we can only exclude erroneous takes like libertarian free will and fatalistic determinism.

 

[Blue_Of_Lake]

"There is no difference"..."Cover up differences"...
So which is it?

"... believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things ..." ?

 

[crossnote]

"... believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things ..." ?

That's a 'question', so I'll leave it there.

 

[wattie]

Interesting but I'm not sure what you mean by 'does not call out for eternal salvation'.

Well my understanding with calvinism is getting saved before believing in Jesus. I could be wrong...

 

[Nehemiah6]

Like how does mercy have to do with it honestly? Am I just missing something?

What you are missing is Irresistible Grace (I) and Unconditional Election (U). What that means is because some are elected for salvation, God will have mercy on them, and they will not be able to resist His grace. The converse will also apply. Neither of these things are taught in Scripture, but some verses can be misinterpreted and misapplied to make it seem biblical.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Well my understanding with calvinism is getting saved before believing in Jesus. I could be wrong...

That is more or less what they teach (when you fllter out the theological jargon).

 

[dcontroversal]

This thread has more to do with where should the emphasis lie...on man's doing or God's?
I find many debates (esp OSAS) always gravitate to this issue..
This is not a matter of who has the perfect doctrine (Calvin/Arminius etc.), but where should the emphasis lie?

Let us reason together God said......

 

[eternally-gratefull]

It’s a lot like licentiousness vs legalism, on the surface, they both seem polar opposites, one focusing on
works instead of grace, the other thinking works are meaningless so why even bother doing them, eat drink and be merry

yet they have these common items

1. both are based on pride
2. both reject true grace
3. both are self focused and not God focused.

in calvinism vs Arminianism, there are also some equal traits

1. both are based on pride
2. both are based on a system
3. both focus on doctrinal truths that serve their own beliefs.

its the same with catholicism, and I have to wonder if it is also why they fight so hard in a defensive mode much of the time, because they are defending a system they love?

i also will be honest, I am not sure I have ever met a true follower of Arminianism

 

[Corban]

I believe this is a mischaracterization of Calvin.

OK. I see your point, but my statement was on how the argument ends if followed logically - not Calvin himself. The world is full of fervent Christians who "walk the talk", but because of various reasons, have faulty doctrine. Luther, who put his life on the line to buck the Roman Church, also was the one who said; "the only good Jew is a dead one". But if we take the judgment of "ALL Nations" in Matthew 25:31-46 the Lord takes retribution on those who even mistreated "the least of His brethren". I dare say that the Jew is meant here as well for Jesus came from Jacob according to the flesh (Rom.9:3). Shall we cast out Luther because he was right in 70% and wrong with 30%? I believe that Calvin was (i) a fervent Christian, (ii) a fervent Reformers, (iii) used of, and blessed by the Lord, and (iv) was all of these without being perfect.

 

[Corban]

I would double check the context of those references.

I did, in my posting # 3, which you disagreed with.