E
eternally-gratefull
Guest
don't ask any questions.
just give up the future covenant okay?
lol. I would if I could. But scripture and history (it has not been done yet) will not allow me to.
Arminius vs. Calvinism - Lazarus
- Thread starter Red_Tory
- Start date
-
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.
lol. I would if I could. But scripture and history (it has not been done yet) will not allow me to.
F
FireOnTheAltar
Guest
That's not true. We do not believe that one can be saved by works at all. We simply believe that salvation is like any other relationship and that it takes two to makes a relationship work, that entire thing hangs on love. God pours out his love on us and that the true believer returns that love not only to God but to others as well.
The simple truth is that people fall away in all churches. Whether they were really saved or not, we may never know until eternity. However, I believe that the consequences in teaching that one can willingly walk away from their relationship with God to be far less dangerous than the idea that one can be saved yet fully embrace a lifestyle of sin and rebellion.
E
eternally-gratefull
Guest
I love how people say they do not believe or teach a gospel of works. Yet they place conditions on salvation. Either not walking away (which John said they were never saved to begin with) or not living a licentious lifestyle (which Peter James and Jude condemned as never being saved, but deserving of wrath)
This is just as bad as those who teach you must obey a set of rules (many call them sacraments) or you will not 'earn" salvation. saying these are not works either.
I agree that we should not teach people they can live a lifestyle of sin and rebellion. As do Jude and James. James makes it clear. if you say you have faiht, but have no works (change in lifestyle) your faith is dead. A person who has no faith is never saved, don't you agree?
Only asking for your opinion
Would a true Christian have to understand the true Gospel of Grace, or not?
You agree with me, there are many legalistic churches who do not preach and teach the true Gospel ofr grace. What of someone who joins such a church, is serious about God and makes a commitment to Him
But due to the legalistic demands of the church they become dispirited and give up, never to return. They believe they cannot be 'good enough' for God, live up to the standards they are constantly told is requiured from the Christian
Now I have seen this go on a lot, as I am sure you have.
What happens to such an individual? They return back to the world and stay there, dispirited with Christianity
Not starting a debate, just wondered your opinion on this
Last edited:
E
eternally-gratefull
Guest
If they were truely saved. They would receive the chastisement from God. They would also have the love of God through the HS and want to return again and eventually find someplace where they can worship freely, Or God will bring someone to them to help them find this place.
I have seen this many times. Many people in my church went through the very thing you talk about. God searched them out, and brought them back.
Then of course we have cases where God takes people home before they have this chance. Is God going to kick them out of his family? I don't think so. If nothing else. God spared them alot of pain they would have suffered here on Earth because people turned them off by teaching a lie.
When you think about it sermons on how a Christian should live according to law/moral law are needless. The sincere convert upon conversion has the good laws of God He would have them keep written on their heart and mind by the spirit, so in their heart they know what is required concerning this
The sermon should be about HOW this is achieved, how the Christian has victory in their life, the Gospel of grace
The sermon should be about HOW this is achieved, how the Christian has victory in their life, the Gospel of grace
C
ChirstNotCalvin
Guest
Calvinism is definitely NOT biblical as many people on this web site have demonstrated.
My experience if one does not go along with a cavanist then one is labeled an Arminian. It does not seem to be common knowledge who or what Arminius taught or believed. He did NOT propose free will in the sense that Calvinist allege. In fact he was a Calvinist of his time. Being a Professor he was asked to look into a problem in that two Dutchmen were not toeing the party line. This came to be known as the remonstrance. On researching the remonstrators views, he found there was not biblical evidence whatsoever that the Bible teaches humans are predestined to hell. He did not entirely disagree with the remonstrators. He did not go on the campaign trail as he was a mainstream reformer and he knew he would get burnt at the stake for doing so.
Thats a very short history. my point is that Calvanist peddle there stuff based on misinformation and straw man arguments. If only they would read the stuff Calvin wrote and published. I have posted some of it on this web sit already. Dr Vance maybe a KJV only man but his book contains the teaching of just about every mainstream Calvanist and put it alongside the Bible to expose its heresy.
Most Calvinists do not know that Calvin was a 'supralapsarian'. That is he taught that God predestined Adam and Eve's fall to the very second. ( Institutes book 3 Ch27). Calvin taught 'double predestination,'. Calvanist alway lose an argument on this because it means God is indeed the author of sin. Hence they invent 'single predestination'. I.E God predestines the elect but passes over the rest. As if that makes a difference. Its not just offensive stuff it is actually blasphemy. If it were correct it would be in the Bible.
Many people on this web site have already demonstrated the biblical position.
The biggest problem in the UK regarding the church is that rotwieler churchians peddle this Calvinistic clap trap and lead many astray. That is why third world countries are sending missionaries back to the UK.
A good web site they discusses all the above posts is The Pristine Faith Restoration Society - Home Page
PFRS stands for Pristine Faith Restoration Society - Hence it is not calvanistic but biblical.
My experience if one does not go along with a cavanist then one is labeled an Arminian. It does not seem to be common knowledge who or what Arminius taught or believed. He did NOT propose free will in the sense that Calvinist allege. In fact he was a Calvinist of his time. Being a Professor he was asked to look into a problem in that two Dutchmen were not toeing the party line. This came to be known as the remonstrance. On researching the remonstrators views, he found there was not biblical evidence whatsoever that the Bible teaches humans are predestined to hell. He did not entirely disagree with the remonstrators. He did not go on the campaign trail as he was a mainstream reformer and he knew he would get burnt at the stake for doing so.
Thats a very short history. my point is that Calvanist peddle there stuff based on misinformation and straw man arguments. If only they would read the stuff Calvin wrote and published. I have posted some of it on this web sit already. Dr Vance maybe a KJV only man but his book contains the teaching of just about every mainstream Calvanist and put it alongside the Bible to expose its heresy.
Most Calvinists do not know that Calvin was a 'supralapsarian'. That is he taught that God predestined Adam and Eve's fall to the very second. ( Institutes book 3 Ch27). Calvin taught 'double predestination,'. Calvanist alway lose an argument on this because it means God is indeed the author of sin. Hence they invent 'single predestination'. I.E God predestines the elect but passes over the rest. As if that makes a difference. Its not just offensive stuff it is actually blasphemy. If it were correct it would be in the Bible.
Many people on this web site have already demonstrated the biblical position.
The biggest problem in the UK regarding the church is that rotwieler churchians peddle this Calvinistic clap trap and lead many astray. That is why third world countries are sending missionaries back to the UK.
A good web site they discusses all the above posts is The Pristine Faith Restoration Society - Home Page
PFRS stands for Pristine Faith Restoration Society - Hence it is not calvanistic but biblical.
Yet, they had Moses and the prophets and because they were in darkness, they would NOT believe. People today hear the Gospel, yet they DO NOT believe because they love darkness instead.
Now, as above many try and use John 3:16, yet they always and consistantly miss out the whole conversation. here it is below:
16"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. 19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. 20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. 21But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God."
Please read the above carefully. It does not say that man can believe out of his own goodness. why is that, for" our righteousnes is like filthy rags". we are spiritually blind.
There is a false charge amongst Arminians that reformed theology does not believe man has choices. We believe men do have choices but that choice is always tied to your nature. So you are dead in your sin spiritually dead.. How can you see? Spiritually you cannot see.
God needs to renew your heart (Titus 3:5) then and only then can yopu come to Faith (believe).
It is often claimed that we are like Adam and Eve in the garden! this is unbiblical and this sort of teaching stems from Pelagious. We cannot be like Adam before the fall because through Adam sin entered the world and all in Adam have sinned, we are born with a sin nature, so it is fallicay to say we are like Adam and Eve before the fall.
Only God has free will! Men are bound to their sin nature unless God sets them free, this does not mean we do nothing but he opens our hearts so that we can respond in Faith.
There is many claims against reformed theology yet these are not well informed!
In Christ Alone
C
ChirstNotCalvin
Guest
Phill36, You say
"There is a false charge amongst Arminians that reformed theology does not believe man has choices. We believe men do have choices but that choice is always tied to your nature. So you are dead in your sin spiritually dead. How can you see? Spiritually you cannot see."
Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to support arminianism but I do not understand what you mean. You sound totally hypocritical. Men have choices but they are blind so they can only make the wrong choice ? Surely that is not a choice at all. Its like having rolling a dice that has the same number on all six sides.
I am not taking a pop at you but I guess I am in the majority of all humans who don't get this. I know Calvin's Institutes Book 2 Chapter 1 states "Babies are born OBNOXIOUS and ODIOUS in the site of God" and Calvin goes on to explain that if a baby dies not having been baptized it is doomed to eternal hell. Is that what you believe ?
Surely God created humans and it was good. Of the top of my head I can think of one verse in the NT where it say men are dead in transgressions however does that mean they are totally unable as well ? Several texts state that there is enough evidence of God glory for any human to comprehend hence they are without excuse. Also they "go' there own way not forced down that road as there is no option open to them.
I have not quoted verse as I do not want to get into a verse swapping contest. Please can you explain your statement and don't mention arminianism.
Maybe most of the world are reprobates doomed to destruction as must people on the web site do not understand your statement. At the very least it seems to me a fair amount of the Bible ha to be stripped out.
Honestly, do not get me wrong. I would love to understand your thinking.
With utmost sincerity.
"There is a false charge amongst Arminians that reformed theology does not believe man has choices. We believe men do have choices but that choice is always tied to your nature. So you are dead in your sin spiritually dead. How can you see? Spiritually you cannot see."
Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to support arminianism but I do not understand what you mean. You sound totally hypocritical. Men have choices but they are blind so they can only make the wrong choice ? Surely that is not a choice at all. Its like having rolling a dice that has the same number on all six sides.
I am not taking a pop at you but I guess I am in the majority of all humans who don't get this. I know Calvin's Institutes Book 2 Chapter 1 states "Babies are born OBNOXIOUS and ODIOUS in the site of God" and Calvin goes on to explain that if a baby dies not having been baptized it is doomed to eternal hell. Is that what you believe ?
Surely God created humans and it was good. Of the top of my head I can think of one verse in the NT where it say men are dead in transgressions however does that mean they are totally unable as well ? Several texts state that there is enough evidence of God glory for any human to comprehend hence they are without excuse. Also they "go' there own way not forced down that road as there is no option open to them.
I have not quoted verse as I do not want to get into a verse swapping contest. Please can you explain your statement and don't mention arminianism.
Maybe most of the world are reprobates doomed to destruction as must people on the web site do not understand your statement. At the very least it seems to me a fair amount of the Bible ha to be stripped out.
Honestly, do not get me wrong. I would love to understand your thinking.
With utmost sincerity.
D
DiscipleWilliam
Guest
It doesn't have any implications on the debate. There is no debate my young brother. Nowhere in Holy writ does it ever say that the will of man is "free." Because, if the will of man is free then God cannot be sovereign. There cannot exist a sovereign LORD, and yet exist a created humanity in possession of a "free" will, this is called antinomy. Holy writ exclaims that Christians are free from the bondage of sin, but that freedom of bondage does not translate into a freedom of the will.
Hi CnC,
I believe men are free to choose according to their nature, you were once slaves to sin (we all were), we are of nature sinful therefore we are slaves to it, by nature we are sinful or evil. yet, we are not all as depraved as we could be due to God's common grace, we won't all be Stalins, Hitlers but none the less evil.
1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.
So lets start with your suggestion of hyprocasy. You have not grasped what is being said, and in all fairness that is probably my fault, I am not the most articulate in written communication!
You have muddled the water by saying that I say 'men have choie, but they are blind so they make the wrong choices'! This is of course true but lets look at what it means.
By nature men are sinful, your choices always reflect the person you are. But there is something deeper, when I say blind, I mean you are blind to God, you are spiritually dead. This is biblical. So any choice you make will be within your nature, Spiritually you are dead to God, you will not choose God, It is only by the awakening of your heart by the Holy Spirit can you see the Light..
"As the salt flavours every drop in the Atlantic, so does sin affect every atom of our nature. It is so sadly there that if you cannot detect it, you are decieved (Charles Spurgeon)."
13( And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses (Col 2:13)
It is only through the work of the Holy Spirit can man be made alive (Spiritually)again. This is Jesus' whole point with Nicodemus. Those who are Spiritually dead cannot baer to hear God's word (Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. John 8:43). Men are totally inable to reach out for God, it is God who always initiates, sometimes he has to bring them down to total depths of despair, but he always brings home that lost sheep.
When God created our first parents they most certainly where good but, something happened, something that destroyed that perfect relationship with God, with each other and with nature itself. From that point nothing was the same, man rebelled against God, and all throughout scripture we see that it is God who chases after men. It is God who through covenant redeems a people for Himself for the glory of His name that evil tried to diminish.
To say men 'go' their 'own' way is very true CNC, their own way is a path of destruction of lawlessness and death, we all have a sin nature. So yes men go their own way, their own way is to follow their father the prince of lies and of destruction. So no man is blameless when they finally meet God face to face.
You mention that maybe all men are reprobates and doomed for destruction, well, yes this is true if it were not for a loving God who has decreed that he will have a people for His name sake. To God be all the glory. It is truly humbling to realize that God would actually save any for we all deserve to die, that is all, for the wages of sin is death. yet God in His mercy will save His people for the glory of His name.
Regarding Calvin and babies, this is a very emotional issue. Persoanlly O believe babies do go to heaven for although they are like us all born with a sin nature they are not morally capapble of knowing right from wrong and as such committed no sin of their own, and that goers for those who are mentally not capable, thats my own opinion, Calvin had his and some agree with that but there are many reformed who do not. As I have said we follow Christ, In Christ alone. There is no man infallible, all men are fallible, only God and His word are infallible.
Sorry It took so long to write this, I started, then my daughter called round for a cuppa and thats me just getting abck to it lol. As I say I am not the most articualte when it comes to written communication, but I hope that this goes some way to explain things.
To read more, read spurgeon on 'Free Grace' it is written more eloquently than I ever could.. here is the link: Free Grace
C
ChirstNotCalvin
Guest
Thank you for your reply and also for not mentioning arminianism as requested.
Regarding Calvin's writing regarding total depravity and hence doom of babies in chapter 1 of book 2 of the institutes. I am gladdened to read what you write. More so regarding the mentally ill. I believe Calvin and his followers are just plain wrong on this issue. There is already a myriad of scripture on this web site that shows that. (Not that I want to support any arminian ideas).
This does raise the very important question of when does one become morally responsible. If babies are not born morally responsible then at what point in their life do they become responsible for their sin ? I do not know, but it seems to me that the often used logic "we are totally dead, incapable as a corpse etc BUT still responsible" makes no sense. The baby leaves the womb. We agree that it is not morally responsible. Sadly the baby does not survive for whatever reason. We have agreed that the baby does not suffer eternal damnation. It is not held responsible for anything. Let alone to quote Calvin again "odious in the sight of God". I maintain that Calvin is plain wrong. Note Jacob Arminus is not around when Calvin wrote his stuff and so is not an issue.
Here is my understanding. At some point the baby understands the knowledge of good and evil. The law. Mum says 'don't do that'. The baby understands in some way it is wrong but the chooses to do it any way. At this point the baby becomes morally responsible.
It also seems to me that if as we agree the baby is not morally responsible. As you say in your post 'committed no sin of their own" then that baby was not born totally depraved. I would say the baby was created good, in the image of God. Born perfect into a fallen world and at some point when it is, as you mention in your post, "capable of knowing wright from wrong" then and only then became capable of sinning and as we all know too well every human has fallen short.
My belief is a bit radical but is not harmful to reformed thinking, please disagree if you wish. We are all a type of Adam and Eve. If they had not fallen then any one of us would have "GONE our own way" not predestined as a robot to do so. In fact we do not inherit Adams sin but only his sin nature. That is we are not held responsible for our ancestors sin but only our own - AFTER the age of becoming morally responsible. OK I admit it is radical. But see for example Ezekiel 21. As I said I do not think I have harmed reformed thinking too much but please disagree.
What I am against along with a lot of others is the idea that God predestined us all evil whether as the infralapsarian Calvinist believe after the fall or as Calvin himself wrote in book 3 of the institutes "even Adam and Eve were predestined to sin". Many Calvinists say that the only humans who were incapable of not sinning were Adam and Eve. But the Bible disputes this in the first few pages describing the fall. How can this be. Calvin elaborates double predestination, yes God is the author of Sin. Most (not all) Calvinists cannot accept this and go for single predestination. But none of this is in the Bible.
The bottom line is no one is claiming that God cannot do whatever he pleases to his creation. No. The battle line is does he create all men totally depraved in the TULIP sense or not. It seem not, as we have discussed above with babies and the mentally ill.
I have slated Calvin. My beef though is with his followers. Many times I have been told "Calvin would never say these things". When I show the people he wrote these things and published them they are always stunned. I have been doing this for 20 years. Always the same result.
So does that make me a free will type believer in the classic arminian sense ? Nope Here is my own analogy.
We are in the Titanic. It has hit the ice berg and sinking and all humanity has dived into the sea. Can anyone save them self. No, of course not they will soon freeze to death if not drown first. Along comes God in his life boat. Some clamor to be saved and are saved, others are unconscious but God hoiks them out and save them anyway. Others turn away to proud and turn away. Strangely God save some of them as well. Many though perish. Why did God not save them.
WE ARE NOT TOLD. Romans 9 is in effect saying "mind your own business". Therefore we should not speculate. It irks me big time to acknowledge that Calvin actually got something right. Chapter 27 he says "We should not pry into the secret workings of God for it is not for us to know and will drive us insane". Spot on but the Calvin spend the next 3 chapters ignoring his own advice and invent/expounds double predestination. The rest is history.
My points are (no not 5) that every human that leave the womb at some point becomes morally responsible. Also given enough light to know there is a Gpd and it is this they are ultimately held responsible for. No excuse. Some get more light than others but they also have more responsibility.
Hope that helps. I realize I have not dealt with every thing above. I am slow at typing as well and this has taken a couple of hours.
But PLEASE, anyone come back at me. My main issue is that calvanstic influence has not been all that good over the last few centuarys.
Yours sincerley in Jesus Christ
Regarding Calvin's writing regarding total depravity and hence doom of babies in chapter 1 of book 2 of the institutes. I am gladdened to read what you write. More so regarding the mentally ill. I believe Calvin and his followers are just plain wrong on this issue. There is already a myriad of scripture on this web site that shows that. (Not that I want to support any arminian ideas).
This does raise the very important question of when does one become morally responsible. If babies are not born morally responsible then at what point in their life do they become responsible for their sin ? I do not know, but it seems to me that the often used logic "we are totally dead, incapable as a corpse etc BUT still responsible" makes no sense. The baby leaves the womb. We agree that it is not morally responsible. Sadly the baby does not survive for whatever reason. We have agreed that the baby does not suffer eternal damnation. It is not held responsible for anything. Let alone to quote Calvin again "odious in the sight of God". I maintain that Calvin is plain wrong. Note Jacob Arminus is not around when Calvin wrote his stuff and so is not an issue.
Here is my understanding. At some point the baby understands the knowledge of good and evil. The law. Mum says 'don't do that'. The baby understands in some way it is wrong but the chooses to do it any way. At this point the baby becomes morally responsible.
It also seems to me that if as we agree the baby is not morally responsible. As you say in your post 'committed no sin of their own" then that baby was not born totally depraved. I would say the baby was created good, in the image of God. Born perfect into a fallen world and at some point when it is, as you mention in your post, "capable of knowing wright from wrong" then and only then became capable of sinning and as we all know too well every human has fallen short.
My belief is a bit radical but is not harmful to reformed thinking, please disagree if you wish. We are all a type of Adam and Eve. If they had not fallen then any one of us would have "GONE our own way" not predestined as a robot to do so. In fact we do not inherit Adams sin but only his sin nature. That is we are not held responsible for our ancestors sin but only our own - AFTER the age of becoming morally responsible. OK I admit it is radical. But see for example Ezekiel 21. As I said I do not think I have harmed reformed thinking too much but please disagree.
What I am against along with a lot of others is the idea that God predestined us all evil whether as the infralapsarian Calvinist believe after the fall or as Calvin himself wrote in book 3 of the institutes "even Adam and Eve were predestined to sin". Many Calvinists say that the only humans who were incapable of not sinning were Adam and Eve. But the Bible disputes this in the first few pages describing the fall. How can this be. Calvin elaborates double predestination, yes God is the author of Sin. Most (not all) Calvinists cannot accept this and go for single predestination. But none of this is in the Bible.
The bottom line is no one is claiming that God cannot do whatever he pleases to his creation. No. The battle line is does he create all men totally depraved in the TULIP sense or not. It seem not, as we have discussed above with babies and the mentally ill.
I have slated Calvin. My beef though is with his followers. Many times I have been told "Calvin would never say these things". When I show the people he wrote these things and published them they are always stunned. I have been doing this for 20 years. Always the same result.
So does that make me a free will type believer in the classic arminian sense ? Nope Here is my own analogy.
We are in the Titanic. It has hit the ice berg and sinking and all humanity has dived into the sea. Can anyone save them self. No, of course not they will soon freeze to death if not drown first. Along comes God in his life boat. Some clamor to be saved and are saved, others are unconscious but God hoiks them out and save them anyway. Others turn away to proud and turn away. Strangely God save some of them as well. Many though perish. Why did God not save them.
WE ARE NOT TOLD. Romans 9 is in effect saying "mind your own business". Therefore we should not speculate. It irks me big time to acknowledge that Calvin actually got something right. Chapter 27 he says "We should not pry into the secret workings of God for it is not for us to know and will drive us insane". Spot on but the Calvin spend the next 3 chapters ignoring his own advice and invent/expounds double predestination. The rest is history.
My points are (no not 5) that every human that leave the womb at some point becomes morally responsible. Also given enough light to know there is a Gpd and it is this they are ultimately held responsible for. No excuse. Some get more light than others but they also have more responsibility.
Hope that helps. I realize I have not dealt with every thing above. I am slow at typing as well and this has taken a couple of hours.
But PLEASE, anyone come back at me. My main issue is that calvanstic influence has not been all that good over the last few centuarys.
Yours sincerley in Jesus Christ
F
FireOnTheAltar
Guest
Here is the core of both belief systems:
ARMINIANISM
Arminianism may be represented by the acronym FACTS:
Freed by Grace (to Believe)
Atonement for All
Conditional Election
Total Depravity
Security in Christ
These points broadly and roughly correspond to the historic Articles of Remonstrance (though they are not specifically a representation of them), which were composed in July 1610 by early Arminians and constitute the first formal summary of Arminian theology. Article numbers have been indicated for each point for convenient comparison. The points are presented here by logical order rather than acronym order to facilitate explanation most helpfully.
Total Depravity (Article 3)
The Calvinist position may be represented by the acronym TULIP:
Total Depravity
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints
These are derived from the Synod of Dort, a local synod in Holland, which convened in 1618-1619 to contradict and condemn the Articles of Remonstrance. Here is a brief explanation of each point, with corresponding article numbers from the Articles of Remonstrance indicated for convenient comparison:
Total Depravity (Article 3)
ARMINIANISM
Arminianism may be represented by the acronym FACTS:
Freed by Grace (to Believe)
Atonement for All
Conditional Election
Total Depravity
Security in Christ
These points broadly and roughly correspond to the historic Articles of Remonstrance (though they are not specifically a representation of them), which were composed in July 1610 by early Arminians and constitute the first formal summary of Arminian theology. Article numbers have been indicated for each point for convenient comparison. The points are presented here by logical order rather than acronym order to facilitate explanation most helpfully.
Total Depravity (Article 3)
- Humanity was created in the image of God, good and upright, but fell from its original sinless state through willful disobedience, leaving humanity sinful, separated from God, and under the sentence of divine condemnation.
- Total depravity does not mean that human beings are as bad as they could be, but that sin impacts every part of a person’s being and that people now have a sinful nature with a natural inclination toward sin, making every human being fundamentally corrupt at heart.
- Therefore, human beings are not able to think, will, nor do anything good in and of themselves, including merit favor from God, save ourselves from the judgment and condemnation of God that we deserve for our sin, or even believe the gospel.
- If anyone is to be saved, God must take the initiative.
- God loves the world and desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
- Therefore, God gave his only Son to die for the sins of the whole world so as to provide forgiveness and salvation for all people.
- While God has provided for the salvation of all people by Christ's sacrificial and substitutionary death for all, the benefits of Christ's death are received by grace through faith and are only effective for those who believe.
- Because of Total Depravity and Atonement for All (as described above), God calls all people everywhere to repent and believe the gospel, and graciously enables those who hear the gospel to respond to it positively in faith.
- God regenerates those who believe in Christ (faith logically precedes regeneration).
- God’s saving grace is resistible, which is to say that he dispenses his calling, drawing, and convicting grace (which would bring us to salvation if responded to with faith) in such a way that we may reject it. Those who hear the gospel may either accept it by grace or reject it to their own eternal destruction.
- Apart from the realm of pleasing the Lord and doing spiritual good, people often have free will, which means that, with respect to an action, they can at least either do the action or refrain from doing it. People often have genuine choices and are therefore correspondingly able to make choices.
- God has ultimate and absolute free will. His choice to supernaturally free the will of sinners by his grace to believe in Christ is a matter of the exercise of his own free will and sovereignty.
- God has sovereignly decided to choose only those who have faith in His Son, Jesus Christ, for salvation and his eternal blessing.
- God has foreknown from eternity which individuals would believe in Christ.
- Among Arminians, there are two different views of election conditioned on faith:
- Individual election: The classic view in which God individually chose each believer based upon His foreknowledge of each one’s faith and so predestined each to eternal life
- Corporate election: Election to salvation is primarily of the Church as a people and embraces individuals only in faith-union with Christ the Chosen One and as members of his people. Since the election of the individual derives from the election of Christ and the corporate people of God, individuals become elect when they believe and remain elect only as long as they believe.
(For more on corporate election, see here.)
- Since salvation comes through faith in Christ, the security of our salvation continues by faith in Christ.
- Just as the Holy Spirit empowered us to believe in Christ, so he empowers us to continue believing in Christ.
- God protects our faith relationship with him from any outside force irresistibly snatching us away from Christ or our faith, and he preserves us in salvation as long as we trust in Christ.
- Arminians have differing views of whether Scripture teaches that believers can forsake faith in Christ and so perish, or whether God irresistibly keeps believers from forsaking their faith and therefore entering into eternal condemnation (as unbelievers).
The Calvinist position may be represented by the acronym TULIP:
Total Depravity
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints
These are derived from the Synod of Dort, a local synod in Holland, which convened in 1618-1619 to contradict and condemn the Articles of Remonstrance. Here is a brief explanation of each point, with corresponding article numbers from the Articles of Remonstrance indicated for convenient comparison:
Total Depravity (Article 3)
- Same as the Arminian points
- Though we do not differ on how to describe human depravity, Calvinists do also believe that this state requires that God first regenerate a sinner before he can believe in Christ, making him alive and giving him a new, holy nature. But regeneration does not merely enable the sinner to believe; it irresistibly causes the sinner to believe.
- God chose some individuals unconditionally from eternity for eternal life according to his own good pleasure, completely apart from anything having to do with the person, including merit, good works, or foreseen faith.
- God withheld his mercy from the rest of humanity, ordaining them to dishonor and wrath for their sin.
- Thus, by the decree of God and for his glory, some people are unconditionally predestined to eternal life, and others are left (and so ordained) to eternal death because of their sin, making two specific and static groups of individuals that can never be changed. (Some Calvinists believe that God purposed to glorify his name by unconditionally choosing some individuals for eternal blessing and some individuals for eternal Hell, and that God ordained the Fall and decided to create the world to accomplish this goal.)
- Christ died only for those certain individuals whom God chose unconditionally from eternity for salvation, enduring the punishment for their sins in their place.
- Christ’s death for those who have been unconditionally elected irresistibly brings about their salvation and everything necessary for it, including repentance and faith in Christ.
- Those whom God has unconditionally elected, and for whom Jesus died, God will draw irresistibly to faith in Christ by his grace through regeneration (making faith inevitable).
- When God brings elect sinners to Christ, he irresistibly causes them to be willing to come to Christ and to come to him in faith freely. (While we are presenting the Calvinist view objectively and typically without comment, the self-contradiction here is just too obvious to let pass: "irresistibly causes them to come willingly and freely?")
- While God calls all without distinction to faith in Christ (the general call), he only calls those he has chosen unconditionally in a way that cannot be resisted (the effectual call).
- Those God has not chosen will reject the gospel call of their own will and cannot do otherwise.
- Those whom God has unconditionally elected and for whom Jesus has died and whom God has irresistibly drawn to faith in Christ will inevitably persevere in their faith and can neither totally nor finally fall away from Christ, because God will irresistibly cause them to persevere. Therefore, their blessed eternal destiny with God is secure.
- This perseverance is not based on the believer, who may waver and actually fall into serious sin for periods of time, but is rather based on the continued grace of God.
- Those who appear to be believers, but fall away from the faith and die without faith in Christ, demonstrate that they had not truly come to saving faith in the first place.
F
FireOnTheAltar
Guest
I tried to clean it up a bit by adding spaces between paragraphs but they don't take was the post is published.
S
SirGalahad
Guest
Dear ChirstNotCalvin,
Sorry, but what you say is incorrect.
Calvin did indeed teach that every child that is born comes to this world without knowledge or love for the God who created him or her. This natural blindness (Mt 23:24), deadness (Col 2:13, Eph 2:5) and hostility towards God (Rom 5:10) is what Calvin understands as "original sin" - the curse with which every human being is born since the fall. Therefore every infant is indeed "obnoxious and odious" in God´s sight, because they don´t know God, the origin and source of everything that is good.
The Bible (and Calvin) teach that noone is saved who does not know God and the saving work of his son, Jesus Christ. Therefore every baby that dies would go to hell.
BUT: Calvin clearly stated that God has more ways than just preaching to make himself known to us, therefore it is easy for him to bring an infant to faith, even if we do not recognize this. Thus God saves those whom he chose from his just wrath, even if they die as babies and before baptism.
You can find this in the Institutes book 4, chapter 16, paragraph 18+19.
"We confess, indeed, that the word of the Lord is the only seed of spiritual regeneration; but we deny the inference that, therefore, the power of God cannot regenerate infants. This is as possible and easy for him, as it is wondrous and incomprehensible to us. It were dangerous to deny that the Lord is able to furnish them with the knowledge of himself in any way he pleases."
Kind regards,
Galahad
3 The wicked are estranged from the womb; They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies. (Psalm 58:3)
C
ChirstNotCalvin
Guest
What brilliant responses. Thank you all.
SirGalahad wrote “You can find this in the Institutes book 4, chapter 16, paragraph 18+19.”
"We confess, indeed, that the word of the Lord is the only seed of spiritual regeneration; but we deny the inference that, therefore, the power of God cannot regenerate infants. This is as possible and easy for him, as it is wondrous and incomprehensible to us. It were dangerous to deny that the Lord is able to furnish them with the knowledge of himself in any way he pleases."
Excellent stuff and absolutely right. The problem for me and I believe a multitude of others is that most calvanists do not know this.
The girl in the picture below, Kim Phuc, suffering massive burns from a napalm bomb.
If this was YOUR child how would you feel ? As a good Christian who would you say caused this to happen ? God or Man ?
John Calvin - Book 2, Ch 23, Section 1
"...it is utterly inconsistent to transfer the preparation for destruction to anything but God's secret plan." "..God's secret plan is the cause of hardening". Book 2, Ch 23, Section 1
John Calvin - Book 2, Ch 1, Section 8
… hence even infants bring their condemnation with them from their mother’s womb, suffer not from another’s, but their own defect….and therefore cannot but be odious and abominable to God.
John Calvin - Book 3, Ch 23, Section 4
"I admit that in this miserable condition wherein men are now bound, all of Adam's children have fallen by God's will."
John Calvin - Book 3, Ch 23, Section 7
"Again I ask: whence does it happen that Adam's fall irremediably involved so many peoples, together with their infant offspring, in eternal death unless because it so pleased God?
Even children dying unbaptized are lost. Martin Luther R. Seeburg, History of Doctrine,. Vol. II, p.245
I have often heart texts like the above being expounded to the detriment of church membership. So many times. I guess one big problem we all have is that we select our texts to prove our point as I have done above. Focusing in we lose sight of the big picture.
Although I don't go along with the absolute free will position, maybe I am more Arminian that I realise.
SirGalahad wrote “You can find this in the Institutes book 4, chapter 16, paragraph 18+19.”
"We confess, indeed, that the word of the Lord is the only seed of spiritual regeneration; but we deny the inference that, therefore, the power of God cannot regenerate infants. This is as possible and easy for him, as it is wondrous and incomprehensible to us. It were dangerous to deny that the Lord is able to furnish them with the knowledge of himself in any way he pleases."
Excellent stuff and absolutely right. The problem for me and I believe a multitude of others is that most calvanists do not know this.
The girl in the picture below, Kim Phuc, suffering massive burns from a napalm bomb.
If this was YOUR child how would you feel ? As a good Christian who would you say caused this to happen ? God or Man ?
John Calvin - Book 2, Ch 23, Section 1
"...it is utterly inconsistent to transfer the preparation for destruction to anything but God's secret plan." "..God's secret plan is the cause of hardening". Book 2, Ch 23, Section 1
John Calvin - Book 2, Ch 1, Section 8
… hence even infants bring their condemnation with them from their mother’s womb, suffer not from another’s, but their own defect….and therefore cannot but be odious and abominable to God.
John Calvin - Book 3, Ch 23, Section 4
"I admit that in this miserable condition wherein men are now bound, all of Adam's children have fallen by God's will."
John Calvin - Book 3, Ch 23, Section 7
"Again I ask: whence does it happen that Adam's fall irremediably involved so many peoples, together with their infant offspring, in eternal death unless because it so pleased God?
Even children dying unbaptized are lost. Martin Luther R. Seeburg, History of Doctrine,. Vol. II, p.245
I have often heart texts like the above being expounded to the detriment of church membership. So many times. I guess one big problem we all have is that we select our texts to prove our point as I have done above. Focusing in we lose sight of the big picture.
Although I don't go along with the absolute free will position, maybe I am more Arminian that I realise.
C
ChirstNotCalvin
Guest
C