Consistent Hermeneutics: Calvinism vs Arminianism

[Manfred]

Where in Scripture does it say men "choose" to reject God.

They, being fallen, are all under compulsion to reject God. They can not choose.

Rom 11:7 What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened,
Rom 11:8 as it is written, “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day.”
Rom 11:9 And David says, “Let their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them;
Rom 11:10 let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see, and bend their backs forever.”

Rom 11:17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree,
Rom 11:18 do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you.
Rom 11:19 Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.”
Rom 11:20 That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear.
Rom 11:21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you.
Rom 11:22 Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off.
Rom 11:23 And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again.
Rom 11:24 For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.

 

[Manfred]

That is true for all men without God's enabling grace.

So God's enabling grace is applied only to some and not all people.

Otherwise it is not "enabling"

 

[ReverendRV]

So God's enabling grace is applied only to some and not all people.

Otherwise it is not "enabling"

Genius!

 

[Manfred]

Romans 1:18-20 shows how some were being drawn by God (by grace), and then thoroughly rejected
what God also gave to be saved with (faith) while being given the grace to see it.

Nonsense

That is not at all what Romans 1:18 - 20 shows!

It says that everyone without excuse knows there is a God.
Knowing that there is a God, and believing in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior are not the same thing.

Mormons know there is a God, and believe in a false Christ.
It benefits them naught.

 

[Manfred]

So, can a person have a nominal belief and not be saved, or not?

Yes, before I was born again I had a nominal faith. At that point I was not yet "saved"

Can a person be born into and raised a Christian and believe in the Christian religion and not be saved?

Yes

Can a person be born into and raised a Christian who believes in Christianity and not get saved until later in their life?

Yes

PLEASE answer these questions and do not resort to evasion or any other method of avoiding the plain meaning of what I just said but tackle what I just asked you and answer it plainly.

There are many tares among the wheat.

 

[Manfred]

There must be differences between believers .... 1 Corinthians 11:19.

1Co 11:18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part,
1Co 11:19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.

So some are not genuine, while others are. Are you genuine?
Eph 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call—
Eph 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Eph 4:6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
Eph 4:7 But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ's gift.
Eph 4:8 Therefore it says, “When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men.”
Eph 4:9 (In saying, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower regions, the earth?
Eph 4:10 He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.)
Eph 4:11 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers,
Eph 4:12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,
Eph 4:13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ,
Eph 4:14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.
Eph 4:15 Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ,
Eph 4:16 from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.

 

[Manfred]

God gave gifts to many.
But if they are carnal?
Their gifts produce only wood hay and stubble.

You accused the other poster of having a gift of sidestepping when they have been doing the opposite...

Is that your carnal gift....?

On the other hand?

Some have the 'charis' (gift) of sidestepping a topic they wish to avoid, by diverting down a path away from the real issue.


life goes on....

 

[Arial]

That's Calvinism...

That is not what he means though. He has a whole manufactured concept of soul and body. And he thinks God gave some sort of shower of enabling grace to everyone----past, present, future, dead or alive, born or unborn?----so that now everyone can choose God and they decide if the want to or not.

So I guess everyone born after the crucifixion and resurrection, including you and me, are not really born in Adam but born with enabling that has removed all the obstacles of our depravity. And yet he also says we have inborn obstacles of depravity. And what oh what of all the people who died before the crucifixion and resurrection? For he also says that Jesus died for the sins of every individual, and would that not include those who are already dead physically?

I don't know how it is possible for a rational person to arrive at so many oxymorons and contradictions and illogic, in their own doctrines, not to mention scripture, and not even notice that they do so. Interacting with him is like watching a cat chase its tail.

 

[Arial]

Calvinism only addresses that reality.

But the solution found in TULIP is wrong. Its not thew solution.

What is the solution in TULIP? What is wrong with it? Why is it not a solution? You may answer those questions one at a time, quoting each one separately in seperate posts, leaving you plenty of room and no distractions, to deal with them exegetically and with proper interpretive hermeneutics. Thanks. I will be waiting.

 

[Arial]

Calvinism notes the dilemma of the depravity of man, making naturally born people unable to believe.
Calvinism addressed it.

But you also say that God gave this grace to everyone. If that is the case, we are now born with the obstacles of our depravity dealt with at birth, and all are born with the ability to choose.

But, Calvinism failed in its explaining how God gets man able to be saved.

No it did not fail in this. It explained it in the only way it can be explained and remain faithful to the whole counsel of God----who byw explains it perfectly and very clearly, when He refers to us as the called, the elect, the chosen, the foreknown, the predestined. The explanation that Calvinism gives is that the grace to save is effectual---it gives faith----. And it is given to the elect. He regenerates them. (John 3) quickens them to life. (Eph 2) You do not like that and say it is untrue, and therefore simply say it did not explain it----meaning it did not explain it in a way that you agree with.

Its not something to be ashamed of.
For, John Calvin was pioneering unexplored territory in a theologically primitive and corrupted world..
Even Christopher Columbus called the native Americans, "Indians," because he wrongly though he had landed in India.
Just the same, Columbus opened the way for the American continent to be explored and settled to God's glory.
Likewise, Calvin opened a way for theologians to begin thinking in a new ray of light.

Rule #18 in forum rules: No jerks allowed. Admins and mods define who and what jerks are in private. Jerks are kicked out or banned. I am not kicking you out or banning you, but this is a good spot to remind you of this rule. The reason being the haughtiness and condescension of "It's nothing to be ashamed of." Followed by wafting off into deflection and subject changing with things that have nothing to do with the discussion.

My pastor said Calvin was the better exegetical teacher of the reformation. He also said it was not Calvin that
formulated the TULIP problem. That it was devised later by a follower of Calvin, Theodore Beza.

You pastor is making a case against Calvinism and does so in a way that is uninformed, misinformed, and stupid.
TULIP does not have a problem and did not formulate a problem. TULIP is a condensation in acronym form of Calvin's doctrines on election and predestination. It is totally irrelevant to anything who came up with the acronym. Your pastor does not state what the TULIP problem is, or what is the solution to whatever this problem is. Like most/all anti Calvinists he simply makes statements that are unsupported by anything and calls it good.

After the death of John Calvin, Theodore Beza and other Calvinist theologians reformed their doctrine around predestination in the matter of salvation and developed their various "doctrines of grace."

No support is given that Beza reformed the doctrines around predestination---. And no explanation of what it was reformed from specifically, no evidence is given that it is different from what Calvin taught, or how it is different.

Jacob Arminius, a Dutch student of Beza, countered some Calvinist teaching. In 1610, the "Arminians" crafted five articles which affirmed the election of believers but disagreed with the Calvinists' interpretation of election. In 1618, the Calvinists of the Dutch Reformed Church convened the Synod of Dort in order to condemn the Arminians and their five points. Dort's "five heads" of doctrine were later rearranged under the acronym TULIP.

Arminias did not craft the remonstrance. He died before it was done. It was his followers who crafted it being more liberal than Arminius was. And it agreed with total depravity but did not agree with the Calvinist election, saying as you do, that everyone gets grace so they can choose for themselves. The remonstrance was declared to be heresy. It doesn't agree with the whole counsel of God.

 

[GeneZ]

Freedom to choose in the natural, or the natural man has the freedom to choose Spiritual truths?

Spiritual truths require regeneration to be perceived and understood.
The natural man can not understand the doctrines that are taught to someone following regeneration.
That man is not free to believe the flood account of Noah, though he may find it entertaining to hear.

But..
One does not have to be regenerate to know he sins. That is not a spiritual reality.
He can be shown how he is a sinner if he does not already know.
The Gospel is about sin and redemption. Not about believing in the Deity of Christ.

God is responsible for drawing a person, not the logic of man, though God may use the logic of man in drawing that person.

That much freedom the natural man has.

 

[GeneZ]

What is the solution in TULIP? What is wrong with it? Why is it not a solution? You may answer those questions one at a time, quoting each one separately in seperate posts, leaving you plenty of room and no distractions, to deal with them exegetically and with proper interpretive hermeneutics. Thanks. I will be waiting.

Not going there with you.

 

[ReverendRV]

Rule #18 in forum rules: No jerks allowed. Admins and mods define who and what jerks are in private. Jerks are kicked out or banned. I am not kicking you out or banning you, but this is a good spot to remind you of this rule. The reason being the haughtiness and condescension of "It's nothing to be ashamed of." Followed by wafting off into deflection and subject changing with things that have nothing to do with the discussion.

 

[GeneZ]

Nonsense

That is not at all what Romans 1:18 - 20 shows!

It says that everyone without excuse knows there is a God.
Knowing that there is a God, and believing in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior are not the same thing.

Mormons know there is a God, and believe in a false Christ.
It benefits them naught.

The introductory stage of God's drawing is instilling God consciousness.
Its the foundational step in God drawing men.

Romans 1:18-19 declares that God himself made known to these men what was needed to be known to know God exists.

​

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness ​

of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God ​

is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.​

Romans 1:21 even says that their knowledge of God became "epignosis." They knew!

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, ​

but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.​

​

My pastor who was a Greek scholar showed us that the Greek indicates that these men in their minds became snooty towards God.

And, as we read we see God in return handed them over to the desires of their heart, which was to heed the voices of darkness. In that manner, they who were previously heterosexual, became PUNISHED by God, by handing them over to the demonic realm that brought them to having uncontrollable homosexual desire.

Unlike those men, many accept God consciousness in the drawing of God. Its why we see so much religion.


grace and peace .........

 

[Arial]

Not going there with you.

Any particular reason?

 

[GeneZ]

Any particular reason?

Not going there with you either....

Nothing I can say would help.

God bless you.

 

[Arial]

Why could we not do a single thing worthy to be saved?
For we did not stand a chance to deserve to be saved, because of the fallen state that we had no choice in being born into!

To point out the point to you: God does not progressively save us. Therefore there is no "while He is saving us."

God knowing what the fall would cause in all mankind, took upon Himself the responsibility for us not being responsible for Adam's choice.
The Cross was God taking responsibility for allowing Adam to determine our fallen state.

Blasphemy.

If we all individually made our own choice to enter into our depraved state? Then God would have the right to forsake us all.
For we were all born in a state worthy of God forsaking mankind!

The last two sentences when connected together do not make a lick of sense. But just for your information, God is utterly and completely free, the only being who is, and He can and does whatever He pleases. You have no business telling Him what His RIGHTS are. Though you do so constantly,

To rectify what God planned for allowing the Fall of Man?

Blasphemy and nonsense. God does not rectify His plans. Learn who God is!!!!

It was safe to cast the sins of the world upon Jesus because He had no depravity. He was without sin.
That way, he could experience the punishment of being forsaken by God, as we deserved; and yet able to recover as long as
he refused to sin while suffering the imaginable agony of undeserved suffering on the Cross.

Safe? You act like God sat back after the fall of man pondering how to rectify what He planned and came up with an "I know! This is how I can do it safely!"

The Father trusted the Son to undo the damage which was done by allowing Adam to determine our fallen state.
A fall that was without us having any say in the matter.
God showed his fairness towards all mankind by taking upon Himself on the Cross what he did not deserve,
and what we (without a choice) did deserve by default of being fallen.

Blasphemy.

The fall of man was more about the conflict that the angels found themselves in than we who are human-centric realize.
For "fallen man" became the seed of the serpent. When man fell? All men by nature became in the image of fallen angels.


And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel.”Genesis 3:15

No where in the Bible does it say anything even remotely like what you suggest. And to use Gen 3:15 in the way that you do is blasphemy against God and Christ. It is the first promise of the coming Christ and has nothing whatsoever to do with angels.

I can't handle dealing with the rest of that post now, (have to do make the stuffing) and I may never get back to it. In fact I may delete the whole mess after I finish reading it as you have completely changed the subject and also gone off the rails.

 

[GeneZ]

That's Calvinism...

That's truth.

That's not all that Calvinism teaches.

 

[GeneZ]

Blasphemy and nonsense. God does not rectify His plans. Learn who God is!!!!

That was a punctuation problem ....

One little comma I should have put in there..

Here, with comma:

To rectify, what God planned for allowing the Fall of Man?

In other words..

To rectify (the problem that just preceded) God planned (what) for the Fall of Man?

This is what I said was planned...

Jesus took it upon himself to become the Forsaken who deserved not to be forsaken..

That as it stands clarified and corrected, does not sound like blasphemy.

My bad on that one.

 

[GeneZ]

So God's enabling grace is applied only to some and not all people.

Otherwise it is not "enabling"

All who choose to be humbled before God? God keeps on applying grace.
He gives "more" grace.

It is the proud who will not understand what this grace is I speak of ....

God at one point gives grace to all. Even to those who end up being proud, thus being refused more grace.
Grace was given by God to make them able to see the issue that they proudly refused to accept.


Read what it says, please.

But he gives more grace. Therefore it says, “​

God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” James 4:6​

Who does God give 'more' grace to? Only to some.

God is not arbitrary with His grace.