Consistent Hermeneutics: Calvinism vs Arminianism

[Arial]

I was presenting a challenge.....



I am free to challenge and question and to make assertions when I think I see inconsistencies.
If you found them inflammatory.
I thought I was being up front and logical.

Assertions should have something backing them up other than just given as what you think or feel. The point is not to argue one's feelings or opinions but to support those opinions and leave feelings out of the equation. There was no logic in the defamatory statements you made about Calvinism and Calvinists. Reformed theology does not present God as being a childish tyrant who stomps on people just because He can. That is how you feel about God, not as presented in Calvinism, but as you determine it is presented and therefore it is a straw man. In order to present a logical argument you would need to argue against what the theology and doctrines in it actually are.

I even gave a logical reason why God used Calvinism to have men break away from the RCC tyranny.

Let's go back and see what your argument in total was. I will quote it below.

Calvinism initially worked effectively, like skunk spray, aimed at keeping at bay the tyrannical Roman Catholic church.
For Catholicism at that time had become inept and degenerate biblically, unable to think with the needed spiritual skill
to counter the errors of TULIP. So, it was seen as many who felt oppressed as a welcomed and good thing.

God allowed for such dogmatic opposition to be made manifested as a means to break away from the Satanic tyranny that the Vatican had become.

Since you have in this post indicated that you believe Calvinism presents a capricious and monstrous God, you now claim that God used Calvinism, presenting Himself as capricious and monstrous, an evil tyrant, in order to break away from another tyranny. Why did He not use Arminius or Erasmus to give the "truth" instead? Arminus stood up to oppose Calvin, Erasmus opposed Calvin. So there is no logic in your argument but illogic.

Whoever heeds discipline shows the way to life,
but whoever ignores correction leads others astray." Proverbs 10:17Show me the way to life in Christ... (correct me)

Scripture presented as a fallacy. One ought not do such a thing. Those words do not apply to whomever you decide to apply them to and not also apply to yourself. It is a distraction, has nothing to do with the OP, is a common tactic where no logical and thought out and biblical defense is available to the one who posts it, making yet another invalid and unsupportable and passive aggressive, accusation. The one who does this simply changes the subject, directs the conversation away from the subject, and makes the poster the subject of derision.

Show me the way to life in Christ... (correct me)

That is not the subject of the OP. In other words that is not what it is dealing with. What's to correct? You have not presented the way to Christ.

 

[ReverendRV]

John 3:16 is basic doctrine that we all should learn.

It does not take a vast amount of fundamentals. How can we?
The fundamentals are basic foundational teachings.

Meat is advanced doctrinal teaching.


In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you
the elementary truths (fundamentals) of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food!


Hebrews 5:12

You're calling it Doctrine, I'm calling it a Fundamental; Let's call it a Fundamental Doctrine. There's a reason John 3:16 is the most famous Bible Verse. Let's agree it's one of the more important Doctrines, that's why it's a Fundamental...

How about Romans 3:12?

 

[Arial]

Once broken away? A new freedom frontier was established, enabling one to seek for truth needed to understand what it was that
TULIP acted like a 'stop-gap' solution for. Which was to buy needed time to think and learn what had been denied them.

A stop-gap solution sounds even on its surface as though it does not agree with the God we see anywhere in the Bible. Perhaps you can support this and explain why God, being God, needs a stop-gap solution that, according to you, presented Himself as a monster. And how did the Reformers arrive at their theology and doctrines that were so wrong? I mean after all, there were two well known men in both the case with Luther and the one with Calvin, who were opposing this monstrous view of God. Why didn't God use them as the "stop-gap" instead?

So you have just made another unsupported claim. How about you tell us what was wrong with the Reformed doctrines on predestination and election, and show us what is right. That, after all, is the thrust of the OP, the claim having been made in it, that those opposed to Calvinism cannot actually defend their position with consistent hermeneutics and exegesis of scripture---the whole counsel of God. Don't you think in that case, responses in opposition to the claims of the OP should set out to prove me wrong? Rather than what you are doing, which is showing more than anything else, that the claim was valid.

If what Calvinism (TULIP) believes is not truth? It inevitably can only last for a season.

When does the season end? Finney though it was dead and for a time it seemed so. So dead did it seem that it was never even talked about in the modern churches. I was a church attending Christian for 23 years before it was ever brought to my attention, and then it wasn't in a church. But for the last 30+ years so quick and great was its revival that most churches now have to address it. Just look at the web sites against it as one example, the book written against it, the fury against it. The effort being put to stamp it out again. People perhaps are sick of the drivval, and the shallowness, and have a gnawing hunger inside to actually learn about God. Something with substance, and solidness, and consistency, and places our hearts and trust where they belong. In God.

What initially worked to break away from the RCC (a good thing) eventually will weaken as knowledge of Scripture grows.
Knowledge that allows for a closer examination to find the true meaning behind what they got wrong.

Tell me, what is your method of doing this? Are you able to do it when you begin your approach being against something. Would you then only study the word of God looking for this thing you are against to not be there? Or only looking for what you find appealing to your feelings and desires, and presuppositions of who God is and how He would do things?

So? How could an omniscient God create each and every soul of men without knowing how they would choose to believe?

Why do you ask that question? Is it because you have defined the word "foreknew" in say, Romans 8:29-30, as meaning God knows everything therefore in this case he knew who would choose Him and those who He knew would choose Him, He predestined----. As though that is the only possibility as to what the scriptures are saying, and does not need to take into consideration who God declares Himself to be----beyond the definition of all knowing? That we need look no farther than that at God to ascertain the meaning? That all we have to do is slightly change the application of the following words, "predestined,called, glorified" and everything that came before and after what is being said in the chapter?

What might foreknew mean if we consider:
"Jacob I loved but Esau I hated. " Has the clay any right to say to the potter--" "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy and compassion on whom I have compassion." (For example)

Or Ps 115:3 Our God is in the heavens; He does all that He pleases.
Dan 4:35 All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and He does according to His will among the host of Heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth and none can stay His hand or say to him, "What have you done?"
Eph 1:11 In HIm we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will.
1 Chron 29:1 Yours, O Lord, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the majesty, for all that is in the heavens and in the earth is Yours. Yours is the kingdom, O Lord, ad you are exalted as head above all.

 

[GeneZ]

​

​

​

He Himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only ​

for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." 1 John 2:2​

​

1 John 2:2 says It was not limited atonement.

Yet, Calvinists insist that TULIP is sound doctrinal thinking.

Scripture (1 John 2:2) plainly teaches the Lord died not just for the elect.

​

​

He Himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only ​

for ours but also for the sins of the whole world."​

I would like to know. How can one argue for limited atonement, when 1 John 2:2 says that is not what happened?

Anything can be spun. ............. I seek honesty.

We are all going to give account and stand before Him.

​

 

[ReverendRV]

​

​

​

He Himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only ​

for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." 1 John 2:2​

​

1 John 2:2 says It was not limited atonement.

Yet, Calvinists insist that TULIP is sound doctrinal thinking.

Scripture (1 John 2:2) plainly teaches the Lord died not just for the elect.

​

​

He Himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only ​

for ours but also for the sins of the whole world."​

I would like to know. How can one argue for limited atonement, when 1 John 2:2 says that is not what happened?

Anything can be spun. ............. I seek honesty.

We are all going to give account and stand before Him.

​

Who are you asking?

 

[GeneZ]

A stop-gap solution sounds even on its surface as though it does not agree with the God we see anywhere in the Bible. Perhaps you can support this and explain why God, being God, needs a stop-gap solution that, according to you, presented Himself as a monster. And how did the Reformers arrive at their theology and doctrines that were so wrong?

Not all that came out of the Reformation is bad.

TULIP is bad.

John Calvin was not its author.




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." Their major emphasis on divine sovereignty led to theological assertions that caused division in the Reformed theological community.

https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/sbc-life-articles/the-tulip-of-calvinism/

 

[GeneZ]

Who are you asking?

Anyone here who can answer, anyone who is a Calvinist.

Here is what I asked!

He Himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only ​

for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." 1 John 2:2​

1 John 2:2 says It was not limited atonement.

Yet, Calvinists insist that TULIP is sound doctrinal thinking.

Scripture (1 John 2:2) plainly teaches the Lord died not just for the elect.

He Himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only ​

for ours but also for the sins of the whole world."​

I would like to know.

How can one argue for limited atonement, when 1 John 2:2 says that is not what happened?

 

[Arial]

So far. No Calvinist here has given me anything to think correctively with.

They actually have but you either cannot hear it or refuse to hear it. Considering that the OP is not about the doctrines in Calvinism but the ways in which Calvinism vs Arminianism frame their differing views with support or no support, and considering the way in which Calvinists have responded to your posts, as compared to the way in which you respond to theirs; what could you have learned that you did not?

Yours merely attack Calvinism with multiple fallacies, most of which involve deflecting from the topic.

Why set up a forum that is TULIP based, if you can not teach what is needed to save me from error?
Just to set up a cyber fort begging for attack? Then censoring those whom you can not refute in the event it happens?

TULIP was never mentioned in the OP. We can have those discussions, should you ever present a case, but so far you have not. And by present a case I do not mean simply make statements, but instead give actual support to whatever statement you make. Prove your point in other words.

All I am seeing is a group thinking with the same bias, encouraging one another for defending their conclusions
Yet, without anyone showing me what would allow me to conclude the same thing.

The Bible tells us there should be unity of doctrine in Christ's church, in those things pertaining to God, Christ, and salvation. (1 Cor 1:10; Eph4:11-13) So why dump into the conversation a political buzz phrase to make a passive aggressive accusation? And why use bias as a negative word, when everyone has bias in everything? Shouldn't one be biased towards the truth? You can't expect anyone to counter you about what you disagree with if you have not given any specifics on which to base showing you something. We have shown you, as per the content of the OP, what it looks like to present an argument and defend it, correcting the ways in which you do not do this. How canany go beyond that if you do not give us anything to go with?

In that manner there is no room for spiritual growth. Only bias defending and patting each other on the back.

What is it you think spiritual growth would look like? Comments like the one above will not do it. There is nothing to work with.

Please instruct me ...
Why are you withholding truth from me that you claim to believe?

No one is withholding anything from you. Tell us what it is you want to know and see what happens then.

Just presenting conclusions dogmatically is not a teaching tool.

That is what we keep telling you and yet you keep on doing it, as though you cannot hear.

 

[Arial]

But, as far as those who call themselves fundamentalists go?

That is really an incomplete sentence and not a question that can be answered without its completion.

 

[ReverendRV]

Anyone here who can answer, anyone who is a Calvinist.

Here is what I asked!

He Himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only ​

for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." 1 John 2:2​

1 John 2:2 says It was not limited atonement.

Yet, Calvinists insist that TULIP is sound doctrinal thinking.

Scripture (1 John 2:2) plainly teaches the Lord died not just for the elect.

He Himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only ​

for ours but also for the sins of the whole world."​

I would like to know.

How can one argue for limited atonement, when 1 John 2:2 says that is not what happened?

I like to talk...

Is Romans 3:12 also a Doctrine or Fundamental? I can answer your new question, but wasn't I first? Answer me, and I'll answer you; I promise...

 

[Arial]

John 3:16 is basic doctrine that we all should learn.

What is that doctrine?

It does not take a vast amount of fundamentals. How can we?
The fundamentals are basic foundational teachings.

What are they? And "how can we" what?

Meat is advanced doctrinal teaching.

No one was talking about meat.

 

[Arial]

TULIP is bad.

What is bad about TULIP? To answer that would require you to put forth the various doctrines in it, as they are, not as your feelings about them. Then it would require you to point by point show what is wrong with it and why it is wrong. This will need to come, not from your feelings or opinions, but from the scriptures themselves. Are you willing to do that?

John Calvin was not its author.




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." Their major emphasis on divine sovereignty led to theological assertions that caused division in the Reformed theological community.

Completely irrelevant to the conversation.

 

[ReverendRV]

What is bad about TULIP? To answer that would require you to put forth the various doctrines in it, as they are, not as your feelings about them. Then it would require you to point by point show what is wrong with it and why it is wrong. This will need to come, not from your feelings or opinions, but from the scriptures themselves. Are you willing to do that?

Completely irrelevant to the conversation.

Right. It's like someone telling you Marijuana is bad. ~ But it can be used for medicine; alcohol too...

They're side can't just assert TULIP is bad; prove it. Bereans were Sola Scripturists...

But think of the success they have, not having to prove it!

‭‭2 Timothy‬ ‭3:6‭-‬7 ‭NIV‬‬
[6] They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over gullible women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, [7] always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.

 

[Arial]

He Himself is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world."

I would like to know. How can one argue for limited atonement, when 1 John 2:2 says that is not what happened?

Does the whole world here mean all people without exception? One way to check that is all the scriptures that say many if not most are going to hell and therefore did not have their sins atoned for. Would you agree with that?

So it cannot mean that Jesus actually atoned for all the sins without exception. Would you agree that if it was His suffering and His shed blood, and His death that was making atonement, that that would mean they were actually atoned for? Or would you say they were theoretically or potentially atoned for?

If it means He actually did what it says He did, and we know not all are saved, how would we make sense of that? Maybe "world" in this case, as in many cases, and many cases within the scriptures, does not mean everyone in the world without exception. Are there other uses or applications of "world"?

If we go to Webster we find" 1. the earthly state of human existence 2. the earth with its inhabitants and all things upon it. 3.the inhabitants of the earth: the human race 4. the concerns of the earth and its affairs as distinguished from heaven and the life to come. 4b.secular affairs 5. the system of created things.

Actually none of those things refers to every person in the world without exception.

So in 1 John 2:2 it would be a most unlikely leap to say that world there means every individual in the world----and for all time past, present, and future, to boot. There would be no logic to that or even to wording the sentence the way it did if that is what it meant. So it means all parts or places and types of people of the world. So that scripture isolated from all surrounding text and isolated also from the whole counsel of God, cannot be used to support your defense against Calvinism and limited atonement.

What do Calvinist mean by limited atonement. Well, they mean that even though it was sufficient to atone for all the sins of all the people, it was never intended to by God who set the whole plan in motion and brought it to pass. Or by Jesus who paid the price. It means Jesus accomplished exactly without fail or flaw, to do exactly what He came to do. Make atonement for those God gave Him. (John 6:35-40; John 10:1-5,11-18,25-30)

 

[GeneZ]

They actually have but you either cannot hear it or refuse to hear it.

You have? I must have missed it. Sorry..

please show me where you showed me.

Considering that the OP is not about the doctrines in Calvinism but the ways in which Calvinism vs Arminianism frame their differing views with support or no support, and considering the way in which Calvinists have responded to your posts, as compared to the way in which you respond to theirs; what could you have learned that you did not?

Both sides are wrong in several ways. Yet each side will check the other with the showing of the other's inconsistencies,

Arminianism presumes that "total depravity" does not apply to mankind. It believes there is innately a "touch of good" in all of us. A good that God taps into for salvation. That is false. Man, when left to his own abilities, can not believe in God.

Calvinism never breaks it down properly with total depravity. It tells us that each soul, as well as each body, is depraved.
When in actuality? It is man's fallen flesh that is enslaving the human soul inside the body to be against God.

Grace when applied from God? That grace neutralizes the negative influence of the flesh over the soul. In doing so,
that grace power frees up that soul to either choose for, or against, Jesus Christ.

Calvinism instead works with a perpetually vague concept that God's grace is "irresistible."
Claiming in effect, that God sovereignly chooses to make man believe...

In that case? Man's volition, in effect, is no where to be found when choosing to believe in Christ.
Choosing? No. Irresistible grace amounts to forcing a person to believe.

Yours merely attack Calvinism with multiple fallacies, most of which involve deflecting from the topic.

TULIP was never mentioned in the OP.

Why does it have to be mentioned when Calvinism becomes the topic?

For, TULIP rests at the heart of Calvinism.

To say that TULIP should not be entered into the discussion about Calvinism seems absurd.

I am pretty sure that most Calvinists here would agree with me on that one.

 

[GeneZ]

Does the whole world here mean all people without exception?

That is what it means.

What seems to confound you is why should He die for the sins of those who reject Him.

That is because the issue in salvation is not about our sins.
Its about what one thinks of Jesus Christ.

To not have paid for their sins?

That would have made their sins the issue in going to Hell, and not their rejection of Jesus Christ.

God's justice leaves no excuse for failing to enter Heaven.

 

[ReverendRV]

That is what it means.

What seems to confound you is why should He die for the sins of those who reject Him.

That is because the issue in salvation is not about our sins.
Its about what one thinks of Jesus Christ.

To not have paid for their sins?

That would have made their sins the issue in going to Hell, and not their rejection of Jesus Christ.

God's justice leaves no excuse for failing to enter Heaven.

You skipped my Post #30. Most Posters don't like to answer my questions, because they can see the problem my questions create when it comes to their doctrine...

 

[David1701]

Let's agree it takes a vast amount of Fundamentals, okay?

How about starting with John 3:16; this is a Fundamental of the Faith, right?

It's worth trying this approach. We'll see what happens.

 

[ReverendRV]

It's worth trying this approach. We'll see what happens.

I often use unconventional approaches...

 

[Arial]

That is what it means.

What seems to confound you is why should He die for the sins of those who reject Him.

That is because the issue in salvation is not about our sins.
Its about what one thinks of Jesus Christ.

To not have paid for their sins?

That would have made their sins the issue in going to Hell, and not their rejection of Jesus Christ.

God's justice leaves no excuse for failing to enter Heaven.

I will tackle that in the morning when I have more time. I won't be responding with emotional comebacks and unsupported assertions and there is everything wrong with what you posted. It will take some time and will involve actually going to the support for your wrongness and then presenting it.

As opposed to what you presented as a response to my post, beyond "That is what it means". That the whole world in 1John 2:2 means every individual in the world past, present, and future. Even though there is nothing remotely logical about such a claim. After that, in order to try and justify it you gave a complete perversion of the person and work of Jesus.I will show come the morning.