Consistent Hermeneutics: Calvinism vs Arminianism

[Arial]

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

please show me where you showed me.

Showed you what?

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.

Again I will need to get to it tomorrow. Suffice it to say for now that you did not give any support for any of your statements. You just said stuff and none of it is correct.

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.

Tomorrow. But I never said it should not enter in to the discussion. In fact I said that was fine but it would require something specific to be addressed, not just general statements with nothing attached to them.

 

[GeneZ]

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...

"All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”

That is a verse alone that is stating a fundamental.

In its context? We need to get into doctrinal thinking...

Romans 3:12 was stated to make it clear that in God's eyes Jews in their natural state are no better than gentiles.
Verses one and two are the basis for that context.

What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision?
Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God.

 

[David1701]

I often use unconventional approaches...

I've noticed that you often look for points of agreement, then move forwards, a little at a time, trying to take the other person with you. This can be a good approach, with some people (reasonable ones).

 

[Mr GLee]

How well can you defend your doctrinal position?

It does not matter who is really correct.
What makes it correct amounts to how well one can defend what they choose to shield themselves with.
It then becomes an intellectualized sport and mental competition.

I would offer

It's how we hear. who we hear . . what we hear. The mix.

,If we hear the oral traditions as personal commentaries of each other we teach each other what we believe called a "heresy" . If God not seen works in us and gives us his understanding as ears to hear. Then we are walking by our new born again faith the light on our path .

It does matter if it is correct. Its law not subject to change. It's not a intellectual. philopshical gospel. God's intellect is unreachable He is the teacher the designer . The law of faith.". . . "Let there be intelligence" and it was "the wisdom of God"

We take the shield of faith as the power of God. . it as it is written defends us .

Sola scriptura the restoring principle during the 1st century reformation the pattern for the15th century or any generation when two or three are gathered together under the authority of the living, abiding word of Christ. . our Lord

 

[ReverendRV]

"All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”

That is a verse alone that is stating a fundamental.

In its context? We need to get into doctrinal thinking...

Romans 3:12 was stated to make it clear that in God's eyes Jews in their natural state are no better than gentiles.
Verses one and two are the basis for that context.

What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision?
Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God.

How about the Double Imperative that no one does Good, no not One? Isn't it Fundamental that this is true of All the Fallen?

Aren't John 3:16 and Romans 3:11 both Fundamentals of the Faith?

 

[GeneZ]

Showed you what?

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

Your response?

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

I have no idea what I may have missed. But, I was hoping you could show me where these answers can be found.

 

[ReverendRV]

I would offer

It's how we hear. who we hear . . what we hear. The mix.

,If we hear the oral traditions as personal commentaries of each other we teach each other what we believe called a "heresy" . If God not seen works in us and gives us his understanding as ears to hear. Then we are walking by our new born again faith the light on our path .

It does matter if it is correct. Its law not subject to change. It's not a intellectual. philopshical gospel. God's intellect is unreachable He is the teacher the designer . The law of faith.". . . "Let there be intelligence" and it was "the wisdom of God"

We take the shield of faith as the power of God. . it as it is written defends us .

Sola scriptura the restoring principle during the 1st century reformation the pattern for the15th century or any generation when two or three are gathered together under the authority of the living, abiding word of Christ. . our Lord

Jeremiah 6:10 KJV: To whom shall I speak, and give warning, that they may hear? behold, their ear is uncircumcised, and they cannot hearken: behold, the word of the LORD is unto them a reproach; they have no delight in it

Speaking of what we hear, what do you think about our Fallen, Uncircumcised ears?

 

[GeneZ]

How about the Double Imperative that no one does Good, no not One? Isn't it Fundamental that this is true of All the Fallen?

Aren't John 3:16 and Romans 3:11 both Fundamentals of the Faith?

You need to work within the context. For if you did not? That means you are doing no good by being here.

 

[ReverendRV]

You need to work within the context. For if you did not? That means you are doing no good by being here.

Sure; but isn't it true the Verse is just as Fundamental to the Christian Faith, as John 3:16 is?

 

[GeneZ]

Sure; but isn't it true the Verse is just as Fundamental to the Christian Faith, as John 3:16 is?

What is coming out of this?

John 3:16 is a plain spoken complete thought.
Romans 3:11 requires grasping the context before it can be explained.

11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God."

That can be abused and misused standing on its own without its context.
Its not a fundamental for that reason.

 

[ReverendRV]

What is coming out of this?

John 3:16 is a plain spoken complete thought.
Romans 3:11 requires grasping the context before it can be explained.

11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God."

That can be abused and misused standing on its own without its context.
Its not a fundamental for that reason.

Okay buddy, I tried; thanks. I would say it's more Fundamental than even John 3:16. The reason why is because it's the conclusion of Saint Paul's treatise through Romans 1-3 where Paul was proving that All are under Sin; that Romans 3:12 is a Double Imperative meant to hunker down on the fact no one does Good. I am the type who knows better than to keep on twisting someone's arm online...

But in good faith, I'll answer your question...

I would like to know

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

Limited Atonement is true because Propitiation is not Limited but Expiation Is Limited; and both are One Atonement. He is the Propitiation for the World (Unlimited Atonement available to All through Propitiation), especially of those who believe (Limited Definite Atonement of the Unconditionally Elect through Propitiation and Expiation)...

 

[GeneZ]

Okay buddy, I tried; thanks. I would say it's more Fundamental than even John 3:16.

Then I have no idea what your concept of a fundamental might be.

The reason why is because it's the conclusion of Saint Paul's treatise through Romans 1-3 where Paul was proving that All are under Sin; that Romans 3:12 is a Double Imperative meant to hunker down on the fact no one does Good. I am the type who knows better than to keep on twisting someone's arm online...

Again... your fundamental takes on no definition, unless you include the context, like you just did.

But in good faith, I'll answer your question...
I would like to know.


Limited Atonement is true because Propitiation is not Limited but Expiation Is Limited; and both are One Atonement. He is the Propitiation for the World (Unlimited Atonement available to All), especially of those who believe (Limited Definite Atonement of the Unconditionally Elect through Expiation)...

That explains nothing. You can not show how what you said is so, is so. You are simply declaring something to be so

Do you realize that at the last judgement the unbelievers sins will not be mentioned? They will not even be an issue.
They would have to be an issue if their sins were not "expiated"....

(still can't see how atonement does not count in your reasoning).

But... I'll play along.

 

[ReverendRV]

You've only got 15 minutes to Edit-to-Add your Coment to this Post #52

 

[ReverendRV]

Then I have no idea what your concept of a fundamental might be.



Again... your fundamental takes on no definition, unless you include the context, like you just did.


That explains nothing. You can not show how what you said is so, is so. You are simply declaring something to be so

Do you realize that at the last judgement the unbelievers sins will not be mentioned? They will not even be an issue.
They would have to be an issue if their sins were not "expiated"....

(still can't see how atonement does not count in your reasoning).

But... I'll play along.

Nah, I don't Play; have fun with someone else...

 

[GeneZ]

Nah, I don't Play; have fun with someone else...

Noooooooo you don't. You probably realized you were trapped by your own logic.

For, I could have shown you how what you said made no difference.

So? Calvinists have a right to get upset when they are not understood?
No...

You can not answer.

This might help....

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/two-important-words-good-friday-expiation-and-propitiation

 

[GeneZ]

Nah, I don't Play; have fun with someone else...

I'm not playing either. This is not for fun.

 

[TMSO]

"If man can not have the freedom to choose?" The choice or no choice dilemma is a false one. The actual issue is what kind of choice. Everyone holds that choices are made; the issue is why. Further, the dilemma isn't free or not free. Rather, the issue is about what kind of freedom one advocates.

"Why did God even bother?" Non-issue, since the prior question was falsely framed.

"Without free will being granted to men by grace?" Since, the whole line of questions got off on the wrong foot, this question is also misguided. Again, the choice or no choice dilemma is false. The free or not free dilemma is false. What kind of choice and what kind of freedom is the actual issue. In the following thread, post #27, I laid out the TWO positions.

https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/what-s-free-will.1082/page-2

At minimum, there are at least two different versions of freedom and choice-making on the table. Writing a post only assuming one, and that painfully undefined, only serves to beg the question. You now need to argue why yours is the only viable version of choice and freedom. I also gave libertarian freedom a critique (this thread); in post #2 it is practical nonsense to utilize libertarian freedom and then act in a way that invalidates the principle advocated.

"God would amount to being like a little girl
playing house with her dolls. Dolls who act upon how she imagines and wants them to be." I've never considered blasphemy to be a good argument. Why did you choose such a path to tread?

If the poster can actually get on the right track and ask legitimate questions, then I would be happy to continue with the other issues posted. However, having begun on the wrong foot, fallaciously assuming a falsity, and building the foundation of the discussion upon a straw man, the entire house of cards collapses. The waves from the ocean come and wash away the poorly founded sandcastle.

Suggestion: Deal with real positions, not straw men, erected upon false dilemmas and falsely framed questions.

Very nice. I have a question (serious curiosity here). When you see people talking about this, do you also picture the two level existence of the universe? (There may be others, but I think of the most important ones to these questions) The two levels of God, then us? And, if you do, do you believe that most of the dissension from arminians (I can't say 100% for LFW, though perhaps them to) would be removed if everyone considered the differences between the two levels of existence? (In this case, Creator and I'll tag on Sovereign, to created/humanity.) Owner to property. Would understanding that dynamic remove most of the objections to understanding just where Calvin was coming from?

[So you understand the last question better, my thought process is how Calvin had to take the time to answer/rebut those who claimed he taught that God is the author of evil. (I think he did an amazing job, might I add.) I don't believe someone who understands the dynamic that exists between creator and created, and in this case God and us, has any ground to make such a statement. I do understand that there are some other contingencies, but, from what I have noticed over the years is that these questions and statements seem to come from not truly understanding God's position, and our position, which are not the same. We cannot judge God in human terms, and in fact, we shouldn't judge Him at all.]

 

[Arial]

Your response?




I have no idea what I may have missed. But, I was hoping you could show me where these answers can be found.

You might try reading what followed the one sentence in the paragraph that followed. Up to that point you had not asked any questions or presented anything specific to be clarified. When you finally did bring up a scripture 1 John 2:2 saying that proved limited atonement was not true, and I showed you how it did not, not even from a dictionary definition and uses of "world", and could not considering the whole counsel of God, not to mention what John meant when he wrote it, all you did was respond to the first question of that entire post. Saying it is what it means. (Every individual in the whole world for all of time.) Post #34

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.

 

[Mr GLee]

Jeremiah 6:10 KJV: To whom shall I speak, and give warning, that they may hear? behold, their ear is uncircumcised, and they cannot hearken: behold, the word of the LORD is unto them a reproach; they have no delight in it

Speaking of what we hear, what do you think about our Fallen, Uncircumcised ears?

Thanks I would offer.

I would think the idea of non-circumcised ears are those who say like in Exodus 4. When they literally see the literal blood . Not when God reckons his Spirit in them the unseen power .

They walked by sight, natural unconverted mankind. Looking to the temporal corrupted seen (tokens)and not the eternal unseen things of God.

The Exodus parable in that sense circumcises our new ears giving us His understanding.

Exodus: 12-14 For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord. And the blood shall be to you for a token ("sign, symbol, evidence" ) upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt. And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.

Blood is used as a shadow of His eternal Holy Spirit . When his Holy Spirit smite the land of egypt

The beginning of the foundation of circumcised. . The doorway closed in Exodus 4 as a veil parables hide a metaphor Jesus is the door.Using it to represent circumcision of the first born Jesus the Son man.

Exodus 4:22-27 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn. And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the Lord met him, and sought to kill him. took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision. And the Lord said to Aaron, Go into the wilderness to meet Moses. And he went, and met him in the mount of God, and kissed him.

Bloody husband twice to emphasize the token.

Zippora the prophetess priest cut off the foreskin of Gershom. . meaning stranger in the land the first born. Like the parable of Abraham and Isaac both pointed ahead to our bloody husband .The veil representing foreskin was cut off .There was no Jewish man sitting in the Holy of Holies.

God is eternal Spirit .

Its when the Father, sees the bloody husband. The father the one with power, the blood of circumcision.

 

[Arial]

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.

If it isn't about our sins what do the words propitiation, reconciliation, justification,redemption, and atonement mean?
And what do these passages mean?
1 Peter 2:24 He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that, having died to sins, we might live for righteousness; by His wounds you have been healed.

Hebrews 9:11-12 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.

Col 2:13-14 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, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This He set aside, nailing it to the cross.

Tell me, what must one think about Jesus Christ in order to have our sins forgiven?

We cannot come near God unless we are cleansed of all sin, and we can only come near God in/through Jesus.

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.

If He paid for all the sins of everyone, there would be no need to come to Him. The way you see it, it He doesn't really pay for them. It is the sinners choice that causes them to be paid or not paid for. It is an oxymoron to say He paid for them with His life and at the same time say He didn't. We both agree that it is through belief/faith that the work of Jesus is applied. But you say belief is a choice to believe/trust in Jesus and you need to validate that with scripture. Either way the atonement is limited to those who believe.

Calvinism solves the "dilemma" by using the whole counsel of God.
First of all, who is God? And who is Jesus? According to what God says about Himself and who He says Jesus is, and work through from there. We know that He is sovereign over all His creation. We know He is the Creator and we are but a creature. We are obligated to Him, He is not obligated to us. He rules over all and always does as He pleases. And we know He is good and holy and righteous and perfect, possesses all wisdom and knowledge, and power, so whatever He pleases will not be capricious or arbitrary but work towards His ultimate purpose.

We know Jesus is the eternal second person of the Trinity, the Son come as one of us for the purpose of redeeming a people from their fallen state in Adam. And He did this by perfect obedience to the Father, even unto the horrendous suffering and humiliation of dying on the cross---in the place of the sinner, and in doing so took the penalty for their sins on Himself.

We know from the scriptures that in this working out of His plan of redemption and the restoration of all things through man's redemption, there is not one place where God leaves the end result up to man's choices. He is always doing the choosing of everything.

We have countless scriptures that speak of "calling," "elect", "chosen," "foreknew," "predestined,". And in all of them it is God doing it. We have the scriptures where Jesus speaks of those who God is giving Him as being the ones He is going to lay down His life for.

It is inconceivable that in all this, at the most crucial point of this redemption that has been working in and through thousands of years; that when God sent His Son to suffer and die to redeem a people for Himself; that He would then in effect step back away from the Son and say "We'll see how many you die for when the yes's and no's are counted. In the meantime die for them all anyway." That would be rude.