s/o about Calvinism vs. Arminianism

[Ginevra]

As though it's never been discussed before. :tongue_smilie:

 

I just think the doctrine of election could never be acceptable to me. What about scriptures that say it is not God's will that any should perish, but that all would come to Christ? Limited Atonement as a term even sounds wrong.

[catalinakel]

Your thoughts and questions have come up throughout history. For me not having all the answers completely does not stop me from believing some things entirely.

[iona]

i appreciate this discussion because it is a difficult one.

limited atonement only makes sense when you start with the idea of total depravity. that we are dead in our sins and can't (without divine intervention) see the truth and have faith.

 

i believe atonement is limited either way you look at it.

either christ died and purchased salvation for His church (limited scope of recipients, but fully saving) or christ died and made salvation possible for everyone but their salvation hinges on their acceptance (limited in power-His dying doesn't actually save you)

[Ginevra]

christ died and made salvation possible for everyone but their salvation hinges on their acceptance (limited in power-His dying doesn't actually save you)

 

But, iona, his dying does actually save you, but it is like being given a check that you have to endorse. Yes, you actually have the check, but you have to demonstrate your faith in the payment by signing the check and cashing it. (And please don't anyone misunderstand that I'm trivializing salvation as though it were comparable to a cash payment.)

[milovany]

Nevahmind.

 

I'll say this instead: this is an area where both sides can be proven by Scripture, depending on how one interprets the verses used. Non-reformed can prove their position, reformed can prove their position. So the deeper issue might be -- how do you know? Who do you believe? Whose interpretation are you going to trust? Or can both be right?

Edited January 1, 2011 by milovaný

[i.love.lucy]

For me there were just far too many scriptures about those that would be saved being "elect" or "chosen" or "predestined" to be a part of His Kingdom. I don't pretend to have all the answers. This article from John Piper's website helped explain and solidify things for me on all the 5 Points.

 

Also, John MacArthur has a great website. He has done some very powerful sermons on limited atonement and why still evangelize and what it all means. You can find some here.

 

These two men are very trusted theologians in Reformed circles.

[Ginevra]

Also, I don't believe in Total Depravity. I don't think it's born out evidently in the world. There are "good" people who are not Christians, even a few who don't profess any faith system at all. And those who are saved don't cease to sin. They may be a new creation in some respects, but they are not transformed into people who never sin anymore.

 

Also, many sinful behaviors stem from organic disorders or traumatic childhood experiences. I think it explains some sins as not having anything to do with the soul's state, actually.

[Dianne-TX]

It helps to define what "all" means in all those scriptural contexts. If you have any biblical study resources (good commentaries, biblical dictionary, concordance, etc. that gives meanings of each word in it's original text and an explanation of each scripture in detail), look up the scriptures you question and study the original language meaning of each "all" and also to what audience the scripture was written. A lot of the NT is written to believers, not unbelievers and that changes the meaning of the words used like "all", "everyone", etc. It's like studying the scripture where Jesus asks Peter if he loves him three times. The word "love" has different meanings each time.

 

It's been awhile since I've done word studies, but this was taught to me a long time ago and it helps greatly.

 

Edited to add: I wanted to share a few websites that might help, too. One is a question/answer site from John MacArthur, in addition to his Grace To You site. The ques./answer site is www.biblebb.com and his ministry site is www.gty.org Another one is Mongerism, www.mongerism.com HTH

Edited January 1, 2011 by Dianne-TX

[mcconnellboys]

Precisely. And I'll leave it at that, because this is an idea I struggle with greatly....

[iona]

But, iona, his dying does actually save you, but it is like being given a check that you have to endorse. Yes, you actually have the check, but you have to demonstrate your faith in the payment by signing the check and cashing it. (And please don't anyone misunderstand that I'm trivializing salvation as though it were comparable to a cash payment.)

 

i guess i disagree. if he did accomplish salvation it would happen. i don't think Christ died for the sins of people who go on to suffer for them in hell. That doesn't make sense to me. That weakens the blood of Christ, and increases mans power. It would mean the only difference between someone who is saved and someone who isn't is their choice, not Christ's blood. I believe salvation hinges on the work of Christ, not on our decision. Our faith is the way in which grace is transferred, and it is a gift of God.

 

As far as the check analogy, i don't think God would send His son to suffer and fill up an account that goes unspent. This goes back to God being Sovereign. I believe God saves from beginning to end.

 

I think our ideas of God's sovereignty and plan are different, so this could go round and round.

[Ginevra]

So the only difference between the people in heaven and the people in hell is that the people in hell are suffering double jeopardy on a legal level, their sins already being paid for in full and yet they’re there suffering for sins that have already been paid for, and they’re there because they didn’t have the sense or somebody didn’t make the right approach to activate them emotionally and mentally to turn the potential atonement of Jesus into an actual one. Therefore, the people in heaven can spend eternal life congratulating themselves, or congratulating whoever it was that moved them emotionally or psychologically to make the right call.

 

This is from McArthur's site that I Love Lucy linked (bold is mine). He says this so pejoratively. I don't think I came to God because someone "moved me emotionally or psychologically." I do think there was a work of the Holy Spirit, but I was also seeking *something*. I believe that anyone who is seeking God will find Him; they don't have to wait in vain to happen to flip on the correct radio station or happen to have a conversation with someone at work that straightens it all out for them. "God rewards those who diligently seek Him." God is always willing to reveal Himself to any who want to find Him. "Behold, I stand at the door and knock." All I have to do is open the door. Is He only knocking at the doors He already compelled to open? That makes no sense to me.

 

Besides, isn't the alternative more disagreeable? That God has picked the redeemed and many (most) people will never seek God because He didn't pick them.

[iona]

Also, I don't believe in Total Depravity. I don't think it's born out evidently in the world. There are "good" people who are not Christians, even a few who don't profess any faith system at all. And those who are saved don't cease to sin. They may be a new creation in some respects, but they are not transformed into people who never sin anymore.

 

Also, many sinful behaviors stem from organic disorders or traumatic childhood experiences. I think it explains some sins as not having anything to do with the soul's state, actually.

 

i agree that there is great "goodness" found in people who are not Christians and great "badness" found in those who are. all people are made in God's image and though it is broken we see great examples of genious, goodness, beauty and creativity from Christians and those who aren't.

 

total depravity has to do with our complete need of a savior. That we don't seek God without his work in our heart.

[iona]

This is from McArthur's site that I Love Lucy linked (bold is mine). He says this so pejoratively. I don't think I came to God because someone "moved me emotionally or psychologically." I do think there was a work of the Holy Spirit, but I was also seeking *something*. I believe that anyone who is seeking God will find Him; they don't have to wait in vain to happen to flip on the correct radio station or happen to have a conversation with someone at work that straightens it all out for them. "God rewards those who diligently seek Him." God is always willing to reveal Himself to any who want to find Him. "Behold, I stand at the door and knock." All I have to do is open the door. Is He only knocking at the doors He already compelled to open? That makes no sense to me.

 

Besides, isn't the alternative more disagreeable? That God has picked the redeemed and many (most) people will never seek God because He didn't pick them.

 

i believe you wouldn't seek in the first place without God's prompting. And as harsh as it sounds even if it is disagreeable i believe it (bolded) to be the truth. I find the fact that he even redeems some of his enemies to be amazing, that He loved us while we were His enemies and sent His son to die. Ultimately it is not about us, it is about Him.

[i.love.lucy]

This is from McArthur's site that I Love Lucy linked (bold is mine). He says this so pejoratively. I don't think I came to God because someone "moved me emotionally or psychologically." I do think there was a work of the Holy Spirit, but I was also seeking *something*. I believe that anyone who is seeking God will find Him; they don't have to wait in vain to happen to flip on the correct radio station or happen to have a conversation with someone at work that straightens it all out for them. "God rewards those who diligently seek Him." God is always willing to reveal Himself to any who want to find Him. "Behold, I stand at the door and knock." All I have to do is open the door. Is He only knocking at the doors He already compelled to open? That makes no sense to me.

 

Besides, isn't the alternative more disagreeable? That God has picked the redeemed and many (most) people will never seek God because He didn't pick them.

What caused you to seek? I believe it was God's call.

[Ginevra]

total depravity has to do with our complete need of a savior. That we don't seek God without his work in our heart.

 

To me, people doing what is good, altruistic, compassionate and loving is a form of God's work in one's heart. Total Depravity would mean none of that is inherent in mankind, which seems to me like a dispute of our being made in God's image.

 

More importantly, I just cannot accept that God picks certain hearts in which to receive that enlightenment and leaves others to their lost nature with no possibility for redemption. In that case, ALL of life is just one long charade with no point whatsoever. Some of us were created for God, the rest are ****ed. Eventually, the Shepherd will gather his Flock, but meanwhile ****ed people are being born all the time. They have no hope of redemption.

[LND1218]

But, iona, his dying does actually save you, but it is like being given a check that you have to endorse. Yes, you actually have the check, but you have to demonstrate your faith in the payment by signing the check and cashing it. (And please don't anyone misunderstand that I'm trivializing salvation as though it were comparable to a cash payment.)

 

But the thing is a dead man can't sign a check - he is totally depraved. It's only God who can sign it for us. That's the real issue. Calvinists believe the sinner is dead to the things of God because his heart is wicked. The Armininians believe that man is sick in sin but still well enough choose Christ.

 

The heart of the issue is more whether fallen man has the ability to go toward the things of God without being regenerated first.

 

Here are some verses that indicate we are totally depraved and no capable of "choosing" God.

 

Romans 8:7-8 "The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God."

 

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. John 6:44

 

As for limited atonement - there are many passages that speak to this. Whether it's something that we like or want to believe it's discussed in the Bible in many places.

 

"I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours." John 17:9

 

"Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world" John 17: 24

 

And Romans 9 is a great passage to read. Here is a piece of it starting at vs 14 - I bolded some passages to take note of.

 

What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,

and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.â€

16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?†20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’â€21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25 As he says in Hosea:

“I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people;

and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one

[Ginevra]

What caused you to seek? I believe it was God's call.

 

Nearly everybody seeks *something*. I believe it is our spiritual dimension. Almost all people throughout history and everywhere on the planet intuit a spiritual dimension and therefore seek something. In a way, I agree with you, that it was God's call that I was answering, but I don't think he's calling me uniquely and that some (most) just never get the call.

[DawnM]

I gained a lot of insight from these two books:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Why-I-Am-Not-Calvinist/dp/0830832491/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1293924656&sr=8-1

 

and this one:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Why-I-Am-Not-Arminian/dp/0830832483/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1293924689&sr=8-2

 

It has been a while since I have read them, but I needed to read both sides. I grew up Wesleyan and have had many arguments, ahem, discussions with Calvinists throughout the years. I still fall fairly far on the Wesleyan side and do believe in free will. I am not sure I am up for debate a the moment. I have a dear Presbyterian friend who has done all but tell me I am not even saved because I don't subscribe to the semantics of Total Depravity. I do believe we are depraved, which is why God sent his son Jesus to die on the cross so that noone would have to perish but that ALL would have the opportunity to come to Him.

 

Dawn

[Ginevra]

But the thing is a dead man can't sign a check - he is totally depraved. It's only God who can sign it for us. That's the real issue. Calvinists believe the sinner is dead to the things of God because his heart is wicked. The Armininians believe that man is sick in sin but still well enough choose Christ.

 

Sure - I don't believe the Calvinist view. Non-Christians can do "godly" things; it is possible for them to be loving, compassionate, altruistic, generous, sacrificial, etc. This would not be possible if all non-Christians were wicked and dead to the things of God.

 

Here are some verses that indicate we are totally depraved and no capable of "choosing" God.

 

Thank you for taking the time to place them, but it's not as though I've never seen those scriptures, and also those in - is it 1 John? I'm not a great Bible scholar and I'm extremely terrible at quoting the exact location, but I do know there are many scriptures that appear to support the Calvinist view as well as the Arminianist view. If it were perfectly clear, there would be no dispute between these two "camps."

[LND1218]

Sure - I don't believe the Calvinist view. Non-Christians can do "godly" things; it is possible for them to be loving, compassionate, altruistic, generous, sacrificial, etc. This would not be possible if all non-Christians were wicked and dead to the things of God.

 

 

Thank you for taking the time to place them, but it's not as though I've never seen those scriptures, and also those in - is it 1 John? I'm not a great Bible scholar and I'm extremely terrible at quoting the exact location, but I do know there are many scriptures that appear to support the Calvinist view as well as the Arminianist view. If it were perfectly clear, there would be no dispute between these two "camps."

 

Edited because I was wrong about being good. While I still believe that there is a difference between being good and Godly (my org post.) I asked a wiser person.... Dh came home. He said that there are no good deeds outside of Christ period - all deeds that may appear good aren't truly good deeds. They may be done with selfish motives or other sinful actions. But apart from Christ no deed is deemed good or worthy by God. (That is the reformed belief.)

 

It's the Gospel of John so just John.

 

The thing is that none of the verses that I have ever heard in support of the Arminian view contradict the Calvinist view. But many of the Calvinist verses do contradict the Arminian view. It really isn't a "draw" with equal support on either side.

Edited January 2, 2011 by Steph

[Susan in TN]

Limited Atonement as a term even sounds wrong.

 

Here's the deal with limited atonement. If you believe that some people go to hell (as the Bible would indicate) then those people are "atoning" for their sin - in hell. If limited atonement was not true and Christ died and atoned for ALL sin universally, then those people who are in hell are paying a second time for their sin.

 

Limited Atonement says that when Christ died, His death actually accomplished what it was meant to do.

[LND1218]

Here's the deal with limited atonement. If you believe that some people go to hell (as the Bible would indicate) then those people are "atoning" for their sin - in hell. If limited atonement was not true and Christ died and atoned for ALL sin universally, then those people who are in hell are paying a second time for their sin.

 

Limited Atonement says that when Christ died, His death actually accomplished what it was meant to do.

 

Very well said.

[mommaduck]

Nevahmind.

 

I'll say this instead: this is an area where both sides can be proven by Scripture, depending on how one interprets the verses used. Non-reformed can prove their position, reformed can prove their position. So the deeper issue might be -- how do you know? Who do you believe? Whose interpretation are you going to trust? Or can both be right?

Yep...and given the fact that there are churches that predate either argument, they become null and void (*Formerly having been on both sides of that debate*)

[Joyofsixreboot]

We have all come to our conclusions after study so I'm assuming nothing I say will change anyone's point of view. I fall on the Arminian side however (Methodist) and if anyone is interested I read thisblog regularly.

[lionfamily1999]

To me, people doing what is good, altruistic, compassionate and loving is a form of God's work in one's heart. Total Depravity would mean none of that is inherent in mankind, which seems to me like a dispute of our being made in God's image.

 

More importantly, I just cannot accept that God picks certain hearts in which to receive that enlightenment and leaves others to their lost nature with no possibility for redemption. In that case, ALL of life is just one long charade with no point whatsoever. Some of us were created for God, the rest are ****ed. Eventually, the Shepherd will gather his Flock, but meanwhile ****ed people are being born all the time. They have no hope of redemption.

I don't know enough about Calvinism to really speak to "total depravity" and I'm not really sure what it means, but :p

 

Mankind, on its own, is incapable of good. We know what is good, we are born knowing (imho) what is good, but we don't do it. Now, we can do some of what we were meant to do. I'm pretty sure that even the most 'evil' people in history had at least one moment in their past when they did something "good." The thing is, a little good does not fix the bad. Everyone has sinned. Everyone has fallen short. We can do good, try to be good, but without God's intervention for us, we're still bad.

 

For comparison :D An omelet made with fresh eggs, fresh cheese, fresh tomatoes or whatever you want in it, but spoiled milk is not going to be a good omelet. No matter how great the other ingredients are, even if they outweight the rotten, the rotten seeps through into everything and the whole omelet is trash. So, unsaved people can do good, they can strive to be good, they can have good hearts, BUT they've fallen short of the glory of God, they have sinned, and that means all their 'goodness' is fruitless. They (we) are bad.

 

So, I don't know about total depravity, but I do know that none of us are completely good.

 

As far as elect.................. Okay, go back to Jacob and Esau. Their mother dreamt that the second son would rule over the first while they were still in her womb. God sent her a prophecy. It wasn't because He had predestined Esau to lose out, it was because He already knew that Esau would take himself out of the running. God knew, while they were still little babies in their mother's womb that Esau was not going to fit the bill for the blessing of Abraham. Esau didn't. He sold his birthright for soup. He married, without his parents' permission (dishonoring them), TWO women that were Canaanites (a tribe they were NOT allowed to marry into). God didn't plan this. He doesn't want us to run away from Him, but He gave us free will and Esau used his freewill to do these things that took him out of the running for Abraham's blessing.

 

I think that even today, there are people that have every chance in the world to accept Christ as their savior. They don't. They see the light and they hate it, because they are evil. They may not seem evil. They may seem like very good people, but they choose themselves over God. I believe that God knows the beginning and the end. He knows who will choose Him and who won't. If that means that those who will choose Him are the elect, then great :D I do believe there is a choice, but I also believe God already knows how we're going to choose.

[Ginevra]

I do agree that none of us are holy, we are not adequate without Jesus. But I don't agree that we are "totally depraved" by nature - it's just not evidently so. My computer dictionary here says the definition of "depraved" is "morally corrupt". I just don't believe that it is impossible for a person to behave in a morally decent way without Jesus. Evidently, it is possible. I would agree that we are not morally perfect without Jesus - we aren't even morally perfect with him, we're only justified in God's eyes.

 

And Jacob and Esau - a good example, no doubt. Yet, for Jacob to receive the blessing, he and his mother colluded to dupe his blind father! How can it be said that this was "God's plan"? Could God not simply move the babies in the womb, so that Jacob was the true firstborn? Instead, it is as though God's plan depended on Jacob being the "supplanter" and engaging in deceit! Yet in other places in the OT, we see how man's interference to try and "help" God's promises come to fruition proved disastrous, such as the birth of Ishmael.

 

I think that even today, there are people that have every chance in the world to accept Christ as their savior. They don't

 

Yes, and I'm not bothered by it. They are making their CHOICE. But to say that they will never be capable of receiving the gift, because it was already long ago determined that they would not be capable - that is repugnant to me.

 

As far as God knowing what we will choose - I'm not certain what I believe about that. I'm not a big fan of this view: "It's as if we are living out a movie that God has already seen and nothing at all that happens is news to him." If that is so, then our very existence is just a big waste. I think more along the lines of this: "It's as if we are playing a game of Chess with a master and, although the master does not specifically know what move we will make at any moment, he can react in any fashion and still be in control of the game." I admit I do not have a working, cohesive theory about exactly how the plays out in our lives, but I lean more towards the chess analogy than the movie analogy.

[Ginevra]

Yep...and given the fact that there are churches that predate either argument, they become null and void (*Formerly having been on both sides of that debate*)

 

What is the Orthodox view? (I think that is what you are, right? Forgive me if I'm misspeaking.)

[mommaduck]

What is the Orthodox view? (I think that is what you are, right? Forgive me if I'm misspeaking.)

Yes, I converted to EO from being a pretty hard-core Calvinist.

 

The Orthodox really don't get into the argument as it wasn't one that affected them. It was between two men in the West during the Reformation. Both sides have major flaws as far as Orthodoxy is concerned. I, personally, find Orthodoxy to be more of a balance, if you will.

[Ginevra]

I don't know much about EO. But I'm all ears if you want to expand anything for me, on the board or through PM. :bigear:

[mommaduck]

I don't know much about EO. But I'm all ears if you want to expand anything for me, on the board or through PM. :bigear:

At this moment, I'm out of energy. I'll try to answer more fully later :)

[8circles]

At this moment, I'm out of energy. I'll try to answer more fully later :)

 

I'm decidely not EO however, I'm grateful to you & the other EO posters here who have spent so much time explaining your beliefs. You are all very gracious & I have learned a lot. I didn't know that I shared so much (IMO) in common with you all.

[lionfamily1999]

I do agree that none of us are holy, we are not adequate without Jesus. But I don't agree that we are "totally depraved" by nature - it's just not evidently so. My computer dictionary here says the definition of "depraved" is "morally corrupt". I just don't believe that it is impossible for a person to behave in a morally decent way without Jesus. Evidently, it is possible. I would agree that we are not morally perfect without Jesus - we aren't even morally perfect with him, we're only justified in God's eyes.

Well, we are corrupt though. We're corrupt in that, we are not capable of being purely good. Okay, like gold. Gold is a pure element, but you can have a corrupt gold ring, meaning there are bits and pieces of something else in it. It can be mostly gold, but it is not pure gold, it is corrupt. What I'm trying to say is, I'm not sure that total depravity means a complete absence of good, I think it means that our best goodness is still not purely good................ if you know what I mean :lol:

And Jacob and Esau - a good example, no doubt. Yet, for Jacob to receive the blessing, he and his mother colluded to dupe his blind father! How can it be said that this was "God's plan"? Could God not simply move the babies in the womb, so that Jacob was the true firstborn? Instead, it is as though God's plan depended on Jacob being the "supplanter" and engaging in deceit! Yet in other places in the OT, we see how man's interference to try and "help" God's promises come to fruition proved disastrous, such as the birth of Ishmael.

Ah, but God had it all set up and Jacob's mother doubted. She forgot one key element. See, it wasn't up to their father to pass on Abraham's blessing, that could ONLY come from God. Also, the blessing that he did pass onto Jacob was not THE blessing. They mucked it up alright, but Jacob would have gotten the blessing either way. They did try to help and it did get all messed up. Esau threatened to kill Jacob, Jacob had to run off, then the mess with Leah and Rachel happened. How much better could it have been if Jacob and his mother would have just trusted God to do what He said He was going to do? We'll never know, but needless to say, it would have worked according to His plan, regardless of how they chose to muck it up.

 

That does seem to go with predestination, though, doesn't it? Jacob was destined to get the blessing. Even though he and his mother made bad choices, Jacob was irresistably back to God's plan.

I think that even today, there are people that have every chance in the world to accept Christ as their savior. They don't

 

Yes, and I'm not bothered by it. They are making their CHOICE. But to say that they will never be capable of receiving the gift, because it was already long ago determined that they would not be capable - that is repugnant to me.

 

As far as God knowing what we will choose - I'm not certain what I believe about that. I'm not a big fan of this view: "It's as if we are living out a movie that God has already seen and nothing at all that happens is news to him." If that is so, then our very existence is just a big waste. I think more along the lines of this: "It's as if we are playing a game of Chess with a master and, although the master does not specifically know what move we will make at any moment, he can react in any fashion and still be in control of the game." I admit I do not have a working, cohesive theory about exactly how the plays out in our lives, but I lean more towards the chess analogy than the movie analogy.

I prefer comparing life to a haiku or quatrain or other complicated bit of very structured poetry. There's rules, there an outline, certain things are set in stone, but you can put whatever you want in the form you've been given. I don't like the idea of predestination, because it feels like it removes our choice. I do accept the idea that God knows me and He knows what decisions I'm going to make. I also accept that I have a very weak understanding of time itself. God is outside of time. I don't think that life here is in one long strip, like film. I prefer to think of it as bubbles. A choice is made, a bubble bursts and that air inside of it becomes a part of the air that is all time. Other bubbles just fizzle out, the choices that weren't chosen. It makes sense for me, but I can't explain it well to others :p

 

We're so limited in our abilities and I think it's important that we remember that a. God is good and b. We can't understand Him completely.

[Heather in Neverland]

Besides, isn't the alternative more disagreeable? That God has picked the redeemed and many (most) people will never seek God because He didn't pick them.

 

Well, for me, it goes back to the idea that we "deserve" to be "picked" in the first place. We don't. None of us "deserve" it. So the fact that some get picked and some don't is not a reason for us to point an accusing finger heavenward and demand "How could you?" as if God owes us ANYTHING. He doesn't. None of us want Him, none os us choose Him. We would never choose the things of God of our own accord. If we "seek" Him it is because He gave us the desire to seek Him. That desire did not come from within.

 

If you start with the premise that we all "deserve" in some way to be saved and the fact that some will not be saved seems "unfair" to us then we need to reexamine our premise. If NONE of us "deserve" to be saved then the fact that God chooses to save ANYONE at all is a merciful and gracious thing.

[Heather in Neverland]

I actually wrote a paper about this for one of my classes...if you are bored let me know and I will send it to you. :D

[deacongirl]

As a lifelong Methodist (with a few detours along the way) these threads prompted me to look again at what Wesley thought of Calvinism. I thought this article titled "The Triumph of Arminianism" was interesting.

http://www.crivoice.org/arminianism.html

and a chart comparing TULIP Calvinism to Wesley's perspective:

http://www.crivoice.org/tulip.html

 

and this piece was helpful to me as well:

http://www.crivoice.org/freedom.html

God’s Foreknowledge, Predestination,

and Human Freedom

 

 

"All this is to say that for Wesleyans, the whole issue is dealt with on a different level than trying to preserve some logical construct about the sovereignty of God as an absolute category of His being. The question would be: How does God demonstrate His sovereignty to humanity? There in specific reference to the issue of human freedom, I would respond that God demonstrated His sovereignty in an act of grace by granting to humanity their freedom to choose (Wesley called this "prevenient grace"), knowing that that freedom to choose could be used to choose something other than Him. In our human understanding, there is no greater expression of love than to grant another person the freedom to choose, as any parent who has raised a child understands all too well.

We cannot grant something that is not ours to give. And yet God chose to give away part of His sovereignty for the sake of authentic and real human freedom. For me, logically, if God (or the Devil!) is "in control" then humans are not authentically free, and therefore are not accountable or responsible. That does not eliminate God being able to work out His purposes in the world, or to bring about an ultimate and final reconciliation of all Creation to Himself, as Paul eloquently expresses in Romans. Nor does it interfere with His providential care for humanity. But it does mean that human decision can thwart God’s purposes in the world, and we can choose the creature over the Creator. That choice is not without consequences, but it is a genuine choice."

 

 

Still falling firmly in the Wesleyan camp here, but I appreciate all that I am learning and hearing other perspectives.

[kokotg]

Well, for me, it goes back to the idea that we "deserve" to be "picked" in the first place. We don't. None of us "deserve" it. So the fact that some get picked and some don't is not a reason for us to point an accusing finger heavenward and demand "How could you?" as if God owes us ANYTHING. He doesn't. None of us want Him, none os us choose Him. We would never choose the things of God of our own accord. If we "seek" Him it is because He gave us the desire to seek Him. That desire did not come from within.

 

 

 

Okay here is my problem, and one that I've never heard a reasonable answer to (generally just some variation on "it's a mystery," "we can't understand how God works" etc)....God MADE people. On purpose. An omniscient God made people whom he KNEW would be "totally depraved." A reformed view would force me to believe in a God who created people incapable of doing good and who then punishes them (and by "punished" we're talking "allows to be brutally tortured for all of eternity") for not being good. God as parent is a pretty powerful metaphor for me, and to me that would be akin to beating an infant senseless for peeing in his diaper. My understanding is that there's some disagreement about God's intentionality concerning the Fall, but to me there's very little difference between planning for the Fall to happen and wishing it wouldn't but doing all of the things you KNOW will lead to it anyway.

[Ginevra]

If you start with the premise that we all "deserve" in some way to be saved and the fact that some will not be saved seems "unfair" to us then we need to reexamine our premise. If NONE of us "deserve" to be saved then the fact that God chooses to save ANYONE at all is a merciful and gracious thing.

 

But Heather, that doesn't mesh with the idea that God loves us boundlessly, that it is His good pleasure that we are His sons and daughters. It's like a parent who only feeds and nurtures some of their children, but lets the other babies starve and die of exposure. Should the children who are fed and nurtured say, "Oh, thank you merciful mom and dad! You chose for me to be allowed to live! I know I deserved to die like the other babies you didn't protect, but you protected me! How loving and merciful to me!" If it is not God's wish that all would sup with Him, I don't want to be "lucky" enough to make it to the table.

 

It's not that I think we "deserve" to be saved, but that since God created mankind to commune with Him, it rather makes sense that He would not want any to be lost. Why make people who are ****ed? How could that be loving?

 

Also, if you go back to the Garden, did man not have a choice? To freely choose communion with God, he need only heed God's singular warning, "From that tree you shall not eat." If God wanted only pre-selected humans for His own, there would be no purpose in the choice of the tree. (FWIW, I don't believe this story as literal; I believe it as allegory, but my POV still holds either way.) He could simply create Adam and Eve as elect, give no potential for evil and allow them to create elect descendants, who also have no potential for evil.

[Paintedlady]

But Heather, that doesn't mesh with the idea that God loves us boundlessly, that it is His good pleasure that we are His sons and daughters. It's like a parent who only feeds and nurtures some of their children, but lets the other babies starve and die of exposure. Should the children who are fed and nurtured say, "Oh, thank you merciful mom and dad! You chose for me to be allowed to live! I know I deserved to die like the other babies you didn't protect, but you protected me! How loving and merciful to me!" If it is not God's wish that all would sup with Him, I don't want to be "lucky" enough to make it to the table.

 

It's not that I think we "deserve" to be saved, but that since God created mankind to commune with Him, it rather makes sense that He would not want any to be lost. Why make people who are ****ed? How could that be loving?

 

Also, if you go back to the Garden, did man not have a choice? To freely choose communion with God, he need only heed God's singular warning, "From that tree you shall not eat." If God wanted only pre-selected humans for His own, there would be no purpose in the choice of the tree. (FWIW, I don't believe this story as literal; I believe it as allegory, but my POV still holds either way.) He could simply create Adam and Eve as elect, give no potential for evil and allow them to create elect descendants, who also have no potential for evil.

 

I have been struggling and trying to discern the truth for myself for several years without a complete adherence to either view yet, but am leaning towards the reformed view.

 

My belief is that because God knows the future and knows who would've chosen Him, He calls those the elect. None of us can see into the future and know what a little baby will do in their life, but God is not bound by time and space and knows exactly who the baby will grow up to be and whether or not he/she would've chosen God. Since he knows that person's mind, He can ascertain whether or not to elect them. If He know that person would never choose him, he does not elect them.

 

I'm still a little muddy in my thinking and as I said before, I'm not crystal clear in my thinking of the reformed view. I struggle and flip-flop back and forth all the time, thinking I have understanding and then not. :glare: This is one of those areas that I may always struggle with. For now though, I continue to wrestle with the Scriptures to find answers. I do not believe my salvation hinges on my view, but would like to land solidly in one camp eventually.

[Susan in TN]

Here's another way of looking at election.

 

To those who do not hold to it, election/predestination is seen this way - throngs of people clambering to get in at the gate of Heaven and God standing there and letting some in for whatever reason, and tossing others off the cliff to hell.

 

But the more Biblical picture is this: God standing at the gate of heaven with his arms open wide, beckoning all to come in. However, the whole of humanity is rushing headlong in the opposite direction, straight toward hell, and God plucks people out of the rush and brings them to Himself.

 

So why doesn't He just usher everyone into heaven? This is the question Paul is answering in Romans 9.

 

----------------------------------------

The Bible says that the covenant was made before the foundation of the earth. That means that the Son agreed with the Father and Spirit, even before creation, that He would submit himself to death to save for Himself a people. The catechism says that it is all for His glory. I don't know why He would create a people that He knew would fall, but I can't get around it Biblically - and if I'm going to claim Christianity, this is where I must put my faith.

[kokotg]

I guess for me there are aspects of both Arminianism and Calvinism that challenge my sense of logic and reason. But I'd rather wrestle with how I can have free will and God still be God than wrestle with how God can create sin and then blame me for it. One leads me to a God who is more loving and kind than I can fully comprehend; the other to a God who is more angry and vengeful than I can fully comprehend.

 

Susan--in your example, I can't get past the fact that everyone is rushing headlong toward hell because God set them down facing that direction and they CAN'T turn around. I can't get past the fact that God is punishing people for something that they can't stop themselves from doing.

[mommaduck]

Ironically, the focuses of Calvinism led us to Orthodoxy ;)

[Liz CA]

 

More importantly, I just cannot accept that God picks certain hearts in which to receive that enlightenment and leaves others to their lost nature with no possibility for redemption. In that case, ALL of life is just one long charade with no point whatsoever. Some of us were created for God, the rest are ****ed. Eventually, the Shepherd will gather his Flock, but meanwhile ****ed people are being born all the time. They have no hope of redemption.

 

My friend and I just discussed this over breakfast. She had to go home now so I am back on the board. This (select salvation) bothered me too when I read the 5 basic beliefs of Calvinism but I do agree with some of them - just not all of them. So, am I a mix between Arminian and Calvinist?

Edited January 2, 2011 by Liz CA

[Liz CA]

Okay here is my problem, and one that I've never heard a reasonable answer to (generally just some variation on "it's a mystery," "we can't understand how God works" etc)....God MADE people. On purpose. An omniscient God made people whom he KNEW would be "totally depraved." A reformed view would force me to believe in a God who created people incapable of doing good and who then punishes them (and by "punished" we're talking "allows to be brutally tortured for all of eternity") for not being good. God as parent is a pretty powerful metaphor for me, and to me that would be akin to beating an infant senseless for peeing in his diaper. My understanding is that there's some disagreement about God's intentionality concerning the Fall, but to me there's very little difference between planning for the Fall to happen and wishing it wouldn't but doing all of the things you KNOW will lead to it anyway.

 

I have wrestled with some of this too. But somehow I see a difference here that God created us with free will. Those of us who have been exposed to the teachings, Bible, etc choose to accept it or not. He created Adam & Eve, he gave them a ton of trees and food to eat but put ONE tree there and told them not to eat from it. Sure enough they do eat from it. They did not need to, they would not have starved if they had left this one tree alone.

 

They chose to disobey. God gave them the chance to hang themselves but also provided lots of alternatives. I sort of see this as the essence of free will. Any other thoughts?

[Rivka]

This thread makes me grateful to be a Universalist.

 

I don't understand why people choose to worship a God who acts like an abusive husband. "You're nothing but worthless trash without me. You could never do anything right on your own. You'd better love me like crazy, or your punishment will be worse than you could possibly imagine."

 

I just... if that's what I thought God was like, worship and praise would be the last things on my mind. Which proves that I'm evil, right?

[Georgiana Daniels]

My post totally disappeared. I'll try again.

 

Love the fascinating threads about Calvinism vs Armenianism. When my own views are challenged, I always come out sharper.

 

The problem for me has always been that I believe in God's 100% soverignty. I also believe in His amazingly huge love. Those don't square with the creation of billions of people who never have a chance.

 

After much prayer, reading, and seeking I've come to see the only thing that squares is Universal Reconciliation, sometimes called Ultimate Reconciliation (not to be confused with Unitarian Universalism). God's soverignty, His goodwill toward us, and His love for all mankind totally mesh with this way of thinking. I'm not 100% convinced UR is right either--I have dozens of years of teaching that say otherwise.

 

But...

 

If God wills that ALL should come to repentence, and He is soverign, then how can it ultimately be any other way?

 

Also, I realize that God's ultimate plan for humanking does NOT have to line up with my logic. My logic doesn't change Truth, which will prove itself in the end anyways.

 

I've also come to the conclusion that there are just some things I cannot know, and I have to be okay with that. The things I know for certain are that God is good, God loves each person He created with an everlasting love, and that Jesus' sacrifice was big enough and is the ONLY way. His grace is greater than I can imagine.

 

1 Cor 15:22-23a--For as in Adam ALL die, so also in Christ ALL will be made alive. But each in his own order.

 

Also, in John 12:32 Jesus said, "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself."

 

All.

 

Anyhoo, food for thought!

[kokotg]

My post totally disappeared. I'll try again.

 

Love the fascinating threads about Calvinism vs Armenianism. When my own views are challenged, I always come out sharper.

 

The problem for me has always been that I believe in God's 100% soverignty. I also believe in His amazingly huge love. Those don't square with the creation of billions of people who never have a chance.

 

After much prayer, reading, and seeking I've come to see the only thing that squares is Universal Reconciliation, sometimes called Ultimate Reconciliation (not to be confused with Unitarian Universalism). God's soverignty, His goodwill toward us, and His love for all mankind totally mesh with this way of thinking. I'm not 100% convinced UR is right either--I have dozens of years of teaching that say otherwise.

 

But...

 

If God wills that ALL should come to repentence, and He is soverign, then how can it ultimately be any other way?

 

Also, I realize that God's ultimate plan for humanking does NOT have to line up with my logic. My logic doesn't change Truth, which will prove itself in the end anyways.

 

I've also come to the conclusion that there are just some things I cannot know, and I have to be okay with that. The things I know for certain are that God is good, God loves each person He created with an everlasting love, and that Jesus' sacrifice was big enough and is the ONLY way. His grace is greater than I can imagine.

 

1 Cor 15:22-23a--For as in Adam ALL die, so also in Christ ALL will be made alive. But each in his own order.

 

Also, in John 12:32 Jesus said, "And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself."

 

All.

 

Anyhoo, food for thought!

 

Yeah, I'm pretty much a universalist, or at least a hopeful universalist at this point. It's the only thing that really makes sense to me, logically and emotionally. It also has a strong historical foundation; a lot of the early church leaders were universalists to some degree or another.

[kokotg]

I have wrestled with some of this too. But somehow I see a difference here that God created us with free will. Those of us who have been exposed to the teachings, Bible, etc choose to accept it or not. He created Adam & Eve, he gave them a ton of trees and food to eat but put ONE tree there and told them not to eat from it. Sure enough they do eat from it. They did not need to, they would not have starved if they had left this one tree alone.

 

They chose to disobey. God gave them the chance to hang themselves but also provided lots of alternatives. I sort of see this as the essence of free will. Any other thoughts?

 

But that's not Calvinism, is it? Or are you saying Adam and Eve had free will, but they blew it for the rest of us, so we don't?

 

I do still have problems with the Fall that aren't solved by Arminianism (see above: why I'm a universalist), but they aren't as...insurmountable to me as the problems with Calvinism.

[kokotg]

This thread makes me grateful to be a Universalist.

 

I don't understand why people choose to worship a God who acts like an abusive husband. "You're nothing but worthless trash without me. You could never do anything right on your own. You'd better love me like crazy, or your punishment will be worse than you could possibly imagine."

 

I just... if that's what I thought God was like, worship and praise would be the last things on my mind. Which proves that I'm evil, right?

 

:iagree: I can conceive of a God like that, but not one that would fit any definition of "good" that I could ever agree with.

[Georgiana Daniels]

Yeah, I'm pretty much a universalist, or at least a hopeful universalist at this point. It's the only thing that really makes sense to me, logically and emotionally. It also has a strong historical foundation; a lot of the early church leaders were universalists to some degree or another.

 

I was suprised to find out they were too!

 

Though it's not an organized denomination, I found a great website here.

 

It really does dissolve the Calvinism/Arminianism debate for me.

[Ginevra]

Susan--in your example, I can't get past the fact that everyone is rushing headlong toward hell because God set them down facing that direction and they CAN'T turn around. I can't get past the fact that God is punishing people for something that they can't stop themselves from doing.

 

Yes, that's me, too. I don't buy the idea that God is going, "Pity they don't turn around and come this way," when He made it impossible for them to do so anyway.