WHAT IS ARMINIANISM AND CALVINISM

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on August 9, 2010 at 9:39pm

Fair enough my sister Linda,

I aligned to Arminian theology even before I knew such schools of theology existed, because of my personal study of scriptures in combination with the influence of the pastor in my early formation. About 3 years ago I culminated my long personal studies of Reformed theology. I am extremely familiar with Arminianism. But for the past couple of years I have aligned better with Reformed/Calvinism theology.

I am a mixture of the two. I believe that the gifts of the Spirit are alive and well in today's church. I do not subscribe to covenant theology, though I completely agree that God is a God of covenants. I hold to a modify form of Dispensationalist. Most diehard Arminians and/or Reformed theologians would call me a confused individual hahaha, but after years of research I have learned that both schools are not flawless in my opinion. So I take from both and teach that. Arminians are not my enemies nor are Calvinist.

I still fellowship in a Pentecostal church and find that I can preach and teach as a Calvinist without most even discerning the difference, while still being submissive to the doctrine of the church I belong to. Yet I do long to move on to a place where I can teach and preach what I see aligns better with scripture when God opens doors and gives me the green light to do so. I am writing the above to let everyone know that I am not after shoving doctrines down anyone’s throat nor do I think your question was proving to see if I would. This is just extra info, as I like to do all things in the light and enjoy disclosing my heart to you all.

My desire is that we can discuss the Doctrines of Grace in a loving and peaceful manner and I pray that the participants can share your heart when approaching the topics.

You said: >>If during that investigation it makes me a Calvinist or Arminian or a mix of both then so be it. That is a beautiful attitude sis. Koodos to you. :)

In the final analysis - I am a Calvinist with a heart for my brothers that aligned to the Arminian teachings.

Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on August 16, 2010 at 12:43am

One addition to my above post.

In the final analysis - I AM A BIBLE BELIEVING CHRISTIAN WHO ALIGNS TO REFORMED/CALVINIST THEOLOGY, WITH A HEART FOR THE CHURCH AMONG ALL DENOMINATIONS AND LONE RANGERS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.

I have edited my last para in my above comment because some are distressed by some of us identifying with a particular school of theology. So I thought a more accurate statement is well deserved. :)

Blessings family.

Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on August 9, 2010 at 6:01pm

Let us start With Romans 9 -

Is God choosing an individual here or a nation? Does God choosing people for salvation and giving others justice involve Him in an unjust transaction. What is this Chapter really talking about?

Romans 9:10-13 (New International Version)
10Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? [HERE IS YOUR QUESTION] 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."16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17For the 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."
Why would Paul state the above statement if in fact God’s basis for election/calling would be grounded on His foreknowledge of our future actions or decisions? The Apostle would be confussing God’s people at this point, but as scripture teaches everywhere else, it is not by works but by Grace. God’s choice of Jacob over Esau had nothing to do with God’s foreknowledge of their performance, which is underscore when the Apostle says: 16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.

The plain sense of scripture here teaches that Gods election of Jacob over Esau is totally outside their actions and decision, there is no possible way around it as it’s seen here from these verses and I am not sure I can do justice to the truth by saying that these passages are not about the election of individuals, but of Nations, which even if true, Nations are made up of individuals, so it comes back to individuals. One individual was elect and the other was not.

As an apologist I learned the doctrines of those teaching error [Sis Amanda, i wrote this about a year ago on my Theology group, so I am not talking about you here] so I can tell them why their understanding is not aligned with scripture. I do my best to anticipate the questions they may raised as well through our debate, so before they even get a chance to come at me with their questions I already asked and answered them. I even include harder questions to questioned the validity of my own argument, than the ones they were familiar with and of course answered them. So I take a way their ammunition since I have study there error better than them and I know my own stands. Teachers called to defend the faith often do this, Paul is doing it here and 1 Cor. 15 “the resurrection chapter” is a master piece of that approach. Here he is anticipating the huge question that the doctrine of Gods election raises!!!

14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! (may it never be).

This question is not raised if predestination is based on foreknowledge; there is nothing unjust about that, it makes sense. Paul however expects his readers and listeners (as experience has taught him when teaching this doctrine) that the number one argument raised with God’s election of His creature is: THAT IS UNJUST! Paul just told us that God soveringly chose Jacob over Esau and then stops and asks: what do you think about that? Is it unjust? And he comes back as strongest possible and states NOT AT ALL! MAY IT NEVER BE! The one objection that the view that Gods’ election is based on foreknowledge does not have to deal with, is the question of Gods’ Justice, so why would Paul raised the question? It seems to me as I read chapter 8 and 9 that Paul is teaching the sovereign unconditional election, about which the response is always, that is not fair. God answers by saying “I will have mercy on who I Will have mercy and I will have compassion on who I will have compassion.

So why would God choose you and not another- does that mean that God chooses to justify and glorify those He calls and others He chooses or creates and predestines them for hell? Some call that stand Hyper-Calvinism, which in my opinion is an insult to Calvin, because is actually anti-Calvenism. He never believed that or taught that. No one can quote him saying that, I may be wrong but I have not found any of his writings proclaiming that. Just as things are attributed to Arminius and are lies, that is the case with Calvin as well. There is nothing unjust by God choosing some for his grace and not others. God is not choosing anyone for hell; he is not making anyone evil. He is simply giving some Grace and others Justice. In other words since all of humanity is guilty of sin and not one of us do good, we were all heading to hell. God steps in the picture and gives those He calls grace and saves them despite themselves. And the ones that are not chosen get justice; the payment of sin is death. Now is God unjust by doing that? May it never be, is it equality, no! is certainly is not equal and hence the problem, but is not unjust. He chooses those that get grace and the others do not get it. We have come to believe that we all deserve God’s Grace, that God should give everyone His mercy. Equal rights to every one or else the system or God is unjust. God’s answer to us is hard to swallow but He does not stop from expressing it. One person gets grace the other gets justice, is that unfair, NO!!! In the case of the elect, God soveignly intrudes into their hearts and creates faith, but on the rest of mankind he does not create evil in their hearts, He simply leaves them to themselves according to His holy purposes.

I will have mercy on who I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.

The fact that God chooses through His calling does not involved God in an unjust transaction. God is perfect and good. It is His prerogative as the creator and a possessor of a perfect will and perfect knowledge what He does with His creation.

Paul continues and states:
19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" (a deadly blow for those among us that believe that God can not overcome our will, who can resist is! Scripture teaches ) 20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?22 What if God, 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.

Why does God choose us before we desire or do anything? 11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand:
The credit of our entire redemption goes to God, God is showing his supremacy. God does not have to save anyone from His wrath, but He chooses to give some grace, this sounds unjust in the surface, but is not. It’s fair, the others get justice. No one receives injustice. God choice is made looking at us as a fallen human race. If God gave all of us justice, then we will all perish, but He chooses to give some Grace. We say that is not fair, no, what it is not , is equal. God is not obligated to give grace or mercy both are actions that we do not deserve and unmerited by us. If God allowed all of us to do our evil desires as lost and blind people and would all go to hell, is God unjust then/ No – we get what we deserve. Our so called Free will is only free to sin before the Spirit quickens it. When Nicodemus asked Jesus how a man is born again in John 3, Jesus states 5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit[b] gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.' 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit." Jesus does not tell Nicodemus pray this way or is according to your will and decision but leaves us to ask, what in the world is He talking about - 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit." What He is telling Nic is, look being born again is not up to you, but up to the Spirit that goes and comes as He pleases.

So election depends on human choice? Paul says here it doesn’t.

Permalink Reply by Carla on August 9, 2010 at 6:43pm

Hi David,

Thanks for this teaching. I personally have no problem accepting the doctrine of predestination...however, my confusion is in reconciling these scriptures with this teaching:

1Ti 2:1 First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men,
1Ti 2:2 for kings and all who are in [fn] authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and [fn] dignity.
1Ti 2:3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
1Ti 2:4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the [fn] knowledge of the truth.

and

Jhn 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His [fn] only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
Jhn 3:17 "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

These are the thoughts swimming thru my brain at the moment....
I don't believe that election depends upon human choice...I see in scripture that God does choose some over others. So what do the above scriptures mean?
The Holy Spirit draws each one of us...
Could it be that the Holy Spirit draws every person, and some respond and others don't? But if that is true, then it would suggest that human choice plays a part.
If God wants all to be saved, why wouldn't he choose all?

I am hoping to clear some of the cobwebs out...maybe you can help...

Blessings, Carla

Permalink Reply by ScribeD on August 9, 2010 at 7:39pm

Think of a 3 dimensional object, take a cone for example:
One person can see only the two-dimensional circle face of the cone.
Another person, who thinks he is wiser, can see that it is actually triangular - yet still only sees that part of the shape of the object.

Both are right in the fact that they "see" one face of the object for what it is. Both are wrong when they say "NO, it is not ______ " whichever dimension the other sees. Each will argue the properties of their dimensional view and try to apply it in a holistic way to describe the object. Both will miss the view the other has.

God, on the other hand, sees both for what they are: facets of a whole, 3 dimensional object.

God says to pray for the lost. So, we do it. Period. Apparently, God is partnering with us in the process by involving us.
God says we ought not think we can save ourselves, nor that we contributed to our salvation. He says it is clearly HIS doing and not ours. Jesus said "You did not choose me, I chose you."

Both are true. Yet, both seem to contradict, as much as the triangle cannot be round, nor the circle be angular. So, therefore we have to see that God has a higher view, a higher understanding.

Think of this topic in the frame of modern science:
In the 13th century - most people "knew" the world was flat. But we now see it is round.
In the 18th century - people "knew" that electricity was a power that only God controlled. But we create and use it every day.
In the 19th century - everyone knew that man cannot fly and nothing made of metal could every go into the sky. But we ride on massive wings of steel and aluminum every day.

There are things that seem contradictory, until we know more. We do not have a "technological view" on the realm of God. We cannot see in the spirit realm, except by faith. That requires accepting things that seem contradictory to be true.

The problem with folks who can only see one side of this argument is that they are like a man with only one eye; they have no view of profound depths and dimensions of God's world which are seen with binocular vision (eg. two eyes).

Permalink Reply by Carla on August 12, 2010 at 9:33am

Thank you Scribe.. I read carefully over what you have written... This is very true..

I see that both views are true...perhaps they don't need to be reconciled afterall.

Blessings to you brother, Carla
(it's still fun to discuss--as long as it is in Love) ;-)

Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on August 11, 2010 at 6:29pm

Beloved Carla you want us to get down to business huh? haha Aright let's do this then. :)

You brought up some of the verses our Arminian brothers have in their arsenal to show Calvinism is inconsistent with the bible. I will endeavor to show clearly that those verses do not harm the truth that God sovereignty decrees salvation by choosing some to be saved.

This is one of those topics that are extensive and a lot of different verses and words within the verses need to be analyzed. When reconcile the apparent contradiction we must keep in mind God's complete counsel (from Gen. to Rev.), which reveals to us God's revealed character. I would love to objectively reviewing the two different interpretations of the verses you have brought up sis to do our investigation justice.

1Ti 2:4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

To understand what First Timothy 2:4 is truly saying we must examine what is meant by the will of God in scripture and a couple of questions must be asked.

The same thing must be done with John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His [fn] only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

First question: If God truly effectually desired for all to be save, wouldn't all men be save. Since who can resist the Lord's desire?

Second question: Did Christ's death pay for the sins of the whole world and can anyone believe without being regenerated?

1. The three meanings of the will of God:

(a) Sovereign decretive will, the will by which God brings to pass
whatsoever He decrees. This is hidden to us until it happens.

(b) Preceptive will is God's revealed law or commandments, which we have the
power but not the right to break.

(c) Will of disposition describes God's attitude or disposition. It reveals
what is pleasing to Him.

God truly desires all men to be save, but no man seeks after God, so the offer is there, but spiritual dead people cannot and will not answer it. I will answer the questions I asked from both the Arminian view and the Reformed view next to keep the post from being too long.

Permalink Reply by Carla on August 11, 2010 at 8:21pm

David.. Uh oh.. what have I gotten myself into here... retreat retreat!!!

jk'g... ;-)

I look forward to reading your posts...

Blessings bro..

Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on August 16, 2010 at 12:45am

Carla and Linda-

Here is a series of three short and excellent vids explaning John 3:16. Each video is less than 10 minutes.

Permalink Reply by Leonard T on August 9, 2010 at 6:47pm

Greetings all,

A.W. Tozer wrote the following in "Knowledge of the Holy" - chapter 22: (It is long, but worth the read IMO)

The Sovereignty of God

Who wouldst not fear Thee, O Lord God of Hosts, most high and most terrible? For Thou art Lord alone. Thou has made heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth and all things that are therein, and in Thy hand is the soul of every living thing, Thou sittest king upon the flood; yea, Thou sittest king forever. Thou art a great king over all the earth. Thou art clothed with strength; honor and majesty are before Thee. Amen.

God’s sovereignty is the attribute by which He rules His entire creation, and to be sovereign God must be all-knowing, all-powerful, and absolutely free. The reasons are these:

Were there even one datum of knowledge, however small, un-known to God, His rule would break down at that point. To be Lord over all the creation, He must possess all knowledge. And were God lacking one infinitesimal modicum of power, that lack would end His reign and undo His kingdom; that one stray atom of power would belong to someone else and God would be a limited ruler and hence not sovereign.

Furthermore, His sovereignty requires that He be absolutely free, which means simply that He must be free to do whatever He wills to do anywhere at any time to carry out His eternal purpose in every single detail without interference. Were He less than free He must be less than sovereign.

To grasp the idea of unqualified freedom requires a vigorous effort of the mind. We are not psychologically conditioned to understand freedom except in its imperfect forms. Our concepts of it have been shaped in a world where no absolute freedom exists. Here each natural object is dependent upon many other objects, and that dependence limits its freedom.

Wordsworth at the beginning of his “Prelude” rejoiced that he had escaped the city where he had long been pent up and was “now free, free as a bird to settle where I will.” But to be free a bird is not to be free at all. The naturalist knows that the supposedly free bird actually lives its entire life in a cage made of fears, hungers, and instincts; it is limited by weather conditions, varying air pressures, the local food supply, predatory beasts, and that strangest of all bonds, the irresistible compulsion to stay within the small plot of land and air assigned it by birdland comity. The freest bird is, along with every other created thing, held in constant check by a net of necessity. Only God is free.

God is said to be absolutely free because no one and no thing can hinder Him or compel Him or stop Him. He is able to do as He pleases always, everywhere, forever. To be thus free means also that He must possess universal authority. That He has unlimited power we know from the Scriptures and may deduce from certain other of His attributes. But what about His authority?

Even to discuss the authority of Almighty God seems a bit meaningless, and to question it would be absurd. Can we imagine the Lord God of Hosts having to request permission of anyone or to apply for anything to a higher body? To whom would God go for permission? Who is higher than the Highest? Who is mightier than the Almighty? Whose position antedates that of the Eternal? At whose throne would God kneel? Where is the greater one to whom He must appeal? “Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.”

The sovereignty of God is a fact well established in the Scriptures and declared aloud by the logic of truth. But admittedly it raises certain problems which have not to this time been satisfactorily solved: These are mainly two. The first is the presence in the creation of those things which God cannot approve, such as evil, pain, and death. If God is sovereign He could have prevented their coming into existence. Why did He not do so?

The Zend-Avesta, sacred book of Zoroastrianism, loftiest of the great non-Biblical religions, got around this difficulty neatly enough by postulating a theological dualism. There were two Gods, Ormazd and Ahriman, and these between them created the world. The good Ormazd made all good things and the evil Ahriman made the rest. It was quite simple. Ormazd had no sovereignty to worry about, and apparently did not mind sharing his prerogatives with another.

For the Christian this explanation will not do, for it flatly contradicts the truth taught so emphatically throughout the whole Bible, that there is one God and that He alone created the heaven and the earth and all the things that are therein. God’s attributes are such as to make impossible the existence of another God. The Christian admits that he does not have the final answer to the riddle of permitted evil. But he knows what that answer is not. And he knows that the Zend-Avesta does not have it either.

While a complete explanation of the origin of sin eludes us, there are a few things we do know. In His sovereign wisdom God has permitted evil to exist in carefully restricted areas of His creation, a kind of fugitive outlaw whose activities are temporary and limited in scope. In doing this God has acted according to His infinite wisdom and goodness. More than that no one knows at present; and more than that no one needs to know. The name of God is sufficient guarantee of the perfection of His works.

Another real problem created by the doctrine of the divine sovereignty has to do with the will of man. If God rules His universe by His sovereign decrees, how is it possible for man to exercise free choice? And if he can not exercise freedom of choice, how can he be held responsible for his conduct? Is he not a mere puppet whose actions are determined by a behind-the-scenes God who pulls the strings as it pleases Him?

The attempt to answer these questions has divided the Christian church neatly into two camps which have borne the names of two distinguished theologians, Jacobus Arminius and John Calvin. Most Christians are content to get into one camp or the other and deny either sovereignty to God or free will to man. It appears possible, however, to reconcile these two positions without doing violence to either, although the effort that follows may prove deficient to partisans of one camp or the other.

Here is my view: God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, “What doest thou?” Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so.

Perhaps a homely illustration might help us to understand. An ocean liner leaves New York bound for Liverpool. Its destination has been determined by proper authorities. Nothing can change it. This is at least a faint picture of sovereignty.

On board the liner are several scores of passengers. These are not in chains, neither are their activities determined for them by decree. They are completely free to move about as they will. They eat, sleep, play, lounge about on the deck, read, talk, altogether as they please; but all the while the great liner is carrying them steadily onward toward a predetermined port.

Both freedom and sovereignty are present here and they do not contradict each other. So it is, I believe, with man’s freedom and the sovereignty of God. The mighty liner of God’s sovereign design keeps its steady course over the sea of history. God moves undisturbed and unhindered toward the fulfilment of those eternal purposes which He purposed in Christ Jesus before the world began. We do not know all that is included in those purposes, but enough has been disclosed to furnish us with a broad outline of things to come and to give us good hope and firm assurance of future well-being.

We know that God will fulfil every promise made to the prophets; we know that sinners will some day be cleansed out of the earth; we know that a ransomed company will enter into the joy of God and that the righteous will shine forth in the kingdom of their Father; we know that God’s perfections will yet receive universal acclamation, that all created intelligences will own Jesus Christ Lord to the glory of God the Father, that the present imperfect order will be done away, and a new heaven and a new earth be established forever.
Toward all this God is moving with infinite wisdom and perfect precision of action. No one can dissuade Him from His purposes; nothing turn Him aside from His plans. Since He is omniscient, there can be no unforeseen circumstances, no accidents. As He is sovereign, there can be no countermanded orders, no breakdown in authority; and as He is ominpotent, there can be no want of power to achieve His chosen ends. God is sufficient unto Himself for all these things.

In the meanwhile things are not as smooth as this quick outline might suggest. The mystery of iniquity doth already work. Within the broad field of God’s sovereign, permissive will the deadly conflict of good with evil continues with increasing fury. God will yet have His way in the whirlwind and the storm, but the storm and the whirlwind are here, and as responsible beings we must make our choice in the present moral situation.

Certain things have been decreed by the free determination of God, and one of these is the law of choice and consequences. God has decreed that all who willingly commit themselves to His Son Jesus Christ in the obedience of faith shall receive eternal life and become sons of God. He has also decreed that all who love darkness and continue in rebellion against the high authority of heaven shall remain in a state of spiritual alienation and suffer eternal death at last.

Reducing the whole matter to individual terms, we arrive at some vital and highly personal conclusions. In the moral conflict now raging around us whoever is on God’s side is on the winning side and can not lose; whoever is on the other side is on the losing side and can not win. Here there is no chance, no gamble. There is freedom to choose which side we shall be on but no freedom to negotiate the results of the choice once it is made. By the mercy of God we may repent a wrong choice and alter the consequences by making a new and right choice. Beyond that we can not go.

The whole matter of moral choice centers around Jesus Christ. Christ stated it plainly: “He that is not with me is against me,” and “No man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” The gospel message embodies three distinct elements: an announcement, a command, and a call. It announces the good news of redemption accomplished in mercy; it commands all men everywhere to repent and it calls all men to surrender to the terms of grace by believing on Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.

We must all choose whether we will obey the gospel or turn away in unbelief and reject its authority. Our choice is our own, but the consequences of the choice have already been determined by the sovereign will of God, and from this there is no appeal.

The Lord descended from above,
And bowed the heavens most high,
And underneath His feet He cast
The darkness of the sky.

On cherubim and seraphim
Full royally He rode,
And on the wings of mighty winds
Came flying all abroad.

He sat serene upon the floods,
Their fury to restrain;
And He, as sovereign Lord and King,
For evermore shall reign.
Psalm paraphrase,
by Thomas Sternhold

Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on August 11, 2010 at 9:19pm

LT -

Tozer was certainly a blessing to the body of Christ. He surely is among the list in Hebrews 11. Verse 38 the world was not worthy of them.

Thank you for posting that lonnngggg, but well worth read.

Blessings

Permalink Reply by ScribeD on August 9, 2010 at 7:23pm

David, you sure like to tackle things that will get some people fired up, don't you?

On a personal note: I have taken time to study this issue in depth - but I have forgotten most of what I once knew about the details of the argument.

After attending both Arminian and Calvinist churches, studying their doctrines and listening to the arguments, I have concluded thus:
* Both camps are correct in their assertions, yet
* both camps are incorrect in what they deny.
* Both camps make their assertions based on scripture, yet
* both camps fail to hear/observe the scriptural basis of the other.

So, most folks will say: how can you believe that, since they are in disagreement? Can't you see they contradict one another?

My answer to that is that they are each talking about different issues. Typically the issue for Arminians is "free will". Yes, I will agree that it is apparent that we humans have free will. I will even assert that God allows humanity the ability to freely choose evil. That is the apparent situation of Adam and Eve in Eden. James clearly says "God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;" Therefore God did not cause them to sin - but he did allow it. He did give them free will.

Now, at this point, the Calvinist says "God is sovereign and nothing is beyond his Lordship." I will agree with that point. They will re-assert their point and say "God predestines those who will be saved" and I will agree with that as well. In fact, I will challenge anyone who denies it - because God's word is abundantly clear that this is the case.

So, in short, I have to conclude that these are two different topics. For some, this is a contradiction. For me it is not - because there are many things which seem to be contradictory, until we have more information. Free will does not contradict, nor interfere with God's sovereignty or predestination. He is God, after all, He can do things that are "higher than" our understanding.

Frankly, I avoid churches that get spun around on these topics now. I've seen too many people turn purple trying to make the scripture NOT say what it is clearly saying, all the while trying to prove their points about scripture's perspective on Predestination vs Free will.

I read competent authors and theologians on both sides; but I no longer read their work on these topics.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 14
• Next ›
• Page