How many Calvinists/Arminians do we have?

[Guest]

thats a good bit for me to go over and dwell on, i'll respond at a later time

Sounds good.

[Guest]

Being a foreknown one and being predestined is not the same term but to be predestined can only be applied to the one foreknown.

nice work allyn

If I'm understanding Allyn correctly I agree with him too. The one who is predestined is the one is is foreknown. As in God foreknew my faith, etc.
I certainly could be predestined individually in that sense.

Sean, you understand me correctly. I don't need to define how big of a God we are dealing with here. I couldn't begin to do that. God really has no limitations in the reality of His nature and I believe He, being Spirit, is not confined by what we see and know. I believe it is possible that His foreknoledge is a bi-product of the fact that he sees all things and all eventualities and possibilities at once.

[Guest]

If God knows in advance what a free-will agent will choose, then an advanced statement about that choice will be either true or false now.

If the statement A will do X at time T is now true, then A will be unable to refrain from doing X at time T.

If the statement A will do X at time T is now false, the A will be unable to do X at time T.

In either case, there will be something that A cannot do. Therefore, since this particular case is a paradigm for all cases, A (or any other free-will agent) does not possess free will.

But Arminians and other believe that we do possess free will.

Therefore statements about future choices have no truth value now, and thus their actions cannot be known in advance since there is nothing to know.

However, Arminians believe that they have free will and that God does know every choice that they will make.

My view of Arminianism is that it is inconsistent Calvinism.

[Guest]

Here is my response to Homer, I'm still going over the work that Sean provided.


---------------
I see no confusion in Barnes's words, but I do feel that you have a misunderstanding of the reformed view concerning the eternal security of the elect. I say this because of this statement that you made:

"If Peter is speaking to the saved, and them only,then what need have they of repentance since they cannot fall away?"

Now, I do believe that the elect are eternally secure, it is only logical to believe that since God predestined those who would follow Him, they could do nothing to ruin what God has chosen to happen, BUT I also believe that the elect are Christians who are bent to do the Lord's work. Many have distorted this view and have ascribed this sort of saying to
calvinists:

"Since the elect are definately saved, no matter what they do, they are the elect, so they have no need to repent or perform any Christian responsibility."

This is a horrible, and destructive misrepresentation, this is not what Calvin taught, and certainly not what the Bible teaches. Unfortunately the group who does believe this also has the term "calvinism" in it, it is called "hyper-calvinism". I know the words are pretty tricky, because the term "hyper-calvinism" gives the impression that hyper-calvinists stick closer to calvin's teachings than others, and this is not true. John Calvin was NOT a hyper-calvinist. Hyper-calvinism is a heretical view that developed during the 1700s, it was basically an attempt to justify churches not bearing any fruit, this is where the term "frozen chosen" came from. To believe this would to annul the P of T.U.L.I.P, which is the perseverance of the Saints, which is the doctrine that those who are elect will persevere unto the end, those who will do the Lord's work at all costs. Much like "Jehovah's Witnesses" are not really His witnesses, the same
goes for "hyper-calvinists" they are not really calvinists in the sense of men like Johnathon Edwards, and Charles Spurgeon.

Many times calvinism is presented as hyper-calvinism, so here is a good list that www.monergism.com made for this problem.

Most Calvinists reject as deplorable the following:

hyper-Calvinistic and destructive beliefs:

that God is the author of sin and of evil
that men have no will of their own, and secondary
causes are of no effect

that the number of the elect at any time may be known by men

that it is wrong to evangelize

that assurance of election must be sought prior to repentance and faith

that men who have once sincerely professed belief are saved regardless of what they later do

that God has chosen some races of men and has
rejected others

that the children of unbelievers dying in infancy are certainly damned

that God does not command everyone to repent

that the sacraments are not means of grace, but obstacles to salvation by faith alone.

that the true church is only invisible, and salvation is not connected with the visible church

that the Scriptures are intended to be interpreted by individuals only and not by the church.

that no government is to be obeyed which does not acknowledge that Jesus is the Lord, or that Biblical Law is its source of authority

that the grace of God does not work for the betterment of all men
that saving faith is equivalent to belief in the doctrine of predestination

that only Calvinists are Christians (Neo-gnostic Calvinism)
-----------------------------

Also, Barnes didn't say that Peter was writing to the "unsaved elect", but Peter did speak about the elect who have not yet believed, but will believe. And I dont know what he thinks about verse 17.

In King Jesus, our Lord,
Devin

[Guest]

My view of Arminianism is that it is inconsistent Calvinism.

Actually I was going to say the same thing about your view.

When God/Jesus predicted things and they came to pass, how was God able to know in advance what free will agents would choose? Like Peter denying the Lord 3 times before the rooster crowing. How did God know these things in advance? Even telling Peter ahead of time so that Peter could have changed the outcome.

It seems that either God knows what we are going to do before we do it or God causes what He wills to occur. I gave other examples in the thread that TK provided a link to on the previous page.

[Guest]

It seems that either God knows what we are going to do before we do it or God causes what He wills to occur.

The first clause is false since there is nothing to know about a choice before it is made.

The second clause is true.

But there's more. Because of God's omniscience, He is in the strongest of positions to predict what people will choose, with the corresponding outcome of that prediction.

There's still more. Sometimes God's predictions do not take place as He thought or said. I have given examples of this. This, of course, is to be expected since choices cannot be known (in the absolute sense of "know") before these choices are made.

[Guest]

The second clause is true.

If God causes what He wants to occur, then at what point do we have free will?

[Guest]

I didn't know that the second clause meant "God causes all things that He wants, to occur". It's obvious, scripturally, that this is not the case.
If it were, what would be the point of Jesus asking His disciples to pray, "Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven"?

God causes some things that He wants to occur, as long as it doesn't conflict with human choice. For example, He will cause the second coming of Christ to occur. No amount of human choice can prevent it.

God also influences people where their wills do conflict with God's will. Sometimes the influence is very strong, as in His judgments, for example.

[Guest]

hey everybody, i've been workin a lot more and am still going over the material that brother sean provided, but i've been peeking in and see what yall have been talking about and it reminded me of this well-known verse

A man's heart plans his way, but Jehovah directs his steps.
Proverbs 16:9

[Guest]

ahh, wow, its been a while, and i still have not developed a response, i am still planning to but i am also really BUSY, so it could be sooner, or later, but i hope to respond eventually.............