Re: Arminianism, Calvinism, or a compromise? -- The Christian Paradigm

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Sun, May 17 2026, 22:55:56

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3] ]

Subject: Re: Arminianism, Calvinism, or a compromise?

Author:
Jeff Davis

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: Sat, Jun 01 2002, 20:19:16
In reply to: E. Popp 's message, "Arminianism, Calvinism, or a compromise?" on Mon, May 06 2002, 16:23:49

Dr. Norman Geisler proposed a seemingly very plausible compromise between the two in his book, "Chosen but Free." After discussing this book with my friend Will Mitchell, Will made an assertion I will never forget: "Who are you going to listen to? Norman Geisler, or JOHN CALVIN?" While he was just trying to be funny, I think he caused me to reexamine what I thought about the subject. No matter how much authors Mr. Geisler or G. K. Chesterton argue against Calvinists and determinists, I just can't get around what it says in Romans 8:56-70 -

"He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us?"

I just don't see how we can say that God has a purpose and plan for every individual without also concluding that He planned the means to that end. Paul seems pretty clear that God foreknew and predestined who He would call, save, and glorify.

So basically, I am a Calvinist.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> Subject: Re: Arminianism, Calvinism, or a compromise?
Author: Robbie [ Edit \| View ]	Date Posted: Thu, Apr 24 2003, 10:42:13 Going off what Squeezer said, if every knee will bow, etc. and all will be saved then what is the need for Hell? What about those scriptures that speak of the lost, the sinful, those who don't repent and recieve salvation going to the fiery pits of Hell?

[> [> [> Subject: Fiery pits of hell?

Author:
B. Bellrook
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: Sat, Jul 24 2004, 9:34:10

I read a book by Lee Strobel not too long ago, and was very impressed with an opinion that I found in the pages. What if hell isn't really a torture chamber? People often use that excuse to not believe in a loving God. "How could he send his children to a fiery hell?" Well, what if He doesn't? You can play the blame game all day. "Well, if we don't choose Him, then it's our fault." - "Oh, but can't He give someone a second chance?" Blah blah blah. Flame, in the Bible, often speaks of judgement. Just as water speaks of spirit. "Wailing and gnashing of teeth" are things that I do sometimes over a bad decision, but we're going to turn it into a torture chamber? No. I think that Hell, simply put, is somewhere that God is not. Obviously that's not going to be the hottest spot in Creation as far as fun is concerned, but that doesn't mean that it's a place of eternal pain and suffering of the "Wow, my skin is boiling off" variety.

[> [> Subject:

Re: Arminianism, Calvinism, or a compromise?

Author:
David
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: Sun, May 04 2003, 0:01:46

This is one of my favorite subjects. I am certainly not a Calvinist or an Arminiast but rather what I call a Weak Arminiast.

That is a wonderful passage in Romans you quoted and infact, it set's for us the structure of salvation and order
in which it happens.

Romans 8:29-30, the beef of the subject. Notice how the order works. Foreknew-->Predestined-->Conformed to Christs Image-->Called-->Justified-->Glorified

We know who we are talking about because of the last two elements, justified and glorified. Only the saved are justified because apart from Christ I don't have justification and so salvation. This passage is talking about the predestined saints.

I feel foreknowledge ALWAYS comes before predestination. Do a word study on the foreknowledge of God and you will see that God ONLY foreknows the saints. That is not to say he doesn't know who will reject him. This is just something applied to believers. What this shows is that God only states his foreknowledge of the saints and so the only ones predestined are the ones he foreknew. I do not insist this is what the truth is but I do believe it's closer. You can't read Romans 8:29-30 and yet reject all the passages that speak of persisting in the faith.

Robbie, a pastor I know doesn't call anyone non-believers but will only call them believers and pre-believers. This is because eventually everyone WILL believe. It will just be to late.

[> [> Subject: Re: Arminianism, Calvinism, or a compromise?
Author: Will Mitchell [ Edit \| View ]	Date Posted: Wed, Feb 25 2004, 11:14:19 It's just strange to find my name on the internet. I love Will Mitchell. Oh yeah and I'm a Calvinist too.