WHAT IS ARMINIANISM AND CALVINISM

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on November 10, 2010 at 6:18am

Roy,

Wow a dance instructor i did not know that about him. A beautiful man of God. Well praise God beloved. One is glad to be of service. :)

Blessings

Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on November 10, 2010 at 6:15am

Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on November 18, 2010 at 12:20am

There are three major views of the effectiveness of Christ atonement:

1. Some believe that Christ suffered, died and paid the penalty for the sins of the whole world.

2. Some believe that Christ suffered for all mankind, but did not pay the penalty for their sins.

3. Some believe that Christ death paid the penalty for the sins of the elect, those that are chosen and predestined by God to be His Church, His people, His sheep.

A. The first view states that what Christ did, He did for every person, which includes paying the debt and penalty of their sin. However those that believe that should ask themselves, if what I believe is true, that Christ paid the penalty for the sins of the world, how is it possible that many will be judge and go to hell? The penalties of their sins were paid for by Christ. One should not think that Christ paid for the penalty of all mankind's sins, because if Christ paid the penalty for everyone’s sins, then no one would go to hell. How could they be judged? If Christ paid the penalty of the sins of the world, then everyone is exempt from judgment. Christ paid the penalty; hence no one is accountable any longer for the payment of their sins. This is when it is said that only if the individual repents and believes in Christ they can count the penalty of their sins paid for. In my opinion the belief that Christ paid the penalty for the sins of the world is in error, for if that was true then God could not judge anyone for their sins.

B. The Second group or view believes that Christ only suffered for the whole world, but did not pay the penalty of their sins. Only when a person repents and believes are their sins forgiven and the penalty of their sins is done away with.

The issues I see with this view is that the death of Christ, His atoning death was universal, but it was not efficacious for none at the time of Christ death. To me this means that Christ atonement is limited in power. His death did not actually save anyone, but made the possibility of being saved a reality. The work of Christ on the cross was not designed to purchase a specific people for himself, nor was it to secure salvation for any particular sinner. The death of Christ was done to make salvation possible for any person who would use their free will to - Repent and believe.

Both of the previews views (A and B) are known as Decisional Regeneration. The person is born again, regenerated when they surrender/ decide to accept/receive and not reject the grace, faith and conviction they are receiving from God at that point.

C. The death of Christ is not limited in power to save a people at the time of Chris's death, but is limited in intend. It was not intended for every person that has ever lived, but for the elect. The cross purchased everything the elect sinner needs to be justified. Including regeneration (being born again) and faith.

I myself believe in the most controversial of the views, Limited Atonement. Like Spurgeon: I had rather believe a limited atonement that is efficacious for all men for whom it was intended, than a universal atonement that is not efficacious for anybody...

So there you have it family. Now you have the three dominant views of the atonement with some pros and cons for each one. This topic is a huge topic, but that should give you a bit of info so when you are studying the word you can have them in mind and seek the Spirit for wisdom and understanding as to which view is biblically correct.

Love to you family.

Permalink Reply by RoyW on November 18, 2010 at 1:15am

Only one of the views makes sense to me. I leave the door open for whosoever will but how can a dead person will anything? The dead must be awakened. Are all awakened and some choose to accept His grace and others choose to reject? I do not understand His plan but I do believe His Word. He speaks of the elect according to His purpose and will. I do not see anything even indicating that it is by the will of man. I hesitate to even speak of these matters anymore. I have depressed this understanding for many years as so many are offended. After being on AAG for these last months I am about to go underground once again. When God says "elect according to His foreknowledge," why do we insist that simply means He chooses those He knows in advance that will choose Him? Why do we insist on that which we do not know? I do not even see a hint of that interpretation.

It is my understanding that God has an elect. We do not know the basis of that elect and perhaps should not even speculate on that issue. We say it is because He knows who will choose Him. We build an entire doctrine around that which we do not know. When will man finally give up and admit it is all God? When we will finally trust Him? I do not think He is unfair or unrighteous in any of His decisions. I believe all His decisions are just.

When we get to heaven He may or may not tell us the basis of His choice. I will not ask Him. I will not be expecting any explanations. My trust in Him is becoming complete. I used to think I would ask Him. I no longer think that way. I trust that He does everything correctly. He is God. He is my Father. He is right in all He does.

When He says He has an elect chosen, I am going to believe Him. When He says He predestined me to be adopted as His son before He even brought the world into existence, I am not going to question Him. I am going to accept that by faith and trust Him that He does everything the way it is supposed to be done. Since I can't understand His ways anyway, I have no choice. I will not engage in doctrines based on man's thoughts.

We are a chosen people. Do not reject that knowledge. His death accomplished everything. He spent many nights on that beautiful mount praying for the strength to accomplish this work. Someday I will visit that mount where He spent many nights in prayer. I believe I will receive a sense of His determination to finish the work for which He was sent. It is finished and I can add nothing to it. As I sit in these early morning hours in His presence I know He has won the victory and I am wondrously saved from my sin. Blessed be the Lord God my Savior. Thank you Jesus for Your determination to finish that job.

Great job, my friend.

Roy

Permalink Reply by Richard L. Broch, Sr. on November 18, 2010 at 8:33am

David, God bless you for your most excellent post. Your presentation is clear and concise. It gives people an opportunity to see the three major interpretations concerning salvation, and it`s obvious you put great effort and time into this post.
Thank you.
I`ve come to my conclusion regarding this matter some time ago. But what is key, is that we can be brothers and sisters in Christ regardless how we have arrived.

I like Roy`s words that Christ Jesus won the victory at Calvary, and that we can look forward to the Hope and Promise as children of God.

Grace and Peace.

Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on November 21, 2010 at 11:03pm

Thank you beloved Rich,

I have seen your previous post and is not that I am ignoring it or that I do not have an opinion about your impute, is just that I read them a couple of times sometimes before the Lord guides my response.

>>What is key, is that we can be brothers and sisters in Christ regardless how we have arrived.

YOu got it bro. Love trumps it all. Only the truth sets us free, but if we have all knowledge but lack love... we are just a noise.

Love to you beloved and I truly enjoy your posts brother. Thank you for your kind words.

Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on November 21, 2010 at 10:21pm

For Whom Did Christ Die?
& What Did Christ Actually Achieve on the Cross for Those for Whom He Died?
By John Piper
The atonement is the work of God in Christ on the cross whereby he cancelled the debt of our sin, appeased his holy wrath against us, and won for us all the benefits of salvation. The death of Christ was necessary because God would not show a just regard for his glory if he swept sins under the rug with no recompense.

Romans 3:25-26 says that God "put Christ forward as a propitiation by his blood...This was to demonstrate God's righteousness because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies those who have faith in Jesus."

In other words the death of Christ was necessary to vindicate the righteousness of God in justifying the ungodly by faith. It would be unrighteous to forgive sinners as though their sin were insignificant, when in fact it is an infinite insult against the value of God's glory. Therefore Jesus bears the curse, which was due to our sin, so that we can be justified and the righteousness of God can be vindicated.

The term "limited atonement" addresses the question, "For whom did Christ die?" But behind the question of the extent of the atonement lies the equally important question about the nature of the atonement. What did Christ actually achieve on the cross for those for whom he died?

If you say that he died for every human being in the same way, then you have to define the nature of the atonement very differently than you would if you believed that Christ only died for those who actually believe. In the first case you would believe that the death of Christ did not actually save anybody; it only made all men savable. It did not actually remove God's punitive wrath from anyone, but instead created a place where people could come and find mercy -- IF they could accomplish their own new birth and bring themselves to faith without the irresistible grace of God.

For if Christ died for all men in the same way then he did not purchase regenerating grace for those who are saved. They must regenerate themselves and bring themselves to faith. Then and only then do they become partakers of the benefits of the cross.

In other words if you believe that Christ died for all men in the same way, then the benefits of the cross cannot include the mercy by which we are brought to faith, because then all men would be brought to faith, but they aren't. But if the mercy by which we are brought to faith (irresistible grace) is not part of what Christ purchased on the cross, then we are left to save ourselves from the bondage of sin, the hardness of heart, the blindness of corruption, and the wrath of God.

Therefore it becomes evident that it is not the Calvinist who limits the atonement. It is the Arminian, because he denies that the atoning death of Christ accomplishes what we most desperately need -- namely, salvation from the condition of deadness and hardness and blindness under the wrath of God. The Arminian limits the nature and value and effectiveness of the atonement so that he can say that it was accomplished even for those who die in unbelief and are condemned. In order to say that Christ died for all men in the same way, the Arminian must limit the atonement to a powerless opportunity for men to save themselves from their terrible plight of depravity.

On the other hand we do not limit the power and effectiveness of the atonement. We simply say that in the cross God had in view the actual redemption of his children. And we affirm that when Christ died for these, he did not just create the opportunity for them to save themselves, but really purchased for them all that was necessary to get them saved, including the grace of regeneration and the gift of faith.

We do not deny that all men are the intended beneficiaries of the cross in some sense. 1 Timothy 4:10 says that Christ is "the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." What we deny is that all men are intended as the beneficiaries of the death of Christ in the same way. All of God's mercy toward unbelievers -- from the rising sun (Matthew 5:45) to the worldwide preaching of the gospel (John 3:16) -- is made possible because of the cross.

This is the implication of Romans 3:25 where the cross is presented as the basis of God's righteousness in passing over sins. Every breath that an unbeliever takes is an act of God's mercy withholding judgment (Romans 2:4). Every time the gospel is preached to unbelievers it is the mercy of God that gives this opportunity for salvation.

Whence does this mercy flow to sinners? How is God just to withhold judgment from sinners who deserve to be immediately cast into hell? The answer is that Christ's death so clearly demonstrates God's just abhorrence of sin that he is free to treat the world with mercy without compromising his righteousness. In this sense Christ is the savior of all men.

But he is especially the Savior of those who believe. He did not die for all men in the same sense. The intention of the death of Christ for the children of God was that it purchase far more than the rising sun and the opportunity to be saved. The death of Christ actually saves from ALL evil those for whom Christ died "especially."

There are many Scriptures which say that the death of Christ was designed for the salvation of God's people, not for every individual. For example:

John 10:15, "I lay down my life for the sheep." The sheep of Christ are those whom the Father draws to the Son. "You do not believe, because you do not belong to my sheep." Notice: being a sheep enables you to become a believer, not vice versa. So the sheep for whom Christ dies are the ones chosen by the Father to give to the Son.

In John 17:6,9,19 Jesus prays, "I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou gavest me out of the world; thine they were, and thou gavest them to me...I am praying for them; I am not praying for the world but for those whom thou hast given me, for they are thine...And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth." The consecration in view here is the death of Jesus which he is about to undergo. His death and his intercession us uniquely for his disciples, not for the world in general.

John 11:51-52, "[Caiaphas] being high priest that year prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad." There are children of God scattered throughout the world. These are the sheep. These are the ones the Father will draw to the Son. Jesus died to gather these people into one. The point is the same as John 10:15-16, "I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice." Christ died for his sheep, that is, for the children of God.

Revelation 5:9, "Worthy art thou to take the scroll and to open its seals, for thou wast slain and by thy blood didst ransom men for God from every tribe and tongue and people and nation." In accordance with John 10:16 John does not say that the death of Christ ransomed all men but that it ransomed men from all the tribes of the world.

This is the way we understand texts like 1 John 2:2 which says, "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world." This does not mean that Christ died with the intention to appease the wrath of God for every person in the world, but that the "sheep," "the children of God" scattered throughout the whole world, "from every tongue and tribe and people and nation" are intended by the propitiation of Christ. In fact the grammatical parallel between John 11:51-52 and 1 John 2:2 is so close it is difficult to escape the conviction that the same thing is intended by John in both verses.

John 11:51-52, "He prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad."

1 John 2:2, "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world."

The "whole world" refers to the children of God scattered throughout the whole world.

If "the whole world" referred to every individual in the world, we would be forced to say that John is teaching that all people will be saved, which he does not believe (Revelation 14:9-11). The reason we would be forced to say this is that the term propitiation refers to a real removal of wrath from sinners. When God's wrath against a sinner is propitiated, it is removed from that sinner. And the result is that all God's power now flows in the service of his mercy, with the result that nothing can stop him from saving that sinner.

Propitiated sins cannot be punished. Otherwise propitiation loses its meaning. Therefore if Christ is the propitiation for all the sins of every individual in the world, they cannot be punished, and must be saved. But John does not believe in such universalism (John 5:29). Therefore it is very unlikely that 1 John 2:2 teaches that Jesus is the propitiation of every person in the world.

Mark 10:45, in accord with Revelation 5:9,does not say that Jesus came to ransom all men. It says, "For the Son of man also came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

Similarly in Matthew 26:28 Jesus says, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

Hebrews 9:28, "So Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him." (See also 13:20; Isaiah 53:11-12.)

One of the clearest passages on the intention of the death of Christ is Ephesians 5:25-27. Here Paul not only says that the intended beneficiary of the death of Christ is the Church, but also that the intended effect of the death of Christ is the sanctification and glorification of the church. This is the truth we want very much to preserve: that the cross was not intended to give all men the opportunity to save themselves, but was intended to actually save the church.

Paul says, "Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the church to himself in splendor."

Similarly in Titus 2:14 Paul describes the purpose of Christ's death like this: "He gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds." If Paul were an Arminian would he not have said, "He gave himself to redeem all men from iniquity and purify all men for himself"? But Paul says that the design of the atonement is to purify for Christ a people out from the world. This is just what John said in John 10:15; 11:51f; and Revelation 5:9.

One of the most crucial texts on this issue is Romans 8:32. It is one of the most precious promises for God's people in all the Bible. Paul says, "He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, will he not also give us all things with him?"

The crucial thing to see here is how Paul bases the certainty of our inheritance on the death of Christ. He says, "God will most certainly give you all things because he did not spare his own Son but gave him up for you." What becomes of this precious argument if Christ is given for those who do not in fact receive all things but instead are lost? The argument vanishes.

If God gave his own Son for unbelievers who in the end are lost, then he cannot say that the giving of the Son guarantees "all things" for the those for whom he died. But this is what he does say! If God gave his Son for you, then he most certainly will give you all things. The structure of Paul's thought here is simply destroyed by introducing the idea that Christ died for all men in the same way.

We can conclude this section with the following summary argument. Which of these statements is true?

1. Christ died for some of the sins of all men.

2. Christ died for all the sins of some men.

3. Christ died for all the sins of all men.

No one says that the first is true, for then all would be lost because of the sins that Christ did not die for. The only way to be saved from sin is for Christ to cover it with his blood.

The third statement is what the Arminians would say. Christ died for all the sins of all men. But then why are not all saved? They answer, Because some do not believe. But is this unbelief not one of the sins for which Christ died? If they say yes, then why is it not covered by the blood of Jesus and all unbelievers saved? If they say no (unbelief is not a sin that Christ has died for) then they must say that men can be saved without having all their sins atoned for by Jesus, or they must join us in affirming statement number two: Christ died for all the sins of some men. That is, he died for the unbelief of the elect so that God's punitive wrath is appeased toward them and his grace is free to draw them irresistibly out of darkness into his marvelous light.


Taken From What We Believe About the Five Points of Calvinism Bethlehem Baptist Church Staff

Permalink Reply by RoyW on November 22, 2010 at 4:56am

Amen,

It is either by God or by man.
It is either by grace or by works.
I don't see how anyone could say it is part of God and part of man. Father, save me from my sins. Save me from all my sins. Do not leave it up to me. Has He ever saved anyone that does not want to be saved? Is there such a thing as a believer that wants to spend an eternity in hell separated from the love of God? I think not. There are plenty that are weak that fall back into sin but none that want hell. There are plenty if not all that says, "But, I am so unworthy. I don't deserve this grace." Yes, that is true. But, do you want this grace? Do you want Him to save you from your sin?

Our Father understands how much we hate the sin in our life. He understands how that makes us feel so unworthy of His glorious gift. For that reason, He makes it abundantly clear that it is His business to do the saving. We cannot save ourselves. We are too weak. Why do people feel they can help Him in this job? When He said, "It is finished," that job was accomplished. Everything necessary unto my salvation was accomplished on that day years ago. There is no way one of His sheep can be lost. His work is enough. His work is glorious. I would never diminish His work by saying, "Me, it is me."

It is all of God and none of me. I cannot understand or explain. His sheep know His voice. They follow Him wherever He goes. He is glorious. He is wonderful. He is the Prince of Peace. He has gained absolute peace between us and God. The cost is paid. The tab is covered. It is not the price Satan demands. It the price that God demanded. He is our Father. We are His children. He is here to take us home.

David, I say I am going to quit commenting on this issue. But, when you put up a post like this, my spirit comes alive. I hear His voice and I cannot remain silent. He is the Savior of the world and all those of His He will save.

Blessings, blessings, blessings. Keep preaching, brother.
Roy

Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on November 23, 2010 at 5:14pm

hahahaha you are free to share brother. And your impute is always a blessing to my heart and welcome. I am sure i am not the only one blessed by it.

Love to you pastor Roy.

Permalink Reply by RoyW on November 23, 2010 at 5:51pm

I think we are the only ones left on this forum. The others have all left.

Permalink Reply by Sharon Theresa Theil on November 30, 2010 at 8:05am

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.

David,

Elect for what? What was Jacob elected for that Esau was not? Answer that question and this scripture falls into place with the whole of Sacred Scripture.

Sharon.

Permalink Reply by Sarah Gardener on December 13, 2010 at 10:14pm

Sharon,

 

I always thought that Jacob was elected or chosen based upon his desiring the birthright whereas Esau despised it.  Esau sold his birthright for temporary comfort in this world whereas Jacob did everything (with the help of mum who knew because of the word spoken to her by God when the twins were in her womb) to obtain it - see Hebrew 12:16-17 and Gen 25:34.

 

The interesting part is mum knowing before the events even took place (due to a word from the Lord - Gen 25:23).  The Lord foreknew beforehand the events that would transpire and predestined that Jacob would be Israel.

 

Israel: God prevails...

 

Although reading your question again I think you might know all that.......

 

Blessings

Linda Ruth

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 11
• 12
• 13
• 14
• 15
• …
• 19
• Next ›
• Page