Can We Eliminate the Divide Between Calvinism and Arminianism?

There is a logical falacy in this system

Even the person who believes could never have assurance, Because he could never be assured he would remain in belief. His assurance is based in His ability, Not Gods.

Thus logically. It is a works based system in which no one could possibly have any assurance in (are you trustworthy?)

Not sure who your talking to. I do not see the quote.

But this is not true for all non calvinists.

Jesus did die for all sin. Just not the sin of unbelief. No one is tried for sin at the great white throne, They are tried for their works. And found wanting, because their work could not add up to perfect righteousness. Thus they are left standing on their own, and because of UNBELIEF they are as jesus said in John, in a condemned state they had always been in.

I believe God is soverign

I am not calvinist

So yoru jab is not only mean spirited, but it is wrong.

Really?

Well if we are talking about calvinist vs arminians vs catholics vs orthodoxy, yeah I would probably agree.

But ALL men?

Sorry, I can not agree.

Ughh.

I had to open up to see who you were responding too.

She is a banned person. Who by being here is in sin. She can nto even get her own stories straight and contradicts herself so much a young child could see right through her. Not worth it bro. I left one thread because they keep talking to these sinners and giving them an audience, basically enabling their sin.. Time to ignore these people

The bible says all men know they are dead.

Pride can get a man to resist water, if what he thinks drinking that water will cause him to give up what he desires most.

He can also be convinced that water is poison,

He can also convince himself he is not dieing because what he desires is so powerful. It is more important, so he is blinded to his death.

Look at our society, Kids are taking opioids knowing one bad batch will kill them, but they do not care. What it gives them is ore powerful than their will to survive.

Yeah? I was trying to think of a "cut off" line of time. I suppose I should have stated "outside the Bible?"

The way you and I would define sovereign, although I would never use that word, is probably not the same way a Calvinist would define it.

No. It doesn't look like it.

It looks like you've come up with excuses as to why you don't believe the bible but rather you believe in the will of man.

I would not argue with anything you wrote. When men try to show other men Gods Grace it can be distorted and resisted.

When God is the One showing the man His Grace it is for a reason and cannot be resisted.

Romans 9:19-21
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonor?

What I think is important here is that both views are found in scripture. What is the relevance of one over the other???
Salvation belongs and is found in our God only.
Do you really think that we are going to tell each other in heaven how we got there??? Would one boast that he was picked before the foundation was layed or another boast that he made the right choice to follow Christ?
According to the revelation of the Christ all eyes were upon him who was slain.
Careful in what you choose to separate yourself from others for division in our adversarys greatest tool.
We all can agree that God has the forknowledge of all things so the fall of man came as no surprise. After all creation he rested in his finished work. Those works that are seen and unseen.

John Calvin and Martin Luther were MEN.

I listen to Jesus and HIS word.
He's GOD.

The difference between the 2, is that Arminian is more a flesh experience towards inwards spirit. Whereas as Calvinism is more a spiritual experience towards the flesh outwards.
I'll let ya in on a secret. God's irresistible grace can cause the outawards man to think he came to God all on his own!

Hi, Chester -

Thank you for replying. I appreciate your inquisitive approach.

Concerning Your First Category of Questions
According to Literary Education Online, repetition is used to identify the main idea in a portion of text, and Ephesians 1:1-2:22 contains a phrase and an idea that is repeated in emphatic fashion. That phrase and idea is “in Christ”. In chapter 1, the idea is repeated 9 times over 23 verses, which is about once every three verses. In chapter 2, the idea is repeated 6 times over 22 verses, which is about once every four verses. When you combine chapters 1 and 2, the total repetition is precisely once every three verses over a span of two chapters! So, the point of these chapters is to elaborate on the importance of us being in Christ so that we can enjoy the benefits to be had - one of which is predestination.

So, concerning your question, “What does this teach about predestination?”:

• It teaches us that predestination is one of the benefits to be had as a consequence of us being in Christ

Concerning your other question, “What does Ephesians 1:4,5 mean?”, well let me share with you what I think it means one step at a time. These verses together have the following statements:

• He chose us in Him
• before the foundation of the world

Looking at “He chose us in him”, we need to be careful here because we don’t talk like this in American English (AE). In AE we don’t say, “She poked us in her”; it’s completely nonsensical. However, in AE we do say things like, “She poked us” and “He chose us”, and each of these phrases makes sense. So, it’s the “in Him” part that obscures the meaning of the phrase in question, and we need to use Scripture as a basis for how we interpret the message conveyed by the phrase.

These excerpts from Jesus are the basis upon which I have concluded what “in Him” means:

• Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in Me. I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you. By this My Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit; so you will be My disciples (John 15:4-8).
  
  
• As the Father loved Me, I also have loved you; abide in My love. If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love (John 15:9-10).
  
  
• Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock … (Matt 7:24)
  
  
• But why do you call Me “Lord, Lord,” and not do the things which I say? (John 4:46)

Based on the bulleted excerpts above, I have concluded that “in Him” means:

• As a consequence of our faith in Him, we have memorized Jesus’ teachings, and we live by them.

To help validate this interpretation, let us suppose the following:

• I trust Jesus
• I have memorized everything Jesus said to do
• I do not live by those things Jesus said to do, instead I live by other precepts

Under the conditions bulleted above, am I in Christ? The answer is a resounding “no”, due to Matthew 7:21-23 in which Jesus states the following:

Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

Okay, so now that we have a firm grasp of what “in Him” means: as a consequence of our faith in Him, we have memorized Jesus’ teachings, and we live by them. Let’s review the second phrase:

• before the foundation of the world

Looking at the above bulleted phrase, we have to be careful here, again, because we don’t talk like this in AE. In AE we don’t say things like “I parked my car before the foundation of the house”. We might talk about doing something like “inspecting the foundation of a building”, or “spraying paint or weed killer around the foundation of a building”. But, I don’t know of any phrases used in AE where the phrase, “before the foundation of the BLANK”, is used. Fortunately, there is a convincing and compelling argument for how to interpret this phrase found here in this article.

The author of the article uses Scripture to interpret Scripture, which is always the best hermeneutic. The bottom line is that the second phrase in question means the following:

• since the world began
• from ancient times
• from the beginning

The author’s approach was to recognize that the phrase “before the foundation of the world” was also found in Matthew 13:35, which cites Psalm 78:2 that translates the phrase as “from ancient times”. Then the author compared Psalm 78:2 with the Septuagint version and found that the same phrase is translated as “from the beginning”. So, the conclusion is that the phrase “from the foundation of the world” is an idiom and can mean “since the world began”, not “before the world was made” as is sometimes argued. The author’s argument is succinct, convincing, compelling, and brilliant all at the same time.

Now, to answer your question about what the phrase “He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world” means. Let me first declare that the phrase does not mean:

• He chose us before/since the the world began
• He chose us to be in Him before/since the world began

Next, I’d like to offer analogous statements to help us better understand the meaning conveyed by the phrase in question:

• I smelled the chocolate in the red bag since the doors of the candy store were open
• I chose the toys in the green bag since the advertisement was broadcast on television
• The lady shot us in the cage since the lights came on

Notice the effects the phrases “in the red bag”, “in the green bag”, and “in the cage” have on the action taken by the subject. The effect:

• defines a narrow scope upon which the action is applied
• requires that items be in the limited scope prior to being affected by the subject’s action

Finally, based on the matter covered so far, let me give you what I think the phrase “He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world” means:

• Since the beginning of the world, God chose us who faithfully follow Christ, so that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love …

Concerning Your Next Question Regarding John 10:27-29
Okay … so, in this portion of Scripture we read about Jesus responding to some Jews who are asking to be told plainly if He is the Christ. You know from my original post (OP) that these Jews are the very same ones Jesus, Paul, and John identified as being under a curse, and these are the very same Jews that needed to be elected by God. Otherwise, they just weren’t going to see that He is the Christ. Notice what Jesus tells them:

The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me. But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you.

Okay … so, they weren’t Jesus’ sheep. How would they have become His sheep? The answer is in verse 29:

My Father, who has given them [the sheep] to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. I and My Father are one.

Our Father must first give them to Jesus. In this particular case, our Father did not choose (i.e., did not elect) to give these same Jews to Jesus. I know that Christians today believe that this text applies to them. But, there is nothing in the text that indicates this. In fact, Jesus’ pre-crucifixion ministry was to the Jew only, but for the benefit of both Jew and Gentile.

So, to answer the question directly:

• John 10:27-29 means that Jesus had sheep that were given to Him by our Father for their salvation through a process called election. The Jews Jesus with whom Jesus was speaking were not selected to be Jesus’ sheep.

Again, thank you for replying.

Hi, Grandpa -

This was addressed in my OP. Here is a quote that should answer your question succinctly:

Gentiles have always enjoyed free will in their salvation experience.

I hope that helps.

Hi, Grandpa -

Can you elaborate more on this in terms of how you reached this conclusion?

Thanks in advance.

Hi, Hevosmies -

Can you share the ways in which what you have quoted is a challenge to my assertion in the original post?

Thanks in advance.

Hi, Obedienttogod -

Thank you for replying.

I was raised in a Christian family as well, and I didn't hear about the Calvinism vs Arminianism debate until well into my 30s. The only pronounced distinction among the saints I remember being discussed as I was growing up is Pentecostal vs non-Pentecostal.

Again, thanks for sharing.

Hi, GodsGrace101 -

Thank you for replying.

You have made the following claim:

Election has nothing to do with God choosing which Jews will be saved. Instead, election has to do with God electing, or choosing the Hebrews/Israelites/Jews to be the chosen people through whom God would reveal Himself.

Can you please demonstrate your claim to be true with convincing and compelling argumentation?


Thanks, again.

Beware of those who say they are Jews and are not……..Rev.