Can We Eliminate the Divide Between Calvinism and Arminianism?

Hi, Chester -

Thanks for your reply.

The claim I made about Jesus’ pre-crucifixion ministry was unsubstantiated, because I thought it wasn’t necessary to provide an argument for it. However, in light of the fact that you have called this claim to be “blatantly wrong”, I’d like to share with you the basis for the claim, and then perhaps you can tell me where I have gone astray.

Again, here is the claim:

• Jesus’ pre-crucifixion ministry was to the Jew only, but for the benefit of both Jew and Gentile.

The basis for the claim consists of 3 parts:

• Identify Scripture declaring the scope of Jesus’ work
• Identify Scripture declaring the beneficiaries of Jesus’ work
• Address Scriptural instances of work performed by Jesus outside of defined scope

Scope of Jesus’ Work
The scope of Jesus work is defined in Matt 2:6, which is a quote from Micah 5:2:

But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
Are not the least among the rulers of Judah;
For out of you shall come a Ruler
Who will shepherd My people Israel

So, we know from Scripture the role of the Christ as being a Ruler who will shepherd Israel.


Beneficiaries of Jesus’ Work
The beneficiaries of Jesus’ work is defined in John 1:29 by John the Baptist:

Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

So, we know from Scripture the worldwide benefit of the Ruler who will shepherd Israel.


Work Performed by Jesus Outside of Defined Scope
There are four instances in which we see Jesus work with non-Jews. There may be more, but I am not aware of them. Let’s look at each one.

• Matthew 15:21-28 (Parallel passage Mark 7:24-30). While the end-result was that Jesus helped the non-Jewish lady from Canaan, we can’t help but notice that Jesus initially resisted helping her and even went so far as to let her know that helping her was outside the scope of His ministry: “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel”.
  
  
• In regards to Jesus meeting the Samaritan woman, we have to be careful here and notice what the Scripture says in John 4:3-4: “He left Judea and departed to Galilee. But He needed to go through Samaria”. So, the intent was to go to Galilee, not Samaria. Samaria was the town that He “needed to go through”. Jesus initiated a conversation with the woman by commanding her to give Him some water, because His disciples “had gone away into the city to buy food”. The implication here is that had the disciples remained with Him, then He would not have spoken with her. So, the intent was for the woman to minister to Jesus, not the other way around.
  
  
• The account of Jesus helping the Centurion is fairly straightforward: the centurion submitted a request to Jesus to help him, and Jesus acquiesced. However, this incident in no way expands the scope of Jesus ministry.
  
  
• The fourth account of Jesus receiving a request from non-Jews was at a feast in Jerusalem in John 12:20-36. Some Greeks came to Phillip saying, “Sir, we wish to see Jesus.” Interestingly, Jesus completely ignores them! Instead of addressing their request, Jesus initiated a discussion with His disciples and the Jews, and then He left the area.

The bottom line here is that Jesus’ response to non-Jews ranges from acquiescence to resistance, with more instances of resistance. More instances of resistance would be consistent with the scope of Jesus’ ministry as explicitly defined in Scripture. The bottom line is that, Biblically speaking, Jesus assisting non-Jews was the exception to the rule.

Do you think the Scriptures I shared with you in this post were sufficient to demonstrate that Jesus’ ministry was limited in scope to Jews? If not, why not? Do you know of Scriptures where Jesus declared explicitly that his ministry was to be directed toward non-Jews? Do you know of Old Testament Scriptures where Jesus ministry was prophesied to be directed toward non-Jews?

Thanks for your time.

Could you check out post no. 122 and give us YOUR version of what Romans 9 is speaking about....

And also, could you tell me WHEN God took away our free will?
I believe it was in the Garden of Eden and I believe it's in
Revelation 3:20......

So when?

Genesis 2:17
but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."


Revelation 3:20
20‘Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me."

My version of what Romans 9 is speaking about is God electing to change some people into His Saved People. And electing to not change others but to harden them.

I don't know why people have such a hard time with election. Its throughout the whole bible. You never see anyone have any problems with God choosing the Hebrews and hardening the heart of Pharaoh.

I don't know if people ever had free will. How would we be able to know? I suppose we could try to guess among ourselves.

I don't know why people have such a hard time with election. Its throughout the whole bible. You never see anyone have any problems with God choosing the Hebrews
.

Hi, Grandpa -

Thanks for your reply.

You reached the conclusion that the curse Isaiah pronounced against the Jews also applies to all of mankind, based on the following:

• Ephesians 2:8-9
• Galatians 3:28

The contents of the bulleted items above contain no reference to Isaiah’s curse, and don’t make any truth claims that mitigate against the curse. It is true that the Jews were under a curse as demonstrated in the OP, and at the same time:

• Christians have always been saved through faith, and
• there is neither Jew nor Gentile in Christ.

Perhaps, if you can show how the Scriptures you referenced expand the curse to include Gentiles, then that may be helpful. Can you elaborate a little more on this? Thanks in advance.

But you believe you can lose him right? How can you be assured in the next 30 years you will still believe in him?


Aww, See now you just increased your logical falacy, how could one ever have any kind of security if salvation was based on ones works? In fact, How can one ever say they have repented. And recieved christ if they thought even for a second they could do enough works? You see, The tax collector got on his knees because he realised his dire need, He did what Jesus said on the mount when he said blessed are the poor (literally bancrupt) in spirit for theirs is the kingdom. A person who is bancrupt is there because he has accumulated so much debt he has no way of paying that debt off no matter how much he works.

You see most calvinists I know. Focus on works as a means of gratitude for what God did. And because they have come to understand, That if we do well, even our countenance is hightened (Gods plea to Cain, which he failed to understand) and they have experienced how true that is. Faith is in God, not in how good we think we are or try to be. But focusing on the things of God..

Sadly, Instead of resting the problem I said you had, you made it even worse, You also have equated continued belief with works. Which just further proves what it is your faith is in.. And why even though you claim you have security, If you are honest withyourself. You have no capacity for security of any kind


Yet everything you say, SHows your security and meaning is in your ability to continue in faith, and to do good works. WHich at any time can stop. Meaning you have no security at all. You just have convinced yourself you have it.

Well you can have it..I will just pray you see in reality how you do not have it.. Your faith is in self. Not God.

1 Corinthians 1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

If the Greeks aren't under the "curse" in Isaiah then how come Christ Crucified is foolishness to them?

Romans 1:20-25
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

I don't see any way of separating what is supposedly only to Jews and what is only to Gentiles. It is all to everyone who comes to God. And who doesn't.

Hey bro. You know i love ya, and not saying this to attack you. Just giving a different view

My view of romans 9 is God answering the question. Did God make a mistake (in chosing Israel), That God had already prophesied Gentiles would be saved, and Israel would walk away, That God chose them not according to human thinking, or because their fathers were so righteous. But because it was his will etc etc. and actually romans 9 - 11 is pauls answer to that question, even showing in the end, Isreal will repent and they all will be saved.

I know that's what you believe but I think scripture is against it.

Romans 9:6-8
6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

I think we all have major hurdles to overcome to be saved. I think it is a Miracle of Christ that anyone is saved. If Christ decides to change the minds of Israel in the end or last days then that will be His Work and I will have no problem with it.

But I'm not sure if scripture really says that or not. The one thing I am not very good with is eschatology. It just doesn't really interest me. It seems there is a lot of imagination involved in everyones end times thinking and LOTS of arguments, unnecessarily.

Well I say unnecessarily because I don't totally understand the arguments...

My version of what Romans 9 is speaking about is God electing to change some people into His Saved People. And electing to not change others but to harden them.

I don't know why people have such a hard time with election. Its throughout the whole bible. You never see anyone have any problems with God choosing the Hebrews and hardening the heart of Pharaoh.

I don't know if people ever had free will. How would we be able to know? I suppose we could try to guess among ourselves.

You can't have YOUR version of Romans 9.
This is a problem....we all want to have our own version.
Biblical scholars KNOW what Romans 9 is speaking about...there's no need to guess or wonder or listen to persons that use it to their own benefit (calvinists).

Romans 9 is NOT speaking about God choosing some people and not others.
It's speaking about how God revealed Himself to the Hebrews and how they rejected Christ and so...did He make a mistake? Paul is addressing this ... also in chapters 10 and 11. These 3 chapters really should have been a separate epistle.

Also, it would be good for you to actually KNOW if persons ever had free will.
Calvinist theology hinges on free will.

If we don't have free will then Calvin and Luther were right.
If we DO have free will, then Calvin and Luther were wrong.

Did Adam have free will to eat the forbidden fruit or did God force him to eat it?

When you're tempted to sin.....could you choose not to or does God make the decision for you?
If you think it's GOD that predetermined your decision and you end up sinning...
Did God make you sin?
Does God desire us to sin?

These are questions that need to be answered.

I like the question about Adam and is choice.
He did not know good and evil, or knowledge of it, ie he could not abstract his behaviour and see possible
futures with moral consequences. For him to understand to do something in the future means death and
to not do it means life, means he must have been able to abstract behaviour.

So his choice was trust God, or choose death with knowledge and possibly die, but take the risk.
Satan introduced the question about death, whether that was true, or something else might be there.

One could argue through Christ, life was actually also present, so there was a sense that death for
mankind was not inevitable, if God intervened.

God knows that for love to exist, it has to allow the choice and failure will come.
1/3 of heaven chose failure. But without failure you cannot have love. God has chosen this is a price
worth paying, for the eternity with His people He then creates.

So yes it was inevitable, it is built into love with free will, but equally victory and love overcoming in His
people is also inevitable. But these inevitabilities are inbuilt and not fatalistic but free. And if you have
foreknowledge, choice can look like destiny. And too much knowledge can mean the worse destiny results.
It is why we must trust our future to His will, and not desire to know more than He reveals. Amen.

You can't have YOUR version of Romans 9.
This is a problem....we all want to have our own version.
Biblical scholars KNOW what Romans 9 is speaking about...there's no need to guess or wonder or listen to persons that use it to their own benefit (calvinists).

Could you check out post no. 122 and give us YOUR version of what Romans 9 is speaking about....

Romans 9 is NOT speaking about God choosing some people and not others.
It's speaking about how God revealed Himself to the Hebrews and how they rejected Christ and so...did He make a mistake? Paul is addressing this ... also in chapters 10 and 11. These 3 chapters really should have been a separate epistle.

Also, it would be good for you to actually KNOW if persons ever had free will.
Calvinist theology hinges on free will.

If we don't have free will then Calvin and Luther were right.
If we DO have free will, then Calvin and Luther were wrong.

Did Adam have free will to eat the forbidden fruit or did God force him to eat it?

When you're tempted to sin.....could you choose not to or does God make the decision for you?
If you think it's GOD that predetermined your decision and you end up sinning...
Did God make you sin?
Does God desire us to sin?

These are questions that need to be answered.

Well you asked.



Romans 9 is about election. Romans 9 IS about God choosing some people and not others.

All you have to do is read it. And then understand what you just read. And then remember it for a short time.



Calvinist theology DOES NOT hinge on free will. That's where you are wrong.

Calvinist theology hinges on the Sovereignty of God.


Free will is a concept that arminians and humanists embrace for some illogical reason. They deny election and try to place all the power that God possesses within themselves. They ALLOW God to do His Work by the imagination of their free will. I think these people just generally don't understand what the bible says.

1 Corinthians 1:23

Romans 1:20-25

An argument that has existed for 4 centuries is unlikely to be resolved here

Does it matter? It is in our exploration of the truths of God that we grow, and it is this growth
that matters. Some seem to think definitive answers are the key.
But it strikes me it is how we move towards things that matter, and how we treat others in the
process, being like Jesus rather than the world.

In eternity we will probably see these were reflections of the same truth, so neither were wrong
or right. So our shame will be our judgement of our brothers and sisters in Christ and whether we
were an encouragement to walk deep in grace or abandon things because it is too dangerous.