Total Posts:177|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Calvinist Arminian Debate Unresolvable

rjohnson741
Posts: 215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2013 8:39:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There are two belief systems within Christianity called Calvinism and Arminianism.
Their main disagreement is on how people are saved. Calvinists believe it is God who chooses who is saved based on unconditional election. Arminians believe people are saved based on their free will choice to accept or reject Christ. These two beliefs are diametrically opposed to each other. Calvinists and Arminians have been arguing for years and years through debate forums and other means to try to resolve this issue. But it is impossible to resolve this issue. As long as Calvinist and Arminians believe all men are not saved, this issue will remain unsolved within the christian body of believers. I will put this in propositional form to show why:

Proposition 1---God loves everyone and desires everyone to be saved without exception(Arminian belief).

Proposition 2---God is sovereign ans omnipotent, therefore God will accomplish all of His desires(Calvinist belief).

Proposition 3---Some people will never be saved, therefore they are eternally lost(eternal punishment/Calvinist and Arminian belief).

To save space and time, I will be abbreviating these propositions as:
Proposition 1=P1
Proposition 2=P2
Proposition 3=P3
These propositions are a representation of their respective beliefs.
Calvinists affirm P2, and reject P1 as false. Arminians affirm P1, and reject P2 as false and both affirm P3 as true. Could it be possible P3 is false and P1 and P2 are true for both beliefs? Of course Calvinists and Arminians will not reject P3 because they consider that proposition to be Biblical. But can't the case be made that P1 and P2 are Biblical as well. After all the Calvinists and Arminians can show ample scriptures to support their respective propositions. If the Calvinists and Arminians affirmed each others proposition, their difference in how men are saved would be immediately solved. But the combination of P1 and P2 would be Universalism. That being the case, the differences in Calvinists and Arminian beliefs can never be resolved, because of P3. Here's why:

Calvinists affirm P3, therefore they must reject P1.
Arminians affirm P3, therefore they must reject P2.
A rejection of P3 is by default a rejection of Universalism(P1 and P2 combined).

As long as Calvinists and Arminian affirm P3, which is also a rejection of Universalism(P1 and P2) combined, any resolution between the two christian beliefs is impossible.
rjohnson741
Posts: 215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2013 11:19:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/8/2013 8:39:55 PM, rjohnson741 wrote:
There are two belief systems within Christianity called Calvinism and Arminianism.
Their main disagreement is on how people are saved. Calvinists believe it is God who chooses who is saved based on unconditional election. Arminians believe people are saved based on their free will choice to accept or reject Christ. These two beliefs are diametrically opposed to each other. Calvinists and Arminians have been arguing for years and years through debate forums and other means to try to resolve this issue. But it is impossible to resolve this issue. As long as Calvinist and Arminians believe all men are not saved, this issue will remain unsolved within the christian body of believers. I will put this in propositional form to show why:

Proposition 1---God loves everyone and desires everyone to be saved without exception(Arminian belief).

Proposition 2---God is sovereign ans omnipotent, therefore God will accomplish all of His desires(Calvinist belief).

Proposition 3---Some people will never be saved, therefore they are eternally lost(eternal punishment/Calvinist and Arminian belief).

To save space and time, I will be abbreviating these propositions as:
Proposition 1=P1
Proposition 2=P2
Proposition 3=P3
These propositions are a representation of their respective beliefs.
Calvinists affirm P2, and reject P1 as false. Arminians affirm P1, and reject P2 as false and both affirm P3 as true. Could it be possible P3 is false and P1 and P2 are true for both beliefs? Of course Calvinists and Arminians will not reject P3 because they consider that proposition to be Biblical. But can't the case be made that P1 and P2 are Biblical as well. After all the Calvinists and Arminians can show ample scriptures to support their respective propositions. If the Calvinists and Arminians affirmed each others proposition, their difference in how men are saved would be immediately solved. But the combination of P1 and P2 would be Universalism. That being the case, the differences in Calvinists and Arminian beliefs can never be resolved, because of P3. Here's why:

Calvinists affirm P3, therefore they must reject P1.
Arminians affirm P3, therefore they must reject P2.
A rejection of P3 is by default an affirmation of Universalism(P1 and P2 combined).

As long as Calvinists and Arminian affirm P3, which is also a rejection of Universalism(P1 and P2) combined, any resolution between the two christian beliefs is impossible.

I had to make a correction in my opening comments. My corrected comment reads:
'A rejection of P3 is by default an affirmation of of Universalism(P1 and P2 combined)'.
slo1
Posts: 4,308
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2013 9:58:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/8/2013 11:19:19 PM, rjohnson741 wrote:
At 8/8/2013 8:39:55 PM, rjohnson741 wrote:
There are two belief systems within Christianity called Calvinism and Arminianism.
Their main disagreement is on how people are saved. Calvinists believe it is God who chooses who is saved based on unconditional election. Arminians believe people are saved based on their free will choice to accept or reject Christ. These two beliefs are diametrically opposed to each other. Calvinists and Arminians have been arguing for years and years through debate forums and other means to try to resolve this issue. But it is impossible to resolve this issue. As long as Calvinist and Arminians believe all men are not saved, this issue will remain unsolved within the christian body of believers. I will put this in propositional form to show why:

Proposition 1---God loves everyone and desires everyone to be saved without exception(Arminian belief).

Proposition 2---God is sovereign ans omnipotent, therefore God will accomplish all of His desires(Calvinist belief).

Proposition 3---Some people will never be saved, therefore they are eternally lost(eternal punishment/Calvinist and Arminian belief).

To save space and time, I will be abbreviating these propositions as:
Proposition 1=P1
Proposition 2=P2
Proposition 3=P3
These propositions are a representation of their respective beliefs.
Calvinists affirm P2, and reject P1 as false. Arminians affirm P1, and reject P2 as false and both affirm P3 as true. Could it be possible P3 is false and P1 and P2 are true for both beliefs? Of course Calvinists and Arminians will not reject P3 because they consider that proposition to be Biblical. But can't the case be made that P1 and P2 are Biblical as well. After all the Calvinists and Arminians can show ample scriptures to support their respective propositions. If the Calvinists and Arminians affirmed each others proposition, their difference in how men are saved would be immediately solved. But the combination of P1 and P2 would be Universalism. That being the case, the differences in Calvinists and Arminian beliefs can never be resolved, because of P3. Here's why:

Calvinists affirm P3, therefore they must reject P1.
Arminians affirm P3, therefore they must reject P2.
A rejection of P3 is by default an affirmation of Universalism(P1 and P2 combined).

As long as Calvinists and Arminian affirm P3, which is also a rejection of Universalism(P1 and P2) combined, any resolution between the two christian beliefs is impossible.

I had to make a correction in my opening comments. My corrected comment reads:
'A rejection of P3 is by default an affirmation of of Universalism(P1 and P2 combined)'.

How does one go about resolving this, as it fundamentally boils down to how the bible is interpreted. Even so called literal translations require interpretations. Since there is no process, guidance or other method that God gave man to apply a proper interpretation, it becomes just pure speculation.

One could argue that the gift of the Holy Spirit can grant the knowledge of how to properly interpret the scriptures, however when self reported it is evident all sects/interpretations have individuals who proclaim to have received that gift.

There is only one way to resolve it, but that would entail individuals in mass admitting that they really don't know. That will never happen in our life times.
rjohnson741
Posts: 215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2013 2:41:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/8/2013 8:39:55 PM, rjohnson741 wrote:
There are two belief systems within Christianity called Calvinism and Arminianism.
Their main disagreement is on how people are saved. Calvinists believe it is God who chooses who is saved based on unconditional election. Arminians believe people are saved based on their free will choice to accept or reject Christ. These two beliefs are diametrically opposed to each other. Calvinists and Arminians have been arguing for years and years through debate forums and other means to try to resolve this issue. But it is impossible to resolve this issue. As long as Calvinist and Arminians believe all men are not saved, this issue will remain unsolved within the christian body of believers. I will put this in propositional form to show why:

Proposition 1---God loves everyone and desires everyone to be saved without exception(Arminian belief).

Proposition 2---God is sovereign ans omnipotent, therefore God will accomplish all of His desires(Calvinist belief).

Proposition 3---Some people will never be saved, therefore they are eternally lost(eternal punishment/Calvinist and Arminian belief).

To save space and time, I will be abbreviating these propositions as:
Proposition 1=P1
Proposition 2=P2
Proposition 3=P3
These propositions are a representation of their respective beliefs.
Calvinists affirm P2, and reject P1 as false. Arminians affirm P1, and reject P2 as false and both affirm P3 as true. Could it be possible P3 is false and P1 and P2 are true for both beliefs? Of course Calvinists and Arminians will not reject P3 because they consider that proposition to be Biblical. But can't the case be made that P1 and P2 are Biblical as well. After all the Calvinists and Arminians can show ample scriptures to support their respective propositions. If the Calvinists and Arminians affirmed each others proposition, their difference in how men are saved would be immediately solved. But the combination of P1 and P2 would be Universalism. That being the case, the differences in Calvinists and Arminian beliefs can never be resolved, because of P3. Here's why:

Calvinists affirm P3, therefore they must reject P1.
Arminians affirm P3, therefore they must reject P2.
A rejection of P3 is by default an affirmation of Universalism(P1 and P2 combined).

As long as Calvinists and Arminian affirm P3, which is also a rejection of Universalism(P1 and P2 combined), any resolution between the two christian beliefs is impossible.

If God loves and desires the salvation of everyone without exception(P1), and God has the power to accomplish that desire(P2), then God will save everyone. Therefore P1, P2, and P3 cannot all be true. I will put my comments here in equation form:

P1 + P2 = Universalism, therefore P3(eternal punishment) is false.
rjohnson741
Posts: 215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2013 3:21:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/9/2013 2:53:03 PM, ExsurgeDomine wrote:
It should be noted that both Calvinism and Arminianism are heretical.

You believe Calvinism, Arminianism, and Universalism are all heretical? If you believe that, the broad road to destruction just got more crowded.
rjohnson741
Posts: 215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2013 4:21:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/9/2013 3:53:08 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
Calvinism should be shunned.

My comments were referring to just one specific belief of the Calvinist and Arminian beliefs. I was referring to the Arminian belief that God desires to save everyone, and the Calvinist belief that God will accomplish all of His desires. I was not referring to all of their beliefs. I believe both of these specific beliefs to be true.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2013 1:13:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
"One could argue that the gift of the Holy Spirit can grant the knowledge of how to properly interpret the scriptures, however when self reported it is evident all sects/interpretations have individuals who proclaim to have received that gift."

That's exactly what they do argue. It runs about like this: "God in His wisdom provided us with an inspired book, yet inspired it in such a way that a common man cannot understand it, so God must provide individuals or groups with special 'Holy Spirit enlightenment' in order to interpret the book that God provided."

It seems to me to just be an excuse when they are out of gas. "No, the passage does not really mean what it says - I have been enlightened by the Spirit." Current claims of Spirit enlightenment are a symptom of a disease, and the disease is known as "false religion." I frequently do not question their sincerity: I question their logic and accuracy.

*****

"It should be noted that both Calvinism and Arminianism are heretical."

Any "ism" is heretical.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2013 12:01:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/8/2013 8:39:55 PM, rjohnson741 wrote:
Calvinists and Arminians have been arguing for years and years through debate forums and other means to try to resolve this issue. But it is impossible to resolve this issue.

It's resolved to my satisfaction. I come down on the Calvinist side.

As long as Calvinist and Arminians believe all men are not saved, this issue will remain unsolved within the christian body of believers.

Ha! But do you think the subject of "universalism" vs. "non-universalism" is going to be resolved any time soon?
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2013 12:02:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/11/2013 1:13:56 AM, annanicole wrote:

Any "ism" is heretical.

Yeah, including anti-hereticalism.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
rjohnson741
Posts: 215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2013 1:13:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/11/2013 12:01:07 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 8/8/2013 8:39:55 PM, rjohnson741 wrote:
Calvinists and Arminians have been arguing for years and years through debate forums and other means to try to resolve this issue. But it is impossible to resolve this issue.

It's resolved to my satisfaction. I come down on the Calvinist side.

As long as Calvinist and Arminians believe all men are not saved, this issue will remain unsolved within the christian body of believers.

Ha! But do you think the subject of "universalism" vs. "non-universalism" is going to be resolved any time soon?

Hi Philochristos. I enjoyed our debate. The subect of 'universalism vs 'non universalism' will not be resolved, because Universalism is not an acceptable belief within the church, but Calvinism and Arminianism are acceptable beliefs.
Do you believe Arminians are your brothers and sisters in Christ?
If Calvinists believe Arminians are indeed their brothers and sisters in the body of Christ, why is the false teaching of free will from the Calvinist perspective, still taught in the church? And vice versa. If Arminians believe Calvinists are their brothers and sisters in the body of Christ, why is the false teaching of unconditiona election and irresistible grace, from the Arminian perspective, still taught in the church? Why can't they resolve these issues? One way or another, false teachings are being taught in the church. How can unbelievers take the church seriously, if the church can't even resolve how people are saved?
Affirming Universalism as an acceptable belief would immediately resolve all differences between them which brings me back to my equation:

P1 + P2 = Universalism, therefore P3 is false.

But Calvinists and Arminians affirm P3, therefore Calvinists must reject P1 and Arminians must reject P2 .
Hence the debate in the body of Christ on how men are saved cannot be resolved.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2013 5:35:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/11/2013 1:13:03 PM, rjohnson741 wrote:
Hence the debate in the body of Christ on how men are saved cannot be resolved.

So? The debate between universalists and non-universalists can't be resolved either. It's no solution to controversy to say "if only the church accepted universalism..." We could just as easily say, "If only everybody accepted Calvinism.." or "If only everybody accepted Arminianism."

There are always going to be differences in the church. There always have been. And yes, I do consider Arminians to be my brother and sisters in Christ.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
rjohnson741
Posts: 215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2013 6:45:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/11/2013 5:35:53 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 8/11/2013 1:13:03 PM, rjohnson741 wrote:
Hence the debate in the body of Christ on how men are saved cannot be resolved.

So? The debate between universalists and non-universalists can't be resolved either. It's no solution to controversy to say "if only the church accepted universalism..." We could just as easily say, "If only everybody accepted Calvinism.." or "If only everybody accepted Arminianism."

There are always going to be differences in the church. There always have been. And yes, I do consider Arminians to be my brother and sisters in Christ.

I agree totaly with your comment that the debate between Universalists and non universalists can't be resolved, but that is a non issue here seeing that the body of Christ does not consider Universalists to be a part of the body of Christ. But Calvinist and Arminians are a part of the body of Christ. So why the double standard?
Case in point:

Universalism considered to be a false teaching by Calvinists and Arminians, so of course not taught within the body of Christ.

Unconditional election and double predestination considered to be a false teaching by Arminians, but still taught openly within the body of Christ.

Free will considered to be a false teaching by Calvinists, but still taught openly within the body of Christ.

It seems some false teachings are allowed to be openly taught within the body of Christ at the exclusion of other so called false teachings. Shouldn't all false teachings be excluded from the body of Christ?
And make no mistake here, We're not talking about some minor disagreement between Calvinists and Arminians.
We're talking about the eternal destiny of mankind. We're talking about how people are saved or lost(unconditional election per Calvinism, or Free will choice per Arminianism).
Don't forget, we used to be unbelievers before we became christians.
So I'll say this again, how can unbelevers take the body of Christ seriously if they can't even agree on such an important issue as to how people are saved?
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2013 7:36:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/11/2013 6:45:00 PM, rjohnson741 wrote:

I agree totaly with your comment that the debate between Universalists and non universalists can't be resolved, but that is a non issue here seeing that the body of Christ does not consider Universalists to be a part of the body of Christ. But Calvinist and Arminians are a part of the body of Christ. So why the double standard?

What double standard?

It seems some false teachings are allowed to be openly taught within the body of Christ at the exclusion of other so called false teachings. Shouldn't all false teachings be excluded from the body of Christ?

Ideally, but realistically, that has never been the case. There have always been disagreements in the body of Christ, and until Christ comes, there always will be. So yes, some false teachings are allowed and some aren't. Do you honestly have a problem with that? Do you think Arminians and Calvinists should both be excluded from the body of Christ because you disagree with them? What about people like John Crossan and John Spong who both claim to be Christian, but deny that Jesus claimed to be the Christ or rose from the dead. Should they be included? Clearly some issues are more essential to Christianity than others, which is why we can be flexible with some issues and not with others. Do you disagree with that, or do you think should be all or nothing?

So I'll say this again, how can unbelevers take the body of Christ seriously if they can't even agree on such an important issue as to how people are saved?

If somebody is an unbeliever, it doesn't matter whether they take Christianity seriously or not. But people convert to Christianity all the time in spite of the major differences Christians have between each other. I do think these issues are important, but it's unrealistic to think we're all going to come to an agreement about everything, and it's silly to suggest that we could solve our differences if we simply adopted a third point of view. We could solve our differences if we all adopted ANY point of view as long as we all adopted it. But that's never going to happen. The best we can do is continue to study and reason with each other, and it would help if we could do it with some humility.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
rjohnson741
Posts: 215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2013 9:06:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/11/2013 7:36:44 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 8/11/2013 6:45:00 PM, rjohnson741 wrote:

I agree totaly with your comment that the debate between Universalists and non universalists can't be resolved, but that is a non issue here seeing that the body of Christ does not consider Universalists to be a part of the body of Christ. But Calvinist and Arminians are a part of the body of Christ. So why the double standard?

What double standard?

It seems some false teachings are allowed to be openly taught within the body of Christ at the exclusion of other so called false teachings. Shouldn't all false teachings be excluded from the body of Christ?

Ideally, but realistically, that has never been the case. There have always been disagreements in the body of Christ, and until Christ comes, there always will be. So yes, some false teachings are allowed and some aren't. Do you honestly have a problem with that? Do you think Arminians and Calvinists should both be excluded from the body of Christ because you disagree with them? What about people like John Crossan and John Spong who both claim to be Christian, but deny that Jesus claimed to be the Christ or rose from the dead. Should they be included? Clearly some issues are more essential to Christianity than others, which is why we can be flexible with some issues and not with others. Do you disagree with that, or do you think should be all or nothing?

So I'll say this again, how can unbelevers take the body of Christ seriously if they can't even agree on such an important issue as to how people are saved?

If somebody is an unbeliever, it doesn't matter whether they take Christianity seriously or not. But people convert to Christianity all the time in spite of the major differences Christians have between each other. I do think these issues are important, but it's unrealistic to think we're all going to come to an agreement about everything, and it's silly to suggest that we could solve our differences if we simply adopted a third point of view. We could solve our differences if we all adopted ANY point of view as long as we all adopted it. But that's never going to happen. The best we can do is continue to study and reason with each other, and it would help if we could do it with some humility.

Are you saying the eternal destiny of mankind( unconditional election, per Calvinism, or free will per Arminianism) is not an important issue? You got to be kidding. Now listen to this scripture:

'But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so I say now again, if any man preach preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ' Galatians 1:8-10.

The Calvinists and Arminians have made this scripture meaningless.
The Calvinist allow the false teaching of free will per Arminianism to be taught in the body of Christ, just to keep the peace, accomodate, and please the Arminians, and the Arminians like wise do the same thing about the false doctrine of unconditional election per Calvinism. The Calvinist and Arminians are disobeying Galatians 1:8-10.
They are also compromising the integrity of scripture in doing so.
So I ask you, in light of Galatians 1:8-10, why do you allow the false doctrine of free will per Arminianism to be taught in the body of Christ?
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2013 9:14:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/11/2013 9:06:28 PM, rjohnson741 wrote:
At 8/11/2013 7:36:44 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 8/11/2013 6:45:00 PM, rjohnson741 wrote:

I agree totaly with your comment that the debate between Universalists and non universalists can't be resolved, but that is a non issue here seeing that the body of Christ does not consider Universalists to be a part of the body of Christ. But Calvinist and Arminians are a part of the body of Christ. So why the double standard?

What double standard?

It seems some false teachings are allowed to be openly taught within the body of Christ at the exclusion of other so called false teachings. Shouldn't all false teachings be excluded from the body of Christ?

Ideally, but realistically, that has never been the case. There have always been disagreements in the body of Christ, and until Christ comes, there always will be. So yes, some false teachings are allowed and some aren't. Do you honestly have a problem with that? Do you think Arminians and Calvinists should both be excluded from the body of Christ because you disagree with them? What about people like John Crossan and John Spong who both claim to be Christian, but deny that Jesus claimed to be the Christ or rose from the dead. Should they be included? Clearly some issues are more essential to Christianity than others, which is why we can be flexible with some issues and not with others. Do you disagree with that, or do you think should be all or nothing?

So I'll say this again, how can unbelevers take the body of Christ seriously if they can't even agree on such an important issue as to how people are saved?

If somebody is an unbeliever, it doesn't matter whether they take Christianity seriously or not. But people convert to Christianity all the time in spite of the major differences Christians have between each other. I do think these issues are important, but it's unrealistic to think we're all going to come to an agreement about everything, and it's silly to suggest that we could solve our differences if we simply adopted a third point of view. We could solve our differences if we all adopted ANY point of view as long as we all adopted it. But that's never going to happen. The best we can do is continue to study and reason with each other, and it would help if we could do it with some humility.

Are you saying the eternal destiny of mankind( unconditional election, per Calvinism, or free will per Arminianism) is not an important issue? You got to be kidding.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
rjohnson741
Posts: 215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2013 9:24:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/11/2013 9:14:15 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 8/11/2013 9:06:28 PM, rjohnson741 wrote:
At 8/11/2013 7:36:44 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 8/11/2013 6:45:00 PM, rjohnson741 wrote:

I agree totaly with your comment that the debate between Universalists and non universalists can't be resolved, but that is a non issue here seeing that the body of Christ does not consider Universalists to be a part of the body of Christ. But Calvinist and Arminians are a part of the body of Christ. So why the double standard?

What double standard?

It seems some false teachings are allowed to be openly taught within the body of Christ at the exclusion of other so called false teachings. Shouldn't all false teachings be excluded from the body of Christ?

Ideally, but realistically, that has never been the case. There have always been disagreements in the body of Christ, and until Christ comes, there always will be. So yes, some false teachings are allowed and some aren't. Do you honestly have a problem with that? Do you think Arminians and Calvinists should both be excluded from the body of Christ because you disagree with them? What about people like John Crossan and John Spong who both claim to be Christian, but deny that Jesus claimed to be the Christ or rose from the dead. Should they be included? Clearly some issues are more essential to Christianity than others, which is why we can be flexible with some issues and not with others. Do you disagree with that, or do you think should be all or nothing?

So I'll say this again, how can unbelevers take the body of Christ seriously if they can't even agree on such an important issue as to how people are saved?

If somebody is an unbeliever, it doesn't matter whether they take Christianity seriously or not. But people convert to Christianity all the time in spite of the major differences Christians have between each other. I do think these issues are important, but it's unrealistic to think we're all going to come to an agreement about everything, and it's silly to suggest that we could solve our differences if we simply adopted a third point of view. We could solve our differences if we all adopted ANY point of view as long as we all adopted it. But that's never going to happen. The best we can do is continue to study and reason with each other, and it would help if we could do it with some humility.

Are you saying the eternal destiny of mankind( unconditional election, per Calvinism, or free will per Arminianism) is not an important issue? You got to be kidding.

You are correct here. You did say they were important issues. I misread your comments. Since I cannot edit my previous comments here, I retract those comments and apologize to you.
rjohnson741
Posts: 215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2013 1:49:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/11/2013 9:06:28 PM, rjohnson741 wrote:
At 8/11/2013 7:36:44 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 8/11/2013 6:45:00 PM, rjohnson741 wrote:

I agree totaly with your comment that the debate between Universalists and non universalists can't be resolved, but that is a non issue here seeing that the body of Christ does not consider Universalists to be a part of the body of Christ. But Calvinist and Arminians are a part of the body of Christ. So why the double standard?

What double standard?

It seems some false teachings are allowed to be openly taught within the body of Christ at the exclusion of other so called false teachings. Shouldn't all false teachings be excluded from the body of Christ?

Ideally, but realistically, that has never been the case. There have always been disagreements in the body of Christ, and until Christ comes, there always will be. So yes, some false teachings are allowed and some aren't. Do you honestly have a problem with that? Do you think Arminians and Calvinists should both be excluded from the body of Christ because you disagree with them? What about people like John Crossan and John Spong who both claim to be Christian, but deny that Jesus claimed to be the Christ or rose from the dead. Should they be included? Clearly some issues are more essential to Christianity than others, which is why we can be flexible with some issues and not with others. Do you disagree with that, or do you think should be all or nothing?

So I'll say this again, how can unbelevers take the body of Christ seriously if they can't even agree on such an important issue as to how people are saved?

If somebody is an unbeliever, it doesn't matter whether they take Christianity seriously or not. But people convert to Christianity all the time in spite of the major differences Christians have between each other. I do think these issues are important, but it's unrealistic to think we're all going to come to an agreement about everything, and it's silly to suggest that we could solve our differences if we simply adopted a third point of view. We could solve our differences if we all adopted ANY point of view as long as we all adopted it. But that's never going to happen. The best we can do is continue to study and reason with each other, and it would help if we could do it with some humility.

Now listen to this scripture:

'But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so I say now again, if any man preach preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ' Galatians 1:8-10.

: The Calvinists and Arminians have made this scripture meaningless.: The Calvinist allow the false teaching of free will per Arminianism to be taught in the body of Christ, just to keep the peace, accomodate, and please the Arminians, and the Arminians like wise do the same thing about the false doctrine of unconditional election per Calvinism. The Calvinist and Arminians are disobeying Galatians 1:8-10.: They are also compromising the integrity of scripture in doing so.
: So I ask you, in light of Galatians 1:8-10, why do you allow the false doctrine of free will per Arminianism to be taught in the body of Christ?

The body of Christ, or the church considers Universalism a false gospel therefore heretical. Keeping that in mind, read Galations 1:8-10 again and consider this:
Here are some of the beliefs taught within the body of Christ or the church:

1. Unconditional Election(Calvinism).
2. Conditional Election(Arminianism).
3. Limited Atonement(Calvinism).
4. Unlimited Atonement(Arminianism).
5. Irresistible Grace(Calvinism).
6. Resistible Grace(Arminianism).
7. Monegerism(Calvinism).
8. Synergism(Arminianism).
9. Eternal torment.
10. Annihilation.

All these beliefs are diametrically opposed to each other meaning only half of these beliefs can be true, therefore half of the beliefs mentioned here must be false. And christianity has the audacity to call Universalism false, when many of their own beliefs are false.
ChrisL
Posts: 136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2013 9:19:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/12/2013 1:49:09 AM, rjohnson741 wrote:
At 8/11/2013 9:06:28 PM, rjohnson741 wrote:
At 8/11/2013 7:36:44 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 8/11/2013 6:45:00 PM, rjohnson741 wrote:

I agree totaly with your comment that the debate between Universalists and non universalists can't be resolved, but that is a non issue here seeing that the body of Christ does not consider Universalists to be a part of the body of Christ. But Calvinist and Arminians are a part of the body of Christ. So why the double standard?

What double standard?


It seems some false teachings are allowed to be openly taught within the body of Christ at the exclusion of other so called false teachings. Shouldn't all false teachings be excluded from the body of Christ?

Ideally, but realistically, that has never been the case. There have always been disagreements in the body of Christ, and until Christ comes, there always will be. So yes, some false teachings are allowed and some aren't. Do you honestly have a problem with that? Do you think Arminians and Calvinists should both be excluded from the body of Christ because you disagree with them? What about people like John Crossan and John Spong who both claim to be Christian, but deny that Jesus claimed to be the Christ or rose from the dead. Should they be included? Clearly some issues are more essential to Christianity than others, which is why we can be flexible with some issues and not with others. Do you disagree with that, or do you think should be all or nothing?

So I'll say this again, how can unbelevers take the body of Christ seriously if they can't even agree on such an important issue as to how people are saved?

If somebody is an unbeliever, it doesn't matter whether they take Christianity seriously or not. But people convert to Christianity all the time in spite of the major differences Christians have between each other. I do think these issues are important, but it's unrealistic to think we're all going to come to an agreement about everything, and it's silly to suggest that we could solve our differences if we simply adopted a third point of view. We could solve our differences if we all adopted ANY point of view as long as we all adopted it. But that's never going to happen. The best we can do is continue to study and reason with each other, and it would help if we could do it with some humility.

Now listen to this scripture:

'But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so I say now again, if any man preach preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ' Galatians 1:8-10.

: The Calvinists and Arminians have made this scripture meaningless.: The Calvinist allow the false teaching of free will per Arminianism to be taught in the body of Christ, just to keep the peace, accomodate, and please the Arminians, and the Arminians like wise do the same thing about the false doctrine of unconditional election per Calvinism. The Calvinist and Arminians are disobeying Galatians 1:8-10.: They are also compromising the integrity of scripture in doing so.
: So I ask you, in light of Galatians 1:8-10, why do you allow the false doctrine of free will per Arminianism to be taught in the body of Christ?

The body of Christ, or the church considers Universalism a false gospel therefore heretical. Keeping that in mind, read Galations 1:8-10 again and consider this:
Here are some of the beliefs taught within the body of Christ or the church:

1. Unconditional Election(Calvinism).
2. Conditional Election(Arminianism).
3. Limited Atonement(Calvinism).
4. Unlimited Atonement(Arminianism).
5. Irresistible Grace(Calvinism).
6. Resistible Grace(Arminianism).
7. Monegerism(Calvinism).
8. Synergism(Arminianism).
9. Eternal torment.
10. Annihilation.

All these beliefs are diametrically opposed to each other meaning only half of these beliefs can be true, therefore half of the beliefs mentioned here must be false. And christianity has the audacity to call Universalism false, when many of their own beliefs are false.

This is a misrepresentation. Christians on both the Calvinism and Arminianism sides would not accept all those beliefs you just mentioned as Christian truths. But we understand that some accecpt false teaching to be true in good conscience. They're some who, became christians under leaders who believed one side and since they heard that side so much it becomes a tradidtion.Traditions are hard to break.

For instence, I believe the arminian Gospel is heretical. It does not follow that everyone who believes in an arminian gospel is a heratic. Many have just heard the gospel presented that way soo many times that they reject anything else. It becomes a tradition. But these same arminians would affim for istance, being saved by grace alone, which is true. but the arminian system is contrary to that, so these arminians would just be inconsistent.

I think the same would apply for universalist.
rjohnson741
Posts: 215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 12:37:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/13/2013 9:19:21 PM, ChrisL wrote:
At 8/12/2013 1:49:09 AM, rjohnson741 wrote:
At 8/11/2013 9:06:28 PM, rjohnson741 wrote:
At 8/11/2013 7:36:44 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 8/11/2013 6:45:00 PM, rjohnson741 wrote:


What double standard?


It seems some false teachings are allowed to be openly taught within the body of Christ at the exclusion of other so called false teachings. Shouldn't all false teachings be excluded from the body of Christ?


So I'll say this again, how can unbelevers take the body of Christ seriously if they can't even agree on such an important issue as to how people are saved?


Now listen to this scripture:

'But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so I say now again, if any man preach preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ' Galatians 1:8-10.

: The Calvinists and Arminians have made this scripture meaningless.: The Calvinist allow the false teaching of free will per Arminianism to be taught in the body of Christ, just to keep the peace, accomodate, and please the Arminians, and the Arminians like wise do the same thing about the false doctrine of unconditional election per Calvinism. The Calvinist and Arminians are disobeying Galatians 1:8-10.: They are also compromising the integrity of scripture in doing so.
: So I ask you, in light of Galatians 1:8-10, why do you allow the false doctrine of free will per Arminianism to be taught in the body of Christ?

The body of Christ, or the church considers Universalism a false gospel therefore heretical. Keeping that in mind, read Galations 1:8-10 again and consider this:
Here are some of the beliefs taught within the body of Christ or the church:

1. Unconditional Election(Calvinism).
2. Conditional Election(Arminianism).
3. Limited Atonement(Calvinism).
4. Unlimited Atonement(Arminianism).
5. Irresistible Grace(Calvinism).
6. Resistible Grace(Arminianism).
7. Monegerism(Calvinism).
8. Synergism(Arminianism).
9. Eternal torment.
10. Annihilation.
11. Compatibilism(Calvinism).
12. Free will(Arminianism).

All these beliefs are diametrically opposed to each other meaning only half of these beliefs can be true, therefore half of the beliefs mentioned here must be false. And christianity has the audacity to call Universalism false, when many of their own beliefs are false.

This is a misrepresentation. Christians on both the Calvinism and Arminianism sides would not accept all those beliefs you just mentioned as Christian truths. But we understand that some accecpt false teaching to be true in good conscience. They're some who, became christians under leaders who believed one side and since they heard that side so much it becomes a tradidtion.Traditions are hard to break.

For instence, I believe the arminian Gospel is heretical. It does not follow that everyone who believes in an arminian gospel is a heratic. Many have just heard the gospel presented that way soo many times that they reject anything else. It becomes a tradition. But these same arminians would affim for istance, being saved by grace alone, which is true. but the arminian system is contrary to that, so these arminians would just be inconsistent.

I think the same would apply for universalist.

You're proving my point here. You as a believer in the body of Christ, just said the Arminian gospel is heretical, yet it is still taught in the church. Yet Galatians 1:8-10 clearly says anyone who preaches another should be accursed or declared anathema.
You also say the Arminians have been preaching the Arminian gospel for so long, that it has become a tradition. But listen to what the Bible says about such tradition.---'Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition' Matthew 15:6.
This is why the message of the gospel is so powerless in bringing people to Christ.
The church or body of believers have so many false teachings from within, that the message of the gospel really has little or no effect on those outside the church.
This brings me back to my opening comments. If the Calvinists embraced the Arminian belief that God loves and desires to save everyone(P1), and the Arminians embraced the Calvinist belief that God who is sovereign and omnipotent will accomplish all of His desires, the Calvinists and Arminian differences would be immediately resolved and all fasle doctrines would be cast out of the church.
Here is my comment in equation form:
P1 + P2 = Universalism, therefore P3 is false.
But the Calvinists and Arminians reject Universalism and affirm P3. Therefore the Calvinist must reject P1 and the Arminians must reject P2. This means any resolution of their differences is impossible.
Also, as long as Universalism is rejected and P3 is affirmed by Calvinists and Arminians, false teachings will continue to be taught in the church, making the gospel message basically powerless or to no effect on unbelievers.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear. I'm not saying Calvinists and Arminians are heretics. Far from it. I believe Calvinist and Arminians are true believers, and a part of the body of Christ. I just believe some of their doctrines are false teachings.
rjohnson741
Posts: 215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 9:59:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/14/2013 12:37:02 AM, rjohnson741 wrote:
At 8/13/2013 9:19:21 PM, ChrisL wrote:
At 8/12/2013 1:49:09 AM, rjohnson741 wrote:
At 8/11/2013 9:06:28 PM, rjohnson741 wrote:
At 8/11/2013 7:36:44 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 8/11/2013 6:45:00 PM, rjohnson741 wrote:


What double standard?


It seems some false teachings are allowed to be openly taught within the body of Christ at the exclusion of other so called false teachings. Shouldn't all false teachings be excluded from the body of Christ?


So I'll say this again, how can unbelevers take the body of Christ seriously if they can't even agree on such an important issue as to how people are saved?


Now listen to this scripture:

'But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so I say now again, if any man preach preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ' Galatians 1:8-10.

: The Calvinists and Arminians have made this scripture meaningless.: The Calvinist allow the false teaching of free will per Arminianism to be taught in the body of Christ, just to keep the peace, accomodate, and please the Arminians, and the Arminians like wise do the same thing about the false doctrine of unconditional election per Calvinism. The Calvinist and Arminians are disobeying Galatians 1:8-10.: They are also compromising the integrity of scripture in doing so.
: So I ask you, in light of Galatians 1:8-10, why do you allow the false doctrine of free will per Arminianism to be taught in the body of Christ?

The body of Christ, or the church considers Universalism a false gospel therefore heretical. Keeping that in mind, read Galations 1:8-10 again and consider this:
Here are some of the beliefs taught within the body of Christ or the church:

1. Unconditional Election(Calvinism).
2. Conditional Election(Arminianism).
3. Limited Atonement(Calvinism).
4. Unlimited Atonement(Arminianism).
5. Irresistible Grace(Calvinism).
6. Resistible Grace(Arminianism).
7. Monegerism(Calvinism).
8. Synergism(Arminianism).
9. Eternal torment.
10. Annihilation.
11. Compatibilism(Calvinism).
12. Free will(Arminianism).

All these beliefs are diametrically opposed to each other meaning only half of these beliefs can be true, therefore half of the beliefs mentioned here must be false. And christianity has the audacity to call Universalism false, when many of their own beliefs are false.

This is a misrepresentation. Christians on both the Calvinism and Arminianism sides would not accept all those beliefs you just mentioned as Christian truths. But we understand that some accecpt false teaching to be true in good conscience. They're some who, became christians under leaders who believed one side and since they heard that side so much it becomes a tradidtion.Traditions are hard to break.

For instence, I believe the arminian Gospel is heretical. It does not follow that everyone who believes in an arminian gospel is a heratic. Many have just heard the gospel presented that way soo many times that they reject anything else. It becomes a tradition. But these same arminians would affim for istance, being saved by grace alone, which is true. but the arminian system is contrary to that, so these arminians would just be inconsistent.

I think the same would apply for universalist.

You're proving my point here. You as a believer in the body of Christ, just said the Arminian gospel is heretical, yet it is still taught in the church. Yet Galatians 1:8-10 clearly says anyone who preaches another should be accursed or declared anathema.
You also say the Arminians have been preaching the Arminian gospel for so long, that it has become a tradition. But listen to what the Bible says about such tradition.---'Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition' Matthew 15:6.
This is why the message of the gospel is so powerless in bringing people to Christ.
The church or body of believers have so many false teachings from within, that the message of the gospel really has little or no effect on those outside the church.
This brings me back to my opening comments. If the Calvinists embraced the Arminian belief that God loves and desires to save everyone(P1), and the Arminians embraced the Calvinist belief that God who is sovereign and omnipotent will accomplish all of His desires, the Calvinists and Arminian differences would be immediately resolved and all fasle doctrines would be cast out of the church.
Here is my comment in equation form:
P1 + P2 = Universalism, therefore P3 is false.
But the Calvinists and Arminians reject Universalism and affirm P3. Therefore the Calvinist must reject P1 and the Arminians must reject P2. This means any resolution of their differences is impossible.
Also, as long as Universalism is rejected and P3 is affirmed by Calvinists and Arminians, false teachings will continue to be taught in the church, making the gospel message basically powerless or to no effect on unbelievers.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear. I'm not saying Calvinists and Arminians are heretics. Far from it. I believe Calvinist and Arminians are true believers, and a part of the body of Christ. I just believe some of their doctrines are false teachings.

Proposition 1---God loves everyone and desires everyone to be saved without exception(Arminian belief).

Proposition 2---God is sovereign and omnipotent, therefore God will accomplish all of His desires(Calvinist belief).

Proposition 3---Some people will never be saved, therefore they are eternally lost(eternal punishment/Calvinist and Arminian belief).

To save space and time, I will be abbreviating these propositions as:
Proposition 1 = P1
Proposition 2 = P2
Proposition 3 = P3

The body of believers or the church say Universalism is heretical. But why is this so?
Universalists accept P1 which Arminian believe to be true, and Universalists accept P2, which Calvinist believe to be true. P1 and P2 are openly taught in the church, and there are numerous scriptures to support both P1 and P2. Universalists simply combine P1 and P2 to arrive at the salvation of everyone.
So how can Universalism be heretical if it is entailed by accepting two propositions as true, with neither proposition being heretical in themselves?
This leads me to believe something other than Biblical exegesis is responsible for the church's opposition to Universalism.
Naysayer
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 2:12:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/14/2013 9:59:01 AM, rjohnson741 wrote:

Proposition 1---God loves everyone and desires everyone to be saved without exception(Arminian belief).

Proposition 2---God is sovereign and omnipotent, therefore God will accomplish all of His desires(Calvinist belief).

Proposition 3---Some people will never be saved, therefore they are eternally lost(eternal punishment/Calvinist and Arminian belief).

To save space and time, I will be abbreviating these propositions as:
Proposition 1 = P1
Proposition 2 = P2
Proposition 3 = P3

The body of believers or the church say Universalism is heretical. But why is this so?
Universalists accept P1 which Arminian believe to be true, and Universalists accept P2, which Calvinist believe to be true. P1 and P2 are openly taught in the church, and there are numerous scriptures to support both P1 and P2. Universalists simply combine P1 and P2 to arrive at the salvation of everyone.
So how can Universalism be heretical if it is entailed by accepting two propositions as true, with neither proposition being heretical in themselves?
This leads me to believe something other than Biblical exegesis is responsible for the church's opposition to Universalism.

Universalism is a damnable heresy. If universalism were true, there wouldn't be any such thing as a damnable heresy.

A damnable heresy is something that if believed, will cause/allow you to go to hell.

That being said, what do you get when you add P2 to II Peter 3:9?

9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
rjohnson741
Posts: 215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 5:26:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/14/2013 2:12:32 PM, Naysayer wrote:
At 8/14/2013 9:59:01 AM, rjohnson741 wrote:

Proposition 1---God loves everyone and desires everyone to be saved without exception(Arminian belief).

Proposition 2---God is sovereign and omnipotent, therefore God will accomplish all of His desires(Calvinist belief).

Proposition 3---Some people will never be saved, therefore they are eternally lost(eternal punishment/Calvinist and Arminian belief).

To save space and time, I will be abbreviating these propositions as:
Proposition 1 = P1
Proposition 2 = P2
Proposition 3 = P3

The body of believers or the church say Universalism is heretical. But why is this so?
Universalists accept P1 which Arminian believe to be true, and Universalists accept P2, which Calvinist believe to be true. P1 and P2 are openly taught in the church, and there are numerous scriptures to support both P1 and P2. Universalists simply combine P1 and P2 to arrive at the salvation of everyone.
So how can Universalism be heretical if it is entailed by accepting two propositions as true, with neither proposition being heretical in themselves?
This leads me to believe something other than Biblical exegesis is responsible for the church's opposition to Universalism.

Universalism is a damnable heresy. If universalism were true, there wouldn't be any such thing as a damnable heresy.

A damnable heresy is something that if believed, will cause/allow you to go to hell.

That being said, what do you get when you add P2 to II Peter 3:9?

9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Hi Naysayer. 2Peter 3:9 supports the Arminian proposition which is P1. Here are some scriptures that Calvinists and Arminians use to support their respective propositions:

P1(Arminianism)---2Peter 3:9, John 3:16, 1Timothy 2:3-6, Romans 11:32, 1John 2:2 Ezekiel 33:11.
P2(Calvinism)---Isaiah 46:9-11, Isaiah 55:10-11, Job 42:2, Psalm 115:3, Matthew 19:24-26, Ephesians 1:10-11.
P3(Calvinism and Arminianism)---Matthew 25:41-46, Revelation 20:10, Matthew 13:49-50, Matthew 18:9, Matthew 10:28.

There are of course many more scriptures than this to support each proposition. Universalists of course affirm P1 and P2 as true and reject P3(eternal damnation) as false. Because Universalists reject P3(eternal damnation), which Calvinists and Arminians consider the plain teaching of scripture, they consider Universalism heretical.
But wait a minute, Calvinists reject P1 which Universalist and Arminians affirm and consider the plain teaching of scripture.
And Arminians reject P2 which Universalists and Calvinist affirm and consider the plain teaching of scripture.
Calvinists and Arminians will object and say the scriptural evidence for P3 is greater than the scriptural evidence for P1 and P2.
But that is far from being the case, because the scriptures used to support P1 and P2 rest upon the systematic teachings in Paul, Peter and John. whereas the scriptures used to support P3(eternal separation) are typically lifted from the context of parables, hyperbole, great symbolism and translating the Greek word aion as eternal instead of age.
P3(eternal damnation) seems to be the weakest of the three prepositions.
Here are two questions:

Since Universalists, Calvinists, and Arminians are all rejecting a Biblical proposition, Why should Calvinists and Arminians accept the weakest proposition(P3), at the expense of rejecting each others Biblical proposition? Also:

Since Universalists, Calvinists, and Arminians are all rejecting a Biblical proposition, why should Calvinists and Arminians be any less tolerant of Universalism than they are of each other?
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 6:18:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If the propositions are inaccurate or misleading, the odds are that the conclusions drawn from them will be inaccurate.

This belief is attributed to Calvinists: "God is sovereign and omnipotent." The trouble is that I do not know of anyone, whether Calvinist or Armenian or Christian, who denies it. Perhaps someone does.

Another problem is the meanings of the words used. Why not add "irresistable" or "conditional" to the propositions (or similar words) as needed, and see how it goes?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 6:23:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Since Universalists, Calvinists, and Arminians are all rejecting a Biblical proposition, Why should Calvinists and Arminians accept the weakest proposition(P3), at the expense of rejecting each others Biblical proposition?"

Perhaps P3 is the strongest proposition - which explains why both schools of thought accept it.

"Since Universalists, Calvinists, and Arminians are all rejecting a Biblical proposition, why should Calvinists and Arminians be any less tolerant of Universalism than they are of each other?"

Are you saying that all Biblical propositions are true? I think the problem is that your propositions are inaccurate and incomplete.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 6:30:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/14/2013 6:23:41 PM, annanicole wrote:
"Since Universalists, Calvinists, and Arminians are all rejecting a Biblical proposition, Why should Calvinists and Arminians accept the weakest proposition(P3), at the expense of rejecting each others Biblical proposition?"

Perhaps P3 is the strongest proposition - which explains why both schools of thought accept it.


Do you really think P3 has the most warrant?

"Since Universalists, Calvinists, and Arminians are all rejecting a Biblical proposition, why should Calvinists and Arminians be any less tolerant of Universalism than they are of each other?"

Are you saying that all Biblical propositions are true?

No. He's saying out the three propositions all 3 groups reject at least one of the propositions that has prima facie biblical spport.

I think the problem is that your propositions are inaccurate and incomplete.

How so?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 6:52:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
annanicole wrote:
rjohnson: "Since Universalists, Calvinists, and Arminians are all rejecting a Biblical proposition, Why should Calvinists and Arminians accept the weakest proposition(P3), at the expense of rejecting each others Biblical proposition?"

Anna: Perhaps P3 is the strongest proposition - which explains why both schools of thought accept it.

Popculture: Do you really think P3 has the most warrant?

Anna: I never said. I basically said that his "cause-effect-cause-effect" reasoning is ... silly. He simply "throws in there" that P3 is the weakest proposition. And Calvinists and Armenians do not accept his P3 at the expense of anything, as far as I know. At the expense?

It's "since A, then B, at the expense of C." Makes no sense to me.

*****

rjohnson: Since Universalists, Calvinists, and Arminians are all rejecting a Biblical proposition, why should Calvinists and Arminians be any less tolerant of Universalism than they are of each other?"

Anna: Are you saying that all Biblical propositions are true?

popculture: No. He's saying out the three propositions all 3 groups reject at least one of the propositions that has prima facie biblical spport.

Anna: All aspects of those propositions do not have Biblical "support". For instance, who said that things always go in accordance with God's desires? One who so affirms would imply that God told Adam and Eve not to eat the forbidden fruit, but really desired that they partake of it. How do they know that God wanted them to eat it, when He expressly said not to do so? Well, because they did!

*****

Anna: I think the problem is that your propositions are inaccurate and incomplete.

popculture: How so?

Anna:

The modifying phrase "Since Universalists, Calvinists, and Arminians are all rejecting a Biblical proposition" implies that each of the three groups (basically everyone) has the problem of rejecting a proposition that the Bible teaches. In other words, is he not implying that everyone rejects a true proposition at some point?

"Why should Calvinists and Arminians accept the weakest proposition(P3)" is merely a presumption on his part. It's like saying Democrats accept A, but Republicans accept B, and they both accept C. Therefore, C is the weakest point!

"God is sovereign and omnipotent, therefore God will accomplish all of His desires."

God is sovereign. Fine. That does not mean that all of His desires will be accomplished.

God is omnipotent. Fine. That does not mean that all of His desires will be accomplished.

In fact, I do not see that the sovereignty of God (which no one denies) would have a thing to do with it.

*****

I actually know very little of his beliefs. I do know that he usually insists of dragging out one of the those "one-man wonders" which has been labeled as "heretical" by various camps. I know no idea why he does it, other than the suspicion that it supports some doctrine that he espouses.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
rjohnson741
Posts: 215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 7:37:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/14/2013 6:18:21 PM, annanicole wrote:
If the propositions are inaccurate or misleading, the odds are that the conclusions drawn from them will be inaccurate.

This belief is attributed to Calvinists: "God is sovereign and omnipotent." The trouble is that I do not know of anyone, whether Calvinist or Armenian or Christian, who denies it. Perhaps someone does.

Another problem is the meanings of the words used. Why not add "irresistable" or "conditional" to the propositions (or similar words) as needed, and see how it goes?

Proposition 1---God loves everyone and desires everyone to be saved without exception(Arminian belief).

Proposition 2---God is sovereign and omnipotent, therefore God will accomplish all of His desires(Calvinist belief).

Proposition 3---Some people will never be saved, therefore they are eternally lost(Calvinists and Arminian belief/eternal damnation).

Proposition 1 = P1
Proposition 2 = P2
Proposition 3 = P3

There is no need to add anymore words to these propositions, because each proposition is a correct description of Calvinist and Arminian beliefs.
Because each proposition can be supported with scripture, they are Biblical propositions.
Most christians affirm P3(eternal damnation) as true and by default reject Universalism. But in affirming P3 as true, these same christians must reject P1 or P2.
It is scripturally and logically impossible to affirm all three propositions as true. One of these propositions by definition must be false.
Because most christians affirm P3(eternal damnation as true), they must reject a true Biblical proposition(P1 or P2).

Annanicole, since you obviously affirm P3(eternal damnation) as true, which Biblical proposition do you reject---P1 or P2?
rjohnson741
Posts: 215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2013 8:19:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/14/2013 6:52:08 PM, annanicole wrote:
annanicole wrote:
rjohnson: "Since Universalists, Calvinists, and Arminians are all rejecting a Biblical proposition, Why should Calvinists and Arminians accept the weakest proposition(P3), at the expense of rejecting each others Biblical proposition?"

Anna: Perhaps P3 is the strongest proposition - which explains why both schools of thought accept it.

Popculture: Do you really think P3 has the most warrant?

Anna: I never said. I basically said that his "cause-effect-cause-effect" reasoning is ... silly. He simply "throws in there" that P3 is the weakest proposition. And Calvinists and Armenians do not accept his P3 at the expense of anything, as far as I know. At the expense?

It's "since A, then B, at the expense of C." Makes no sense to me.

*****

rjohnson: Since Universalists, Calvinists, and Arminians are all rejecting a Biblical proposition, why should Calvinists and Arminians be any less tolerant of Universalism than they are of each other?"

Anna: Are you saying that all Biblical propositions are true?

popculture: No. He's saying out the three propositions all 3 groups reject at least one of the propositions that has prima facie biblical spport.

Anna: All aspects of those propositions do not have Biblical "support". For instance, who said that things always go in accordance with God's desires? One who so affirms would imply that God told Adam and Eve not to eat the forbidden fruit, but really desired that they partake of it. How do they know that God wanted them to eat it, when He expressly said not to do so? Well, because they did!

*****

Anna: I think the problem is that your propositions are inaccurate and incomplete.

popculture: How so?

Anna:

The modifying phrase "Since Universalists, Calvinists, and Arminians are all rejecting a Biblical proposition" implies that each of the three groups (basically everyone) has the problem of rejecting a proposition that the Bible teaches. In other words, is he not implying that everyone rejects a true proposition at some point?

"Why should Calvinists and Arminians accept the weakest proposition(P3)" is merely a presumption on his part. It's like saying Democrats accept A, but Republicans accept B, and they both accept C. Therefore, C is the weakest point!

"God is sovereign and omnipotent, therefore God will accomplish all of His desires."

: God is sovereign. Fine. That does not mean that all of His desires will be accomplished.:

: God is omnipotent. Fine. That does not mean that all of His desires will be accomplished.:

In fact, I do not see that the sovereignty of God (which no one denies) would have a thing to do with it.

*****

I actually know very little of his beliefs. I do know that he usually insists of dragging out one of the those "one-man wonders" which has been labeled as "heretical" by various camps. I know no idea why he does it, other than the suspicion that it supports some doctrine that he espouses.

Here is one scripture that supports P1---'This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth' 1Timothy 2:3-4 NASB.

Now here is a scripture that supports P2---'So shall my word be which goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return unto me empty Without accomplishing what I desire And without suceeding in the matter for which I sent it' Isaiah 55:11 NASB.

Now notice your previous comments that I bolded. You said just because God is sovereign and omnipotent, that doesn't mean all of His desires will be accomplished.
But Isaiah 55:11 which supports P2, says different from you. Isaiah 55:11 clearly says God will accomplish His desires.
You're saying God will not accomplish all of His desires, one of those desires being to save everyone. Yet Isaiah 55:11 and many other scriptures clearly says God will accomplish all of His desires(read also Isaiah 46:10-11). So you're rejecting a proposition(P2) that has clear Biblical support.