Moving Right Along - Calvinism - Arminianism debate.
(Parts of this was deleted to ignore a hatemonger concerning the rapture question)
Hi group,
We can in fact move on. I hate division but I thrive on
controversy and this is all a lesson in love. Wow, something new to
discuss about what we have already discussed. The rapture and the
millennial question will not divide us, it is as simple as that, even
though we may not come to complete agreement. The lesson learned is that
we agree on loving each other being more important than coming on
agreement with things that do not matter either way. So we do agree if
we separate ourselves from the ones who cause the offense. The only
better way is to convince the man. No time, no inclination, not led to
and won't do it. I need to put my energies toward the love, not the
hate.
The more these things come up the more we are strengthened. This is what
I brought up: "For those that want to make a contention out of the
issue, it would seem that they will not be part of the restoration
process or the final unity anyway because that will take love and
humility." The man in question ... broke the rules of love and
humility and I do not feel bad about it but encouraged by a renewed
strength. Of the letters received, several mentioned that it was not for
the group but for me so I have just taken a sentence or two from each
and put them together as one to make it really short. At the end of that
are some new discussions on the rapture. If there is more comment,
especially in the new information, feel free to contribute more. As I
have the time, I still want to get through all that was discussed and
put together a lengthy article on it.
I have received one response already on the Calvinism and Arminianism
debate from Dean which is at the very end. Again, the pages that I have
done on them myself are at:
http://latter-rain.com/perspectives/armen.htm and
http://latter-rain.com/eccle/calvin.htm. For discussion we should think
of a few things. First of all, this has been debated for centuries and
this group I would think are generally Arminian in that we believe in
free will over pure Calvinism, but there is much more to Calvinism. This
is a spirit-filled, full gospel group or at least moving in that
direction. That brings us through the traditions of God's leading
through Erasmus, Luther and Wesley, not Calvin. But what of the
Calvinists? They are not heretics like Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons,
they believe in the same nature of the God-head that we do. But they
oppose us, they despise prophecy, thinking that it has been done away
with, they oppose latter rain concepts and the baptism of the Holy
Ghost. Each group are off on their own particular denomination, saying
different things, and opposing unity. From what I have seen, they oppose
anything catholic, anything progressive, thinks that liberality is a
nasty concept and feel that they are the chosen saints to the exclusion
of others. They may have progressed a little over the years but I
believe that Puritan ignorance has made the church the luke-warm mess
that it is. Am I right or wrong? Partially right, partially wrong? I
take a real hard stand against Calvinism on my site and make no
apologies for it.
Jay.
snip
If I was to offer my 'partial understanding' on the Rapture issue I
would
teach it as follows.
My source of information would mainly be Mat. 24 and 25-all other verses
in
the Bible relating to the rapture can be tied in with these key
chapters.
These chapters tell me that there are seven periods of time that we
should
be clear about.
Period 1 This is the past and present time when the Church has done
and is
doing its best to worship God and to bring as
many as possible into a knowledge of God.
Period 2 This is the pre tribulation period that is sandwiched between
the
present age and the Tribulation itself
During this period everything will seem 'natural'
There
will be deceptions, wars, famines and persecution
of true Christians. But the Church will ensure that
the
whole world will hear the Gospel
Period 3 The End of the Age. This will be a short period to mark the
closing of Periods 1 and Periods 2.
During this period the depths of depravity that man
is
capable of will be exposed as never before to the same
extent.
Period 4 This is the seven year tribulation during which the Earth
will
be subjected to a series of seemingly natural
and man made disasters in which billions of people
both
Christian and non Christian will die. But man will not
be wiped off the Earth completely during this
period.
Period 5 This will be at the end of the Tribulation when Jesus
appears
to gather His harvest and separate the wheat from the
chaff. The rapture is part of this gathering
process.
Period 6 The Millennium which will last for a thousand years and
the
world will be ruled by King Jesus together with all those
who accepted Him during periods 1 to 3. The world
will
be repopulated by these people together with all those
(many unsaved and unrepentant) who survived the
Great
Tribulation and their numerous descendants.
This period will end by the End of the World
itself.
Period 7 This period will last for all eternity. It will only be
for
those who were declared righteous on the last day of
the Millennium before the End of the World. The
righteous go on to a new Earth and a New Heaven for all
eternity and will live with God forever.
With this framework I can fit in most scriptures. But this is my
framework.
If someone can point out the errors of my thinking
(in love please) I will be eternally grateful.
Leander
I have been reading the rapture discussion over the past weeks and have
learned a lot but not enough to convince me against a pre trib rapture.
i
was surprised to see that some of the biblical proofs of the rapture
were not even touched on (unless I missed them and I apologize if I
did.) I know you want to close this discussion and I agree with your
last letter of unity and love for the brethren. I have always taught my
teens the "pan theory" when it comes to end time discussion, and that is
"put all your hope and faith in King Jesus and the rest will PAN OUT".
They love it ,but they do eventually want to know more about there
destiny because its exciting! Here are the 10 biblical proofs that I
believe support a pre-trib rapture, I just learned this year. I
didn't even believe in the rapture before I saw it explained this way.
1.Jesus said the things of Rev.4-22 MUST BE hereafter, that is after the
churches, see (Rev 1:19) If this is true then the church is raptured
before Rev.4-22 and after Rev 2-3.
2. The word church or churches is found 19 times in rev 1-3 and not one
time in the third division of revelation which is the things that MUST
BE after the churches. It is found again at the conclusion of the book,
after the things have been revealed! If the church were on the earth
during the tribulation surely it would be mentioned.
3. The enthroned elders are representatives of the raptured saints and
they are always seen in heaven after Rev. 4:1
4. The 70 th week of Daniel will be the last seven years of this age,
during wich time of Rev 4-19 and MT. 24-25 will be fulfilled, this week
concerns Israel not the church, therefore the church must be raptured
before this week.
5.There is no place for the rapture of the church and O.T. saints other
than in Rev 4:1. The manchild and the great tribulation saints are the
only companies to be saved and raptured during Daniels 70th week and
these are distinct companies from the church and O.T. saints. The church
could not be the manchild or the tribulation saints as proved in Rev
7,12 and 14.
6. In Lk 21:34-36 we have the promise of Jesus that the saved will be
counted worthy to escape all these things, and stand before the Son of
Man. the things they will escape are those of Mt.24:4-26, Lk 21:4-19,
Rev 6-19.
7. In 1 Th. 5:1-11 we have another definite promise assuring us that
saints will escape the wrath of God of Rev.6-19 also 1 Th 4:18
Wherefore comfort one another with these words.(v13-17). How could
saints comfort one another with these great words if the only hope they
had was the coming wrath of God in the future tribulation? also Tit.2:13
8.In Th. 2:6-8 it is definitely shown that the rapture takes place
before the revelation of the Antichrist and before the 70 th week of
Daniel. This is the most astounding set of scriptures I was ever shown
that proved the pre trib rapture to me. The "he" that hinders
lawlessness. The "he" is one of three things 1.government 2. Holy Spirit
3. the church. The "he" must be removed before the Antichrist can be
revealed(v6-8) Government, NO because the antichrist reigns over many
kingdoms and the governments are of this world of things. Holy Spirit,
NO for He will be here all through the tribulation and forever,
multitudes will be saved during the tribulation by the Holy Spirit.
that leaves the church that will be the hinder of lawlessness that will
be removed from the earth. The church does and will continue to hinder
lawlessness until the rapture then the Antichrist will be revealed.
9.There is a marked change in God's attitude towards humanity in general
from that of mercy (Rev 1-3) to that of judgment(Rev 4-19)The seals,
vials and trumpets are throughout Daniels 70th week. If the church does
not go through these things as proved already, then the rapture must
have taken place in Rev 4:1.
10. If the church is to be on earth and is the subject of Rev 4-19 then
its earmarks should be seen, but such is not found. On the other hand
the earmarks of Israel are seen throughout the book after Rev 4:1. The
church is seen up to this point only. Proving two different institutions
are dealt with, first the church until its rapture, second Israel after
the rapture until the second advent of Christ !!
Well Jay there it is, in short form. I pray that this would help any
with questions and I'm sure it will raise many. This study of God's word
was prayerfully done by Finnis Dake and is printed in my study bible
that his family still publishes. Be led of the Holy Spirit and He will
lead you into truth!!
Jesus is KING !!!!!!!!!
Darrell Garrett
So here we are 'The great Calvinism versus Arminianism
Debate'. Awesome.
Well historical sketches of these men will tell you
that Calvin was a very harsh man and Arminius was a
very godly and humble man. There is pretty much an
agreement there. Calvin followed the scholastic
tradition and enthroned human reasoning as the basis
for interpreting scripture. If a scripture did not fit
his system of theology than he would simply use crafty
reasoning to try and alter the meaning of the text.
His Institutes are full of vindictive and malicious
feelings toward the true Christians of the day; the
Anabaptists. Calvin was unable to accept differences
of theology and was totally convinced of his own
correctness. Anybody who challenged that was silenced.
Now to be more balanced, we cannot judge his motives,
and I am sure that he felt that his behaviour was
necessary for the survival of the Reformation. At the
same time the Catholic Inquisition was going on and it
seems that the only 'enlightened' countries at the
time were Holland and parts of Germany. However Calvin
introduced things into Christianity that we still
contend with today. The philosophical, intellectual
approach to Scripture. It is not unusual for a
Calvinistic theologian to totally disregard the
context and history of a text. It seems that they set
themselves the task of proving a certain doctrine and
it then becomes an intellectual ego thing and any kind
of reasoning will be brought to bare on the text,
faulty or not. A quick look at some of the major
Calvinistic theologians or just buying a 'Banner of
Truth' book will bare that out. Not that all
Calvinists have been bad. John Bunyan, Jonathon
Edwards, George Whitefield and C H Spurgeon were all
Calvinists. But we must also be aware of the role it
has played in resisting the work of God and releasing
the religious spirit into the Christian community.
False humility and religious observance is another.
Linked with legalism, Calvinists have taught Covenant
theology; the belief that the Church is pretty much
like Israel of old only with different rituals which
they call the two sacraments or the 'means of grace'.
We are still under the law, including the sabbath
command, which although written in stone as the
seventh day…has somehow changed to the first day (the
truth is we are under neither command). Sanctification
is still by an effort of the will to keep the
commands. When Finney challenged the Princeton
theologians on this they took up their pens and the
attack began. Their egos had been insulted. Calvinism
in Geneva was simply a change of churches. Instead of
belonging to the Roman church you became a member of
the Reformed church, but still based upon baby
sprinkling and geographical location. The idea of a
gathering of baptised believers was rejected by the
Swiss reformers (and all too often they persecuted
those who believed it, even to the point of drowning
them to death). So conversion was changed to a
judicial thing; something 'legal' rather than an
actual transformation of nature which we call being
born again. No one could know who in the state church
was really the elect and who was a reprobate, because
it was 'God's sovereign work' of regeneration. Later
under the Puritans in England they began to elaborate
on this, especially the theologian John Owen. This was
partly done to accommodate conversion in the church.
They began teaching that regeneration or being born
again was a secret work of a sovereign God who just
kinda 'zaps' people, and that this work is then
evidenced by faith and repentance. Calvinism in
England has been characterized by a lack of assurance
of salvation (because of the false view of
regeneration and the legalism) and by a belief that
it is wrong to evangelize. Over the past few years
though these more extreme elements are dying. It was
Owen who constructed the doctrinal edifice of the
'doctrine of Justification', including the fiction of
'imputation of Christ's righteousness' which is the
false doctrine that Jesus' perfect keeping of the law
is reckoned to the believers account, when the
scriptures clearly teach that 'faith is counted as
righteousness' and that by dying in Christ we have
died to the demands of the law. According to the
Calvinist you can't have faith unless God does the
invisible work so you cannot tell people to believe.
It was Owen who hacked the law of Moses into judicial,
ceremonial and moral, in order to bring people under
bondage. Arminius protested against the fatalism of
Calvinism. He rejected it's view of a secret act of
regeneration (called passive regeneration) and taught
instead that we co operate with the grace of God in
faith and repentance. The perseverance of the saints
was not directly dealt with, but it is important to
note that nobody at the time taught 'once saved always
saved' as taught by later dispensationalists. Another
point of conflict the Arminians(called Remonstrants)
had was over Calvin's doctrine of the Trinity. Calvin
denied the Creed of Nicaea which has taught that Jesus
is the Son of God, God from God, Light from Light,
Very God from Very God. Falling into semi
Sabellianism, he taught that the Son is not God by
eternal generation from the Father, but is equally God
with the Father. He denied all subordination of person
within the Godhead, effectively falling into a form of
modalism. When Gentiles asked Calvin to sign the
Nicene Creed he refused because of this. Calvin was
soon accused of Sabellianism which is the teaching of
one God manifested in three modes of existence, and
came into conflict with the Jesuit Petavius over it.
In response to Calvin's heresy Arminius said "[The
Calvinists say] that the essence of the Father could
not be said to be communicated to the Son and to the
Holy Spirit, in any other than in an improper sense;
but that it was in perfect correctness and strict
propriety common alike to the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Ghost. To these observations I answered, "that
this opinion was at variance with the word of God, and
with the whole of the ancient Church, both Greek and
Latin, which had always taught, that the Son had His
Deity from the Father by eternal generation." To these
remarks I subjoined, "that from such an opinion as
this, necessarily followed the two mutually
conflicting errors, Tri-theism and Sabellianism"
(Complete Works)I would suggest that this, coupled
with their impersonal conception of God (because the
Father has not revealed himself through the Son in
Calvinistic theology as they all equally reveal the
one divine nature…if you don't believe me I can prove
it) and the failure to understand Jesus as the
anointed one (instead believing he did his works as
God and not as the anointed servant…you won't find a
mention of the anointing of Jesus in any Reformed
systematic theology), is the reason that Calvinism has
always very quickly degenerated into Socinianism where
ever it has been dominant in influence (Geneva,
Scotland, New England). Calvinism has historically
been the enemy of revival and the move of the Spirit.
Some of the greatest critics of Wesley and Finney (and
even Edwards) were Calvinists. The greatest opposers
to divine healing, revival, and baptism of the Spirit,
are also Calvinist.
Dean
February 18, 2000
Hoover AlabamaLatter Rain Discussion Archives
The Lord has given us the grace to reconcile the children to their Fathers
As One Body
Issue Oriented Discussion Newsletter
Index | Search This Site | Aristide.Org | The Latter Rain | Babylon the Great | The Kingdom | The Nicolaitans | Jezebel
The Baptism With the Holy Ghost | The Grand Delusion | World Trade Org | Liberation Theology | Jay Atkinson | Alphabetical Index