Refuting a Reasonable Arminian's Arguments Against Calvinism.

[brandplucked]

Refuting a reasonable Arminian’s arguments against Calvinism.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UO92L11L9jc&fbclid=IwAR395IpOFNsdTEjW8ryzXhu4hjBfYOZI1KmuYTcCz-OL-XIiuX1RAvw1quk


Brother Mike, I believe you have several things wrong in your presentation, though you have a lot that is good.  You gave us the wrong grammar in Ephesians 2:8 and you have wrongly stated that Calvinists view faith as a work - it is a gift, not a work. 

 

Here is the question that "free will" religionists cannot answer BIBLICALLY.  They have lots of opinions, but not Scripture that tells us "WHY do some people have faith and others do not?"

 

The Bible DOES give us the answer several times over.  The Arminians either have never seen these answers or they just don't believe them.  Are you willing to look at the answers to this question and see if you agree with them or not?

https://brandplucked.webs.com/originoffaith.htm

 

As for 1 Timothy 2:3-5, you are using one of the fake Vatican supervised versions and this throws you off from the true meaning.  Again, are you willing to see why you are wrong on this?

 

https://brandplucked.webs.com/1tim235allsaved.htm

 

In typical "Gotcha" fashion (Arminian's hit list of verses they do not understand) I believe you misunderstand 2 Peter 2:1 "denying the Lord that bought them", and so too do many Calvinists.

 

https://brandplucked.webs.com/2pet21boughtthem.htm

 

1 John 2:2 is another verse that I do not believe you understand correctly at all.  

 

https://brandplucked.webs.com/1jn22sinsofworld.htm

 

And likewise you miss the real meaning of John 3:16.

 

https://brandplucked.webs.com/john316godsoloved.htm

 

And you really miss the mark when you get to 2 Peter 3:9. Pay particular attention to the second half of this study which completely destroys your present view.

 

https://brandplucked.webs.com/2pet39notwillingperis.htm

 

And like most Arminians (that IS what you really are, brother) you totally misunderstand and take out of context these verses - Ezekiel 18:23 and 33:11 “I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked.”

 

https://brandplucked.webs.com/eze3311nopleasuredeath.htm

 

And of course "the natural man" rejects the counsel of God, resists the Holy Ghost and will not have this man to rule over us.  That is his natural will in his fallen state.

There is none that doeth good, no, not one; there is none that seekers after God.  Romans 3.

 

Your whole Arminian theology (that IS what you are teaching) ends up making the Bible constantly contradict itself, and turns God into a frustrated Failure and a Liar for not having done what he said he came to do - to save HIS people from our sins.

 

Finally, may I suggest you take a look at this one. Who is Lying?  Jesus Christ or the "Free Willers"?

 

https://brandplucked.webs.com/somebodyislying.htm

 

May God, in his sovereign grace, grant a true understanding of his precious words.

 

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."  Luke 8:8.

 

God bless. 

 

 

[DaveW]

It looks to me like poor form.

Is the guy in the video a member here?

Is he ever likely to visit here?

It appears as though you are attacking someone who is unlikely to ever visit and therefore unable to respond or defend himself.

In my book that is called cowardice.

 

And I think there is something in the board rules against bringing a fight from somewhere else to this board......

 

[brandplucked]

1 hour ago, DaveW said:

It looks to me like poor form.

Is the guy in the video a member here?

Is he ever likely to visit here?

It appears as though you are attacking someone who is unlikely to ever visit and therefore unable to respond or defend himself.

In my book that is called cowardice.

 

And I think there is something in the board rules against bringing a fight from somewhere else to this board......

 

Hi DaveW.  The purpose of my post is not to attack someone who is not a member or likely to visit this site.  The purpose, which should have been obvious, is to address the typical arguments those who embrace the "will of the flesh" theology called Arminianism usually bring up.

I am interested in discussing the arguments he brings up. I am sure there are many on this forum who believe the same way he does.  THAT is what I am aiming at and why I posted this article.

[Jordan Kurecki]

The Bible does not support Calvinism, no matter how much linguistic or contextual gymnastics Calvinists like to do, the fact of the matter is passages like John 3:16 and 1st John 2:2, do in fact refute the false doctrines of Calvinism.  You can try and reinterpret "world" as much as you want but that doesn't make your interpretation true. The Calvinists viewpoint eliminates the simple, plain, and straightforward readings of many passages of scripture. It doesn't matter what the bible says, Calvinists are excellent at twisting the scriptures to teach their false doctrine. Glad that we have the intellectual smart Calvinists out there to tell all of us poor Arminian folks that God doesn't actually love the world and that Jesus is not the savior of all men, and that God does not will for all men to come to the knowledge of the truth. Calvinism is very reminiscent of the RCC, in that the priesthood tells you what to believe and that you are too stupid to actually understand the Bible, Catholics have their priests and Calvinists have their internet theologians. 

[Salyan]

i think you’ll find that most here are a little tired of debating the subject. Also, there are few or no Arminians on this board. It is possible to be neither Arminian nor Calvinist - my pastor likes to call us ‘Biblicists.’

[brandplucked]

23 minutes ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

The Bible does not support Calvinism, no matter how much linguistic or contextual gymnastics Calvinists like to do, the fact of the matter is passages like John 3:16 and 1st John 2:2, do in fact refute the false doctrines of Calvinism.  You can try and reinterpret "world" as much as you want but that doesn't make your interpretation true. The Calvinists viewpoint eliminates the simple, plain, and straightforward readings of many passages of scripture. It doesn't matter what the bible says, Calvinists are excellent at twisting the scriptures to teach their false doctrine. Glad that we have the intellectual smart Calvinists out there to tell all of us poor Arminian folks that God doesn't actually love the world and that Jesus is not the savior of all men, and that God does not will for all men to come to the knowledge of the truth. Calvinism is very reminiscent of the RCC, in that the priesthood tells you what to believe and that you are too stupid to actually understand the Bible, Catholics have their priests and Calvinists have their internet theologians. 

Jordan. It seems pretty obvious that you did not bother to actually READ the links I gave you in the article on John 3:16 and 1 John 2:2.  Your Arminian god is both a colossal failure and a liar for not having done what he said he came to do.

Before you give me the usual shallow arguments I have heard hundreds of times, try to actually read the two articles first. Then if you can intelligently and biblically refute the arguments I present, go ahead and give it a shot.  OK?  Thanks.

[Jordan Kurecki]

2 minutes ago, brandplucked said:

Jordan. It seems pretty obvious that you did not bother to actually READ the links I gave you in the article on John 3:16 and 1 John 2:2.  Your Arminian god is both a colossal failure and a liar for not having done what he said he came to do.

Before you give me the usual shallow arguments I have heard hundreds of times, try to actually read the two articles first. Then if you can intelligently and biblically refute the arguments I present, go ahead and give it a shot.  OK?  Thanks.

I skimmed a few of your articles, you like to cherry pick your definitions of the word world according to your liking. You point to a few useages where the word world is used in a hyperbolic sense and you then assume that is how it is being used in John 3:16 and 1st John 2:2. Words are defined based on their context, and you can’t force the meaning of a words usage from one context to all other contexts. 

[Pastor Scott Markle]

1.  On Total Depravity - The debate is NOT over whether sinful man is spiritually depraved/dead,  or whether God must administer grace unto a lost sinner in order for a lost sinner to have the ability to come in faith unto Christ for salvation.  Rather, the debate is by what form does God's grace take.

A.  The Calvinist - By regenerating grace, whereby God administers spiritual life unto the a lost sinner in order that by means of that spiritual life the lost sinner both can and will believe.
B.  The Arminian - By prevenient grace, whereby God enlightens all lost sinners within their hearts in order that by means of that spiritual enlightenment all lost sinners can believe.
C.  Myself - By drawing grace, whereby God draws from without upon the heart of a lost sinner in order that the lost sinner can believe as long, and only as long as God is drawing.

2.  On Unconditional Election

A.  The Calvinist - Unconditionally by God's sovereign choice and nothing more.
B.  The Arminian - Conditionally by God's perfect foreknowledge whereby God foreknows that a lost sinner will place faith in Christ.
C.  Myself - Conditionally by God's perfect foreknowledge whereby God foreknows that a lost sinner will place faith in Christ.

3.  On Limited Atonement

A.  The Calvinist - Certainly limited for the sake only of those whom God has prechosen.
B.  The Arminian - Not limited, but for the sake of all mankind, through which justification is applied only unto those who place faith in Christ.
C.  Myself - Not limited, but for the sake of all mankind, through which justification is applied only unto those who place faith in Christ.

4.  On Irresistible Grace

A.  The Calvinist - God's regenerating grace is perfectly effectual and irresistible upon those whom He has chosen to administer it.
B.  The Arminian - God's prevenient grace is universal; but within the realm of that prevenient grace, His drawing grace is certainly resistible.
C.  Myself - God's drawing grace is certainly resistible.

5.  On Perseverance of the Saints

A.  The Calvinist - All genuine believers through the life of God within them will certainly persevere in faithfulness unto the end of their lives.
B.  The Arminian - A believer had the gift of free will from God to choose faith in Christ for salvation, and retains the gift of free will from God to cast aside that faith for salvation.
C.  Myself - All genuine believers are eternal secure in Christ by God's power and Christ faithfulness, regardless of future choices.

As per the above presentation, I am certainly MORE Arminian than I am Calvinist.  However, as per the above presentation, I am NOT actually a five point Arminian, which means that I am NOT actually an Arminian.

[DaveW]

I stand by my assessment: it is not right to post a video of someone presenting their view and then attacking that view when that person has nothing to do with this site in any way.

You have posted for the SOLE purpose of promoting Calvinism, which is not a theological position that is embraced on this site.

If you wish to discuss Calvinsim then do it outright and on your own two feet, not deceitfully as you have done here by pretending you are answering something that no one here has asked.

As has been mentioned, the majority here are neither Arminian nor calvinist.

I for one have studied Calvin's Intsitutes to some extent and find his position utterly anti Biblical.

For one, under Calvin's own words one cannot truly know if one is saved. John differed from Calvin and I will follow the Word of God over any catholic based man's ideas.

1Jn 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

Just one of many places where Calvin strays from God's Word.

Edited November 2, 2018 by DaveW
Phone spelling

[John Young]

14 hours ago, brandplucked said:

Refuting a reasonable Arminian’s arguments against Calvinism.

Brother Will, all of us Baptist here familiar with your work and research on the King James Bible issue appreciate you alot. However, you will find very few of us here really care very much for Reformed theology's in house arguments which ultimately amounts to a technical argument between Theodore Beza and his student Arminius. In their insatiable desires to prove there own ideas about HOW God moves and keeps people in salvation they both ignore clear contexts in order to prove the other wrong. Most of us here are Contextual Bible Christians and Not "Reformed theology" Christians so do not care very much for even the flawed theology that frames this argument between two groups of people who are on the opposite sides of the SAME wrong non-contextual theology.

[No Nicolaitans]

Does man have free-will aside from salvation, or does man have no free-will at all? If man doesn't have free-will at all, then how do we explain the following?

(Jeremiah 7:31) And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart.

(Jeremiah 19:5) They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind:

(Jeremiah 32:25) And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech, which I commanded them not, neither came it into My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.

(Hosea 8:4) They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not: of their silver and their gold have they made them idols, that they may be cut off.

If man has free-will to sin, then why does he not have free-will to choose Christ?

...and no, I'm not an Arminian...

[Pastor Scott Markle]

8 hours ago, John Young said:

Brother Will, all of us Baptist here familiar with your work and research on the King James Bible issue appreciate you alot. However, you will find very few of us here really care very much for Reformed theology's in house arguments which ultimately amounts to a technical argument between Theodore Beza and his student Arminius. In their insatiable desires to prove there own ideas about HOW God moves and keeps people in salvation they both ignore clear contexts in order to prove the other wrong. Most of us here are Contextual Bible Christians and Not "Reformed theology" Christians so do not care very much for even the flawed theology that frames this argument between two groups of people who are on the opposite sides of the SAME wrong non-contextual theology.

Well said, very well said.