First of all, I want you to actually hear me say, I do not mean to offend in any way. Having said that...
Yes, John Calvin and Jacobus Arminius were two men... <
smile>
Good; me, either. But one can be influenced by a number of things, people included, without following them... or even being aware of them.
yet calvinists falsely accuse anyone who rejects their theology as Arminianism.
There really is no "neutral." For example, let's just take the first... well, issue; they are all very basic... of the five: Either one believes that man was absolutely separated from God in sin in the fall, or he was not; there is no in-between or neutral. You... well, you at least seem to believe the latter, which would put you firmly in the camp of Jacobus Arminius as opposed to John Calvin. And the five are in a very good order, actually, which is to say, if one understands that natural condition of man correctly, he or she cannot help but get the other four right, starting with the unconditional-ness of God's election (man cannot in and of himself meet the one condition God sets, which is to be perfect as He is)... And so it goes. Here are the five objections that Jacobus Arminius raised, to which John Calvin ~ again, using his much greater body of work) responded and refuted:
- Man is never so completely corrupted by sin that he cannot savingly believe the gospel when it is put before him.
- Nor is he ever so completely controlled by God that he cannot reject it.
- God’s election of those who shall be saved is prompted by his foreseeing that they will of their own accord believe.
- Christ’s death did not ensure the salvation of anyone, for it did not secure the gift of faith to anyone (there is no such gift); what it did was rather to create a possibility of salvation for everyone if they believe.
- It rests with believers to keep themselves in a state of grace by keeping up their faith; those who fail here fall away and are lost.
I'm not sure if you hold to
all five of these points, but it seems so, at least, and if so, whether you realize it or acknowledge it or not, you really are and Arminian ~ have come under his enduring (for now) influence. All five objections are resoundingly refuted in Scripture, and John Calvin showed just that. Actually, the men at the Synod of Dordt, rather than just Calvin himself, held these five things, which corresponded not to Arminius's objections but to Calvin's understandings of relevant Scriptures:
- Fallen man in his natural state lacks all power to believe the gospel, just as he lacks all power to believe the law, despite all external inducements that may be extended to him.
- God’s election is a free, sovereign, unconditional choice of sinners, as sinners, to be redeemed by Christ, given faith and brought to glory.
- The redeeming work of Christ had as its end and goal the salvation of the elect.
- The work of the Holy Spirit in bringing men to faith never fails to achieve its object.
- Believers are kept in faith and grace by the unconquerable power of God till they come to glory.
That is guilt by association fallacy.
Hmmm... As I said above, actual "association" is not necessary. I've quoted Stuart Smalley before... <smile> "Denial is not just a river in Egypt!" <smile>
The only way to know Jesus is how according to the Bible? Give Scripture.
...is having been given to Jesus by the Father and born again of the Spirit. To really
know Him is to
love Him, and... we love because He first loved us (1 John 4:19).
Ritajanice, claims no Bible needed in her election.
Hmmm... Well if so, I'm not even sure what is meant by that, except maybe that yes, our election by God does not depend on our having heard or believed His Word, but the other way around, really. I would say we all need the Word, for sure ~ and I think you agree ~ but Who is the Word, Titus? This is a rhetorical question, but do you worship a book, or a Person? <
smile>
Calvinism is not Biblical.
Arminianism is not Biblical.
Give Scripture that God has believers in Jesus who have never heard or been taught the gospel?
I think we can infer that John ~ while Elizabeth was yet pregnant with him when a pregnant Mary visited her (Luke 1) knew his Lord even then... and because he had already been known by the Lord. Why else would the Spirit ~ through Luke, of course ~ feel compelled to say John leapt in Elizabeth's womb? The fact that he leaped is very important, in view of (among other things) what Isaiah says in Isaiah 35, specifically verse 6.
Grace and peace to you, Titus.
