Arminianism and Calvinism

The Calvinistic philosophy was popularized by John Calvin, which taught a focus on Gods words from the Bible. The major belief is that your fate is predestined, and you’re unable to change it

We can only do as much, or as well, as we know to do; and if that does not work, then one must ask: What am I to do? That is an excellent question, for it holds value for those who are willing and able to reveal its answer. The value of a well-formed question is found in the answer that it holds; that is, if by raising that question, we are able to behold the answer within it. Although I consider philosophical, theological, and rhetorical questions to be valuable when seeking insight and understanding, these are questions that are not meant to illicit a response, and therefore, they have no practical value. The only value of such questions is that they leave us open to other questions which may hold the answer. For example, when wondering

In the article, “The Current SBC Calvinism Debate: Observations, Clarifications, and Suggestions” Allen pointed out myths and misunderstandings that many people have about the Calvinism debate. The author also suggested better ways for Traditionalists and Calvinists to communicate.

In his book, Getting the Gospel Right, Dr. Olson states and I quote that “any sinner can be saved by grace only through explicit repentance faith in the finished work of Christ alone.” This is a very powerful statement and one that brings questions and in many cases confusion as to what is the truth of salvation. In this book the author poses diverse views of salvation truth particularly those of Calvinism and Arminianism, and how they agree in some ways and differ in others from his doctrinal view of salvation in mediate theology. In mediate theology, Christ is the only way to salvation though his saving death and resurrection. Through saving faith a believer inherits a new birth and a right standing with God. When the believer comes to trust in Christ for salvation he receives the

According to Potok, this leaves one remaining response, ambiguity and uncertainty. Two years ago Don Colton (Professor in Computer and Information Science) gave a fine lecture on ambiguity. I refer you to his lecture for more on how ambiguity is a part of our lives. Although I agree that we must live with some degree of ambiguity, I feel uncomfortable resigning myself or others to “a multitude of questions” with no intention of searching for answers. This approach goes counter to our natural desire to seek for truth. It seems a rather lazy way to respond to conflict. There will undoubtedly be discrepancies between the secular and the sacred that will not be answered in our lifetime, but searching for truth has its own rewards.. By examining and working with the seemingly opposing thoughts, we may find undiscovered truths that otherwise would not have been sought.

An inquiry that continually torments the world regardless of what religious range you originate from is: Does God exist and in the event that he does how would we truly know? Yes, there is the Bible that records for each authentic occasion, yet numerous individuals look for another hypothesis of verification that can rest there interest. Presently the teleological contention is the second standard "a posteriori" dispute for the vicinity of God. Possibly the most mainstream variety of this dispute is the William Paley 's "watch" hypothesis.

Daily we are faced with the perpetual issue of good versus evil? Right versus wrong, all the while attempting to find a safe middle ground on which to stand so we may distance ourselves from distasteful situations. Humanity often finds itself standing idly by, allowing others to make the hard decisions, letting apathy take over and being blindly lead. Nevertheless, for some this blind faith is not always a viable option

He believes that God's act of creation did not stop after He created man, but continues all throughout the past, present and future. Calvin not only believes that God cares for all of man and animals, but directs the weather and excersises His power over inanimate objects. Calvin even goes so far as to argue that the movement of the sun, moon, stars, and planets is continued by God's power and not by some energy that was given to them at the beginning of creation, which "carnal sense" would tell us (Calvin 197). He does not believe that God sits back and watches or allows things in nature to happen, but actually causes them to happen. For example, if there was a drought one summer it was caused by God, possibly part of His vengeance or wrath. Or, if the crops flourished the next summer it was also His plan. Likewise, let us say per chance (no pun intended) a man is walking along a mountain pass and some rocks fall and kill him. For Calvin this was not an accident, but a determination and the Will of God. Calvin's ideology of God's Providence in nature is summed up in this quote:

A huge debate in theology is the one that is between Calvinists and Arminians. Calvinists believe that there are a select group of people that God determines to go to heaven and nothing that these people do in their lives can change this. They believe that the others in this world are bound to sin and cannot escape their fate to be sent to hell. Personally I feel that this is absurd. I am not a Calvinist and have never been apart of a congregation that portrays Calvinistic ideas. Calvinistic views take away from Jesus Christ 's death on the cross. From when I was little, I have been taught that Jesus died on the cross for every single person. This means that it is impossible to have an elected amount of people that God chooses for heaven. If we limit Christ’s death to simply the elect, then Christ’s death has less of a significant meaning. Christians should understand that on judgment day they will be judged for the way that they conducted their daily lives, how they loved others as

What could possibly be regarded the most controversial and most debated topic ever - Religion[1]. For a long time, it's been debated - mostly by theists and atheists, if it is truly beneficial to our society or if is mostly detrimental[2]. How could just looking up to a god be so detrimental for the welfare our world? While the existence of religion itself isn't controversial, when you start digging into the fundamentals of it things start to become more contentious[3]. In our world, we have an abundance of religions - ranging from Christianity, Catholicism, Mormonism, and the Islamic religion[4]. While they all vary in detail, they all share the same fundamental idea of the existence of a deity[4].

I spent close to a year congregating on Twitter and being ignorant at the time of what their "systematic theology" actually teaches, I initially followed many Reformed/Calvinist believers (lay and professional) and many in turn followed me. I got along well with all of them until I started questioning certain things I heard from them that contradicted God's Word. For example, after he tweeted a quote by Calvin I asked one of them, "Where in the Bible can I find the so called "third use of the Law" that Calvinism teaches?" He couldn't answer me because, as I pointed out to him, it's simply not taught in the Bible. It's a man made doctrine. Eventually, he assumed and insinuated and then fasley accused me, e.g, "we get you want to disagree with

Calvinism is a difficult topic to discuss due to it being misunderstood at times, but Stowe has used it in her story. Calvinism is the idea of seeing the weaknesses human beings have, and that is why we cannot think ourselves superior to God. In the story Mary was in love with James Marvyn, yet when he went out to sea he was thought to be lost or dead. Thus, leaving Mary no choice but to marry the Calvinist minister Dr. Hopkins. So in Calvinism there are many concepts one of which is predestination. This applies in the story because when James went into sea and Mary got engaged with Dr. Hopkins it was fate that they would get married. Another Concept is the sovereignty of God, and what it means is that God controls what happens. So for Dr.

So we can conclude that here there are five points on a five-point Calvinism and Arminianism on, where they appear irreconcilable. So which view is correct? Both of these views is logically unacceptable by human logic, but in the mind of God all possible. And personally, I believe that the basic theology Calvinism had better, because Calvinism has a biblical basis and strong

The more a question is argued the better that question becomes it is often said. That question begins to grow and the side effect of this is the more people it reaches. Whether that question can be put into a category of right or wrong it begs to be answered. Knowledge is something that people instinctively need to function when faced with a problem, an answer must be found or it begins to form eminent possibility in any direction. The problem is a question that no one can truly answer for anyone other than the person faced with it, which is one's own self. The arguments from either side of this philosophical problem must not be centered around one's own belief but all that share the dilemma, which is in fact every human being.

The above question invited the knowledge question: ‘what are the fundamental causes for disagreements within a discipline?’ I have chosen history and mathematics as my areas of knowledge to investigate the causes of disagreement referring to various ways of knowing to prove my claim. I think that there are several causes why there are disagreements within a discipline, one of the main reasons being emotion. Emotion is a strong feeling such as joy or anger, it can also be an instinctive feeling distinguished from reasoning or knowledge. Knowledge is made up of facts, information and skills a person has acquired through experience or education. Reasoning is an explanation or justification; we use it whenever we make a decision. Reasoning is very closely linked to emotion as our past experiences can influence the decisions we make. I have chosen to