1. I believe the arguaments between these two positions are like two men tied back to back standing together – each jabbing the other without the awareness they are standing on the same rock.

a. I believe the orthodox Arminian position and orthodox Calvinist position are simply two view points that fail to appreciate that each is examining the truth from just differient angles. (I am using the term orthodox in the sence of holding the fundamental truths of Christianity as preached by Christ and the Apostles.)

i. I believe the Calvinist position is explaining salvation and security for the perspective of G-d looking down.

ii. I believe the Arminian is conversely explaining salvation and security from the perspective of humanity looking upward.

The difficulty happens when we try and restrict all verses to fit one position without realizing this human and divine perspective. This sometimes leads to wierd and unbiblical statements of those whom I would call extreme calvinists or extreme arminins.

Another way of saying this is G-d gives use principles and concrete truths and preachers like apostle Paul, Peter, and James explain how these teachings work in spreading the gospel and living the christian life in the human realm. Since we, as human being, don’t have divine abilities we have to rely on the H-ly Spirit and G-ds word and trust that God is working out everything to H-s will.

Although I believe G-d has elected certain persons to come to faith I also know it is beyond my ability to know exactly who those people are. Spreading the Gospel to everyone is a directive we are all called to.

I believe in eternal security yet i also am concerned to live a worthy life of the calling and to examine myself to make sure my salvation is truly based on Christ.

We are called to spread the gospel and not to get lost in this debate. As believers, we need to focus on true christian unity and fullfilling the the Great commission.

Your Brother in Christ

Is Dr. White aware of this book and the arguments for John Calvin [whom I believe is a hero to Dr. White] being an Arian?

Here are excerts from the book you can read in full free here: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=MlPrYQ5srKEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=did+calvin+murder+servetus&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Caroli, first Doctor of the Sorbonne and pastor at Lausanne[1], “objected because [the Confession of Faith of Geneva] did not contain the words Trinity or Person…”[2] In his letter of February 1537—the month of this trial of Calvin—Pastor Caroli wrote: “Away with new confessions and let us rather subscribe to these three creeds”, i.e., Apostle’s Creed (140A.D.), the Nicene Creed (325A.D.) and the Athanasian Creed (9th Century).”[3]

Calvin responded: “We have pledged ourselves to faith in the One God, not to faith in Athanasius, whose Creed was never received the approbation of any rightful church.”[4]

…it is important to note that Calvin never backed down. He refused to agree to alter the Geneva Confession or to sign on to the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds to the displeasure of the pastors at Starsbourg, including the famous Lutheran Pastor Bucer.” pp 213-215

Footnotes
—————————————————————————
[1] Fn. 404…Caroli had joined the Protestant cause, causing him to lose his teaching post. He later became a Protestant pastor. When Caroli laid the charge against Calvin, Calvin at first said “it was a few days ago I dined with Carol; I was then his very dear brother.”…Hence, Calvin had no doubt of Caroli’s authenticity of being a Protestant right up to the time Caroli made his accusation. Calvinists try to insinuate that Pastor Caroli was an intense Protestant all along. This is unfair. Rather, Caroli made his Protestantism contingent on it not rejecting the trinity doctrine. This was his litmus tests. When Bucer would not back up orthodoxy on the trinity, Caroli returned to Catholicism.

[2] Thomas Henry Dyer, The Life of John Calvin (Harper, 1855) at 67.

[3] Gaston Bonet-Maury & Edward P. Hall, Early Sources of English Unitarian Christianity (1884) at 16 fn. 20, citing A. L. Herminjard, Correspondance des reformateurs dans les pays de langue francais (Geneva: 1878) Vol. 4, at 185.

[4] Id. Citing Herminhard, supra, Vol. 4, at 185.

As I think I made clear on the broadcast, I used in God willing in this sense: James 4:13-16

13 Look here, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we are going to a certain town and will stay there a year. We will do business there and make a profit.” 14 How do you know what your life will be like tomorrow? Your life is like the morning fog—it’s here a little while, then it’s gone. 15 What you ought to say is, “If the Lord wants us to, we will live and do this or that.” 16 Otherwise you are boasting about your own plans, and all such boasting is evil.

And, I believe, Dr. White was joking about my usage of the phrase. On the serious side, however, any Calvinist who thinks its incongruous for a non-Calvinist to to say “God willing” has no clue what non-Calvinists believe.

Dr. White’s point was the use of “God willing” in a debate about Calvinism. Do you understand?

1 Peter 3:17
It is better, if it is God’s will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil.

…while irresistibly causing it in perfect accordance with His secret eternal decree of course. That’s what you meant right?

Sorry, just my twisted way of saying, “great point!”

God Bless,
Ben