I invested a few hours last evening reading old Calvinist vs. Arminian threads. All of them begin and end in disagreement. Still Calvinism vs. Arminianism is the most popular topic in this forum. The fundamental problem is hermeneutics. There will never be agreement since our respective approach to scripture is systemically different. They are irreconcilable. Still the threads come. This is why churches split over the issue. Neither side is going to be first to back down because they are convinced, by scripture, they are right.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Reason why Calvinists and Arminians cannot agree
- Thread starter MorseOp
- Start date
- Status
Should they back down without being persuaded by scripture first?
I don't believe it is systematically different perse`, but ideologically different regarding systematic theology. They both agree to the immutable truths of scripture but see them operating differently on a couple. This distinction is actually found not in the "L" or the "I" or the "U" (though U is actually agreed more than most think it is wording some disagree with) of the TULIP.
The main contention in all the above is simple based in one aspect. When is one born again, regenerated. All the other issues are based entirely from this one point.
The rest is much like our government, they wish you to focus on the issue that derive from the source problem (economy, deficit, ect..) and not the actual source of the issue - the government itself.
The vast majority of the disagreements come from this one main factor - when is one born again. If this would be studied out and set forth where others can listen to well thought our arguments and decide for themselves, it would remove much of the issues regarding the ideology of the various systematic theologies.
I have tried to engage many on th the board through a through study of this via threads I created, but it has always fallen short and never really engaged. Though many I have discussed it with many that hold to both sides and both agree, this is the crux of the entire issue in a nutshell.
I believe the fight should continue. This is an essential issue because it relates directly to Christ and what He accomplished through the cross. In other words, it is a direct salvation issue.
Are we reaching our conclusions through the study of Scripture? Maybe. I know many people on both sides that just believe what they believe because that's what they have been taught. That, actually, seems to be the rule and not the exception.
I'll give you an example.
My first pastoral position was as an associate in a Nazarene church. The senior pastor knew where I stood on the eternal security issue and he decided we were close enough in practical teaching for us to work together. He retired for health reasons several months after I came on staff. The policy when a senior pastor retires in their denomination is the whole staff goes. The individual churches have the option of re-hiring the associates. The board decided to keep the other associate pastor on staff during the search for a new senior pastor and then go from there (as far as he was concerned). They also decided to not keep me on staff. They said I was clearly called and gifted to pastor but they would not allow it because of my stance on eternal security. One man said it would be like having a Mormon teach and preach in their church. He has since apologized and has become a great friend. One man said that if we die with any unrepented sin we are damned and that Scripture backed that up. I told him that Scripture did not say that and challenged him to show me where....he couldn't.
In the months that followed that event I remained enrolled at Nazarene Bible College, where I received my BA in pastoral ministries. I learned there just how different we are and I know that despite how it was handled, and the boards lack of knowledge of the issue itself, the board was right in not allowing me to continue in leadership there as I had no business pastoring a Nazarene church due to our difference on these essential doctrines.
Are we reaching our conclusions through the study of Scripture? Maybe. I know many people on both sides that just believe what they believe because that's what they have been taught. That, actually, seems to be the rule and not the exception.
I'll give you an example.
My first pastoral position was as an associate in a Nazarene church. The senior pastor knew where I stood on the eternal security issue and he decided we were close enough in practical teaching for us to work together. He retired for health reasons several months after I came on staff. The policy when a senior pastor retires in their denomination is the whole staff goes. The individual churches have the option of re-hiring the associates. The board decided to keep the other associate pastor on staff during the search for a new senior pastor and then go from there (as far as he was concerned). They also decided to not keep me on staff. They said I was clearly called and gifted to pastor but they would not allow it because of my stance on eternal security. One man said it would be like having a Mormon teach and preach in their church. He has since apologized and has become a great friend. One man said that if we die with any unrepented sin we are damned and that Scripture backed that up. I told him that Scripture did not say that and challenged him to show me where....he couldn't.
In the months that followed that event I remained enrolled at Nazarene Bible College, where I received my BA in pastoral ministries. I learned there just how different we are and I know that despite how it was handled, and the boards lack of knowledge of the issue itself, the board was right in not allowing me to continue in leadership there as I had no business pastoring a Nazarene church due to our difference on these essential doctrines.
plain_n_simple
Active Member
Use grace. Let them win even if you are not convinced. This is better than bitterness.
If I may add this..
Churches only split over this when one side wishes to rule or dominate over the other side. I know of churches where they (both sides) work in great fellowship inside the same body. In fact, with respect to Kingdom work, neither sides has any distinction over the other because you can't tell the two a part unless you specifically ask.
The work and operation in what they do is the same and lives they live are indistinguishable (or should be) and the salvation they preach is identical. The only reason splits happen is when one side wishes to dominate and not work with the other.
maybe God predestined it to happen, in order to have us sharpen up each other in bible, and to practice love for the bethren?
The reason is not hermeneutics, it is sin.
The flesh just cannot accept the fact that we are wrong and He is Right, we are nothing and He is All, we are unjust and He is Just, we are proud and He is Almighty.
I could go on, but as you implied, what's the use?
Thank you & God Bless you for saying what is so true:thumbs:
I totally disagree....the main sticking points are Atonement, Mans sinful nature & the level of free will allowed by the creator.....the rest is polite conversation.
Just to clarify, are you saying that ones view on regeneration is what ultimately leads him to or from calvinism? Or am I misunderstanding you?
The one difference is which occurs first, faith or regeneration? All Reformed/Calvinists believe a man must be regenerated to have the ability to believe, all non-Cals and Arminians believe a person must first believe before they can be regenerated.
Now as a non-Cal, I could show MANY verses that absolutely say a person first believes before being regenerated. Probably the most specific is John 20:31.
Jhn 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
This verse is simple and straightforward. It says you must believe to have "life". Life is regeneration, the word regeneration simply means to be made alive again. This is what being born again is, being made alive again.
I could show many other verses that all say you must believe to have life, but one is enough.
This is the difference. No Reformed/Calvinist can show a single scripture that ever says a person must be regenerated in order to believe. Such a verse does not exist in all scripture. You cannot show it.
We will never be able to agree.
All the other differences hang on this one difference.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
My personal opinion is that the difference arises because of what people believe about the nature/person of God and the state/nature of mankind.
It's been debated here a hundred times, rarely does anyone change their view.
But if you believe it worth it, please present evidence from scripture that regeneration precedes faith, because that is the difference.
So there you go Allan... radically different ways of looking at things. From my prospective I would never go to a non calvy church nor would I want my family going there. I would also instruct my children against marrying them...I have lists prepared.
This is where im putting my chips. In some way this is where it all roots.
I seriously don't see why you see that as the gulf. Now not believing in historic orthodox theology...that's another kettle of fish.
It is the difference. When OR speaks of the nature of man, he means whether unregenerate man has the ability to believe or not.
Non-Cals/Arminians believe the unregenerate man has the ability to believe. This does not mean they can believe without the grace of God, as no man could believe the gospel unless it were revealed to him, God revealing the gospel to prophets and having preachers preach the gospel being seen as the grace of God. No man can believe what he does not know.
Calvinists/Reformed believe more is necessary than a simple presentation of the gospel, they believe a man must be supernaturally regenerated before they have the ability to believe the gospel.
So, this is the difference, which comes first? Faith or regeneration? I believe faith precedes regeneration and have already presented John 20:31 as scriptural evidence to support this. I can present MANY other verses besides this.
Now it is Calvinism's turn, please present scripture that teaches a man must be regenerated before he has the ability to believe. I contend that you will be absolutely unable to do this, as no such scripture exists.
Well if your asking me to respond, like I said.....I dont personally care how someone thinks they are regenerated (its all of God anyway) ....my main concern is that they truly are in fact saved & are not faking it.
Beyond that, I have many differences with you that have already been noted that are far more concerning than this. Ones I believe to be insurmountable. My solution is ... you go to your church & interact with your own people & I will go to my church & interact with mine. And dont pollute my spiritual gene pool! :laugh: Its straightened out now & its going to stay straight. :godisgood:
- Status