Calvinism vs Arminianism? Why either/or? Why not both?

[delizzle]

I have noticed very quickly on this forum that people tend to wrongfully assume that there are only two options, Calvinism or Arminianism. People tend to assume that if someone is not a Calvinist, they must be Arminian and vice versa. Did theology not exist prior to Calvin?

I mean no offense to anyone. However, I have noticed there is much ignorance on all sides in the fact that Calvinist really don't know what Arminians believe, Arminians don't know what Calvinists believe, and neither know there are actually more than two options. Otherwise, why did it take more that 1500 years for Calvin (or Arminius) to finally get things right?

So my question is this, is it possible that both Calvin AND Arminius are right? Could they both be wrong in some areas? If so, where? Third and most importantly, is this argument worth fighting over when we should be spending that vocal energy actually sharing the Gospel?

 

[TCassidy]

I have noticed very quickly on this forum that people tend to wrongfully assume that there are only two options, Calvinism or Arminianism.

That is because there are only two options. You either believe T or you don't. You either believe U or you don't. You either believe L or you don't. You either believe I or you don't. You either believe P or you don't.

People tend to assume that if someone is not a Calvinist, they must be Arminian and vice versa.

That is because it is true. See above.

Did theology not exist prior to Calvin?

You seem to be laboring under the misconception that "calvinism" began with John Calvin. Perhaps you should do a bit more study. Try reading Augustine of Hippo (c400 AD).

Arminians don't know what Calvinists believe, and neither know there are actually more than two options.

The first part may be true. The latter part is nonsense.

Otherwise, why did it take more that 1500 years for Calvin (or Arminius) to finally get things right?

Again you are misinformed as to the origin of Particular Redemption. It is first found in the bible, then expounded and systematized by the Ante-Nicene ECFs.

So my question is this, is it possible that both Calvin AND Arminius are right?

No.

Third and most importantly, is this argument worth fighting over when we should be spending that vocal energy actually sharing the Gospel?

Is the Gospel worth defending? I believe it is.

 

[delizzle]

That is because there are only two options. You either believe T or you don't. You either believe U or you don't. You either believe L or you don't. You either believe I or you don't. You either believe P or you don't.

That is because it is true. See above.

You seem to be laboring under the misconception that "calvinism" began with John Calvin. Perhaps you should do a bit more study. Try reading Augustine of Hippo (c400 AD).

The first part may be true. The latter part is nonsense.

Again you are misinformed as to the origin of Particular Redemption. It is first found in the bible, then expounded and systematized by the Ante-Nicene ECFs.

No.

Is the Gospel worth defending? I believe it is.

You know, for somebody who is a "retired pastor and seminary professor", i am absolutely shocked you never heard of Pelagianism? I am not saying I agree with it. I am proving you seem ignorant on the other options that are out there. Karl Barth has some pretty interesting positions as well. Not to mention Supralapsarianism, Infralapsarianism, or Sublapsarianism. So much for your "only two options" claim.

Don't get me wrong. I assume you are extremely intelligent and knowledgeable on reformed Calvinist theology. But if you are honestly telling me that there is absolutely only two options, it tells me that you are extremely narrow minded and uniformed.

 

[TCassidy]

i am absolutely shocked you never heard of Pelagianism?

I am shocked you would tell such a bald faced untruth. And equally shocked that you fail to understand that Pelagianism has nothing at all to do with Evangelical Christianity. The closest would be semi-pelagianism which is most closely related to classic Arminianism.

I am proving you seem ignorant on the other options that are out there.

You know what they say about "assume."

Not to mention Supralapsarianism, Infralapsarianism, or Sublapsarianism.

Which have absolutely nothing to do with the Patricular/General Redemption positions. Supra/Infralapsarianism is only relevant to discussions within calvinism regarding calvinism verses hyper-calvinism.

So much for your "only two options" claim.

Yes. Only two. You either accept TULIP or you reject it.

But if you are honestly telling me that there is absolutely only two options, it tells me that you are extremely narrow minded and uniformed.

Or, perhaps, you have little to no actual understanding of the topic you are trying to argue?

Have your read the Articles of the Remonstrance and compared them to the Canons of the Synod of Dordt?

Did you ever consider that Jacobus Arminius was a Dutch REFORMED minister and theologian?

 

[delizzle]

Yes. Only two. You either accept TULIP or you reject it.

So I guess Amyraldism otherwise known as "4 point Calvinism" is a made up fairy tail? See, I can agree in Calvinism AND I can disagree [emoji6]. I never said that I completely disagreed with Calvin. I am just not so arrogant to say that he is absolutely right about everything. Do you worship scripture as the infallible word of God? Or do you worship the institutes as the infallible word of Calvin? For the record, I assume the former.

With one example I just proved your statement " You either believe T.U.L.I.P or you dont" to be false. Some people choose to believe in T.U.I.P. and it's a completely valid option to have.

Have your read the Articles of the Remonstrance and compared them to the Canons of the Synod of Dordt?

Yes I have. I don't see the point.

Did you ever consider that Jacobus Arminius was a Dutch REFORMED minister and theologian?

Yeah. And Martin Luther was a Catholic monk. So what?

 

[Reynolds]

With one example I just proved your statement " You either believe T.U.L.I.P or you dont" to be false. Some people choose to believe in T.U.I.P. and it's a completely valid option to have.

You are missing the point. You either accept all 5 points of Calvinism or you are totally wrong. There are only two positions, Calvinism and wrong. I fall in the wrong camp because I am a Classical Arminian. If you are a "4 point Calvinist" you are welcome to come hang out with me in the Wrong Camp.

 

[delizzle]

Is the Gospel worth defending? I believe it is.

If Calvinism is true, what do you or God have to lose. It's not like anyone's salvation is at stake. [emoji16]

 

[delizzle]

You are missing the point. You either accept all 5 points of Calvinism or you are totally wrong. There are only two positions, Calvinism and wrong. I fall in the wrong camp because I am a Classical Arminian. If you are a "4 point Calvinist" you are welcome to come hang out with me in the Wrong Camp.

LOL. [emoji23] Well, I guess Martin Luther, the "father of the reformation", is in the wrong camp too. It's a good thing that Calvinism is 100% right so it really doesn't matter what we believe. As long as we are elect, who cares?

 

[Yeshua1]

You are missing the point. You either accept all 5 points of Calvinism or you are totally wrong. There are only two positions, Calvinism and wrong. I fall in the wrong camp because I am a Classical Arminian. If you are a "4 point Calvinist" you are welcome to come hang out with me in the Wrong Camp.

Not really the wrong camp, as all of us would be Christian, more like the not quite understanding what the Bible really teaches camp!

 

[Yeshua1]

LOL. [emoji23] Well, I guess Martin Luther, the "father of the reformation", is in the wrong camp too. It's a good thing that Calvinism is 100% right so it really doesn't matter what we believe. As long as we are elect, who cares?

NO manmade theological system will be 100% accurate all of the time, as none of the persons who wrote were Apostles of Christ, but some theology fits the meaning of scriptures better than others!

 

[Yeshua1]

If Calvinism is true, what do you or God have to lose. It's not like anyone's salvation is at stake. [emoji16]

God still saves sinners the same way, regardless what view of salvation one holds to though!

 

[delizzle]

NO manmade theological system will be 100% accurate all of the time, as none of the persons who wrote were Apostles of Christ, but some theology fits the meaning of scriptures better than others!

Can you please tell that to TCassidy?

 

[delizzle]

God still saves sinners the same way, regardless what view of salvation one holds to though!

Thank you! Which is why I asked the third question. Does choosing Arminianism over Calvinism have any effect on your salvation? If Calvinism is true, absolutely not. However, if Arminianism is true, a lot of people (like my roomate) have rejected God because of Calvinist doctrine. Just saying...[emoji53]

 

[Yeshua1]

Can you please tell that to TCassidy?

I am sure that he knows that.....

 

[Yeshua1]

Thank you! Which is why I asked the third question. Does choosing Arminianism over Calvinism have any effect on your salvation? If Calvinism is true, absolutely not. However, if Arminianism is true, a lot of people (like my roomate) have rejected God because of Calvinist doctrine. Just saying...[emoji53]

Since God still saves the same way from His point of view, would not affect being saved, but effect just how we view the scriptures in regards to salvation. Calvinism would be explaining from the scriptures how God operated in saving us better to the texts.

 

[JonShaff]

That is because there are only two options. You either believe T or you don't. You either believe U or you don't. You either believe L or you don't. You either believe I or you don't. You either believe P or you don't.

That is because it is true. See above.

You seem to be laboring under the misconception that "calvinism" began with John Calvin. Perhaps you should do a bit more study. Try reading Augustine of Hippo (c400 AD).

The first part may be true. The latter part is nonsense.

Again you are misinformed as to the origin of Particular Redemption. It is first found in the bible, then expounded and systematized by the Ante-Nicene ECFs.

No.

Is the Gospel worth defending? I believe it is.

You are presenting a False Dilemma...to the "t"

 

[delizzle]

You are presenting a False Dilemma...to the "t"

Exactly! If Calvinism is a banana and Arminianism is an apple, TCassidy is telling us that you can only like apples or bananas. If you don't like apples, you must like bananas. If you don't like bananas, you must like apples. You cannot like both. The point that I am trying to make is that there are other fruits. Lutherianism is a fresh, juicy orange. I love bananas, but the peel tastes disgusting, the core of the apple doesn't agree with me, and the peel of the orange is bitter.

What concerns me is how narrow minded arrogance is causing people to run from the Church.

 

[Yeshua1]

You are presenting a False Dilemma...to the "t"

Not really, as its more that some misunderstand some of what TULIP actually teaches!

 

[Yeshua1]

Exactly! If Calvinism is a banana and Arminianism is an apple, TCassidy is telling us that you can only like apples or bananas. If you don't like apples, you must like bananas. If you don't like bananas, you must like apples. You cannot like both. The point that I am trying to make is that there are other fruits. Lutherianism is a fresh, juicy orange. I love bananas, but the peel tastes disgusting, the core of the apple doesn't agree with me, and the peel of the orange is bitter.

What concerns me is how narrow minded arrogance is causing people to run from the Church.

I think that in regards to just salvation proper, one is either a calvinist or an arminian in their theology.

 

[delizzle]

Not really, as its more that some misunderstand some of what TULIP actually teaches!

It seems clear. Saying that you can only like apples or bananas sounds like a false delimma to me. Especially when oranges are a completely valid fruit option as well.