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

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?

 

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.

 

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 . 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.

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

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

 

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

 

LOL. 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?

 

Can you please tell that to TCassidy?

 

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...

 

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.

 

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.