More than a view, it is attitude

For a long time, I pondered on why there was animosity from the Arminian and the Calvinist toward each other, rather then viewing them as two points along a linear line. That rather than two opposing views, if one drew a single line from Pelagian to the hyper-Calvinist the believers would find themselves discussing nuances of the view rather than the contention of thought.

For example:

The typical Calvinist looks upon their own heart as having no life and light prior to God bringing to them such illumination. The typical Arminian looks upon their own heart as having some residual light that is slowly becoming dimmer as sin abounds and conscience is seared.

The typical Calvinist considers that the human will is totally incapable of choosing other than what is offered by that offered a slave. They understand there is no offer of freedom to one chained by sin and a slave to the desires of the flesh but continued bondage. However, the typical Arminian considers the Will is free from any such constraint. That the human will was darkened by the sin of Adam but not totally corrupted and therefore has that innate ability to choose righteousness.

I could go on.

The linear viewing doesn’t remove distinctions, but shows differences by degree..

For example, an Arminian may agree with one being totally incapable, yet also present that one is not incapacitated. The Calvinist may agree with one being totally incapable and incapacitated.


Rather than contending about absolutes, would it not be less contentious to view differences along a linear perspective in which agreement, not of positions but of acknowledgement, is formed.

Most are not pure Arminian or Calvinist, and positioning them as polar opposites makes them contend for position and power. The very game the enemy of the gospel desires to be played.

 

I would agree, that contention is raised concerning characterizing and maligning.

However, I wonder if at times contentions are made by some not realizing that the view they agree is right is actually aligned fiurther down the line with the view they disagree.

I’m reminded of that tug of war. All pulling on the same rope same direction, but arguing over who is positioned correctly along the line rather than pulling with all effort?

For example, one can hold an Arminian view of the atonement, yet still hold to the other points of Calvinistic thinking. An Arminian can hold to total depraved inability and election as taught by the Calvinist yet still agree with the other Arminian views.

How does one not hold to the preservation and perseverance of the saints and not be both Arminian and Calvinist thinking? For to disagree with that doctrine brings the Lord’s teaching in John 10 into question?

This is why I am presenting a linear viewing to this forum.

 

Perhaps for you the first sentence is enough, and for others I wish it could be; however, too often rather than recognizing differences as positional on the same line called salvation, some contend if one should even be included in the line.

 

I didn’t list all points on the line.

I gave the two extremes, and the two the purpose of this form names.

Semi is somewhere between Arminian and full Pelagian.

 

Recently, a discussion concerning predestination took place in an assembly meeting. One person flatly rejected predestination and cited the president of Baylor university as a source. One person flatly embraced predestination and cited the Scriptures in Ephesians as a source.

The folks became divided. Each running to their own "I think" statements, as if they held the truth.

One, of all the group stood the ground upon the statement, "God said it, I believe it." All others wanted to modify or eliminate the subject from the Scriptures.

Love is important, and that written and spoken should at all times be concerned with Love. However, love does not conflict with "sound doctrine" but how sound doctrine is presented.

Paul, in the passage you cited, (1 Cor. 13) states, that even if one knows all mysteries, can resolve all questions, and even have demonstrable faith, and has not love, such things are of no value.

But, Paul does not diminish the importance of knowing mysteries, resolving questions, and demonstrable faith. He is placing that the expressions must be encased in love.

Too often, I have seen ecumenical efforts that compromised sound doctrine, rather than sound doctrine present the basis of which ecumenical efforts may present love.