Featured Calvinism and Arminianism are Each Partially Right

You're the only one, but that's why I like you Steven.

I attended the same seminary as a few members here, so I think that they set through the same lectures and probably hold the same views at least on the nature of these things.

When I was just a young pup (not too young and not too much a pup) I took an undergraduate class on theology. The professor was Elmer Towns (one of the co-founders of Liberty University). At the start he defined theology (and the different areas under theology).

Biblical theology as a branch of theology (all theology should be biblical, but speaking of a branch of theology) deals with the text of Scripture in a limited view (not the whole of Scripture).

Systematic theology is built on Biblical Theology (it is found first and foremost on Scripture) but looks at Scripture as a whole and implements extra-biblical means to develop doctrines. Systematic Theology uses reasoning, philosophy and makes use of things like historic theology, and historical/ scientific developments. Systematic theology is where doctrines are developed and address the questions that are being asked.

Take the Doctrine of the Trinity, for example. What was being asked (actually challenged) was assumptions and biblical ideas that had not been presented as a complete doctrine previously. People had to wrestle not only with Scripture but also philosophical ideas concerning terms like "persons" and "nature". They had to reason out Scripture and come up with a working doctrine to express how they determined Scripture to teach (in an overall sense) about the Trinity.

Calvinism is like this. Calvinism looks to the same Scripture that non-Calvinists look to. But in addition to Scripture there are questions that have to be asked in regard to Calvinism as a theology. What is sin, exactly? What type of justice is divine justice? Can sin be transferred? What effect does sin have on human nature? What is human nature? And the list goes on.

There is an inherit flaw in theology - that is the human condition. We cannot comprehend the mind of God except insofar as God has revealed Himself to us. This does not mean that Calvinism is wrong. It does not mean that Arminianism is wrong. What we have to do is look at the process, the philosophy, the reasoning and compare this to Scripture. And we will each make different determinations.

 

But I did not mean it that way.. Perhaps the inferiority of your reasoning missed the preeminence of my intellect. It was not smugness because of my humility. In fact, if I have any attribute that surpasses the character of those on this board it is humility. I am proud of my humility and anti-smugness. You don't have to apologize. I know you mean it way deep down, even if you don't know it yet, and that's all that matters.

(I really did not mean the comment as smugness, I meant sometimes it does no good to argue).

 

It really was not smug on my part, but I do understand how it could be taken that way. I had one thought in mind but it seems you (probably others) saw something I did not intend in my words. Such is the problem of communication (especially this type).

Given your assumption I suspect you are King James Version only (or at least prefer that version).

Sometimes the beliefs we hold forces us to assume things about other people that is not true. I think that is what happened here. My example (KJVO) was ultimately a poor choice but it was chosen because I was unaware it was a view held on this thread.

I was being kind (trying to be anyway) by my initial dismissal of the charge of smugness. That's all. I did not think the accusation an error worth addressing (I am not that important). As it has continued I thought it best to clear the air. You misjudged my intent based on your own views and expectations.