Does it change anything?

[Mike B]

Having followed the Calvinism vs. Arminianism issue for quite some time, some questions
have come to mind that I am hoping you all can help with

Does being either a Calvinist or Arminianist call for any changes in the faith and
practice of a church? By this, I mean does the church still actively preach the
gospel of Jesus Christ to the lost in hopes of winning souls to Christ?

Do the church services change as a result of either position being the agreed
upon theology for that church body? Are the Baptist ordinances of baptism
and communion any different?

I've watched so many good brothers in Christ debate this issue, and generally
it's like watching a couple of badgers, backed into their respective dens and viciously
defending their latest kill. It's never just a pleasant chat.

Considering that the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate actually began way back
around 1610, do you feel there will ever be an agreed upon single doctrine that
satisfies both parties?

Ultimately, is this debate of some benefit or edification to those who follow the Lord?

​

 

[JonC]

Between Arminianism and Calvinism, no. The debate is philosophical. But Arminianism is a form of Calvinism, so between Calvinism/Arminianism and non-Calvinism/Arminianism the answer is "yes", it changes a lot.

 

[JonC]

Considering that the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate actually began way back
around 1610, do you feel there will ever be an agreed upon single doctrine that
satisfies both parties?

​

There was an agreed upon doctrine. Arminianism was considered orthodox but extreme Calvinism. Calvinism comsisted of what was agreed upon with room to accomidate differences in philosophy. This changed after Arminius' death.

 

[Kai]

I think both Calvinists and Arminians should still be preaching the gospel, evangelizing the lost, baptizing believers, and observing communion. The differences are mainly about how we understand God's sovereignty, election, and human responsibility, not whether we're called to share the gospel.

As for whether the debate is beneficial, I think it can be when it encourages us to study Scripture more carefully. But when defending a theological system becomes more important than loving our brothers in Christ, something has gone wrong.

I doubt we'll see complete agreement on this issue anytime soon. Personally, I think we should be willing to examine our own assumptions and let Scripture challenge our theology rather than forcing every passage to fit a particular system. We can disagree on these matters while still recognizing one another as fellow believers in Christ.

 

[Ascetic X]

I have observed and participated in some debates between Calvinists and Arminians or anti-Calvinists.

I conclude that the arguments are fruitless, of no value whatsoever.

Neither side changes their mind on any doctrine, no matter how long they debate. Sometimes animosity, insults, and anger erupt. Quarrelsome individuals seem to enjoy going on and on, bickering back and forth, each trying to look smarter and more spiritual than the other.

This is not what Jesus suffered and died for.

I think it is better to find some common ground and join forces to combat the atheism, hedonism, materialism, and darkness of this world.

 

[Mike B]

I conclude that the arguments are fruitless, of no value whatsoever.
Neither side changes their mind on any doctrine, no matter how long they debate. Sometimes animosity, insults, and anger erupt. Quarrelsome individuals seem to enjoy going on and on, bickering back and forth, each trying to look smarter and more spiritual than the other.
This is not what Jesus suffered and died for.
I think it is better to find some common ground and join forces to combat the atheism, hedonism, materialism, and darkness of this world.

I agree...100%

Looking back, my life was so filled with arguing, bickering and debating over what were
ultimately inconsequential issues. So much time and energy...just wasted..and for what?

Today, prior to entering into any discussion/debate, I've learned to ask myself a
question...Is there any benefit, to anyone, in this? Is the other person (or persons)
involved going to change their mind about what they believe, or are we going to
ultimately end up right back where we started?

After some 400+ years of Christians debating the Calvinism vs. Arminianism issue, it
has all been said, argued, quoted and repeated dozens, if not hundreds of times over.
Both camps are still equally entrenched, with no "cease fire" in sight, yet they still charge
off right back down that same road, knowing in advance where it leads.

Has anyone benefitted in any demonstrable way? Has it strengthened the church of
Jesus Christ, or brought more lost souls to redemption? (rhetorical)

Should we not be asking ourselves....of what benefit is this?

*********************

Brothers, thank you for your patience in allow me to vent this frustration I've bottled
up for so long. Perhaps it will not change any minds..perhaps it will.

 

[Ascetic X]

I agree...100%

Looking back, my life was so filled with arguing, bickering and debating over what were
ultimately inconsequential issues. So much time and energy...just wasted..and for what?

Today, prior to entering into any discussion/debate, I've learned to ask myself a
question...Is there any benefit, to anyone, in this? Is the other person (or persons)
involved going to change their mind about what they believe, or are we going to
ultimately end up right back where we started?

After some 400+ years of Christians debating the Calvinism vs. Arminianism issue, it
has all been said, argued, quoted and repeated dozens, if not hundreds of times over.
Both camps are still equally entrenched, with no "cease fire" in sight, yet they still charge
off right back down that same road, knowing in advance where it leads.

Has anyone benefitted in any demonstrable way? Has it strengthened the church of
Jesus Christ, or brought more lost souls to redemption? (rhetorical)

Should we be asking ourselves....of what benefit is this?

*********************

Brothers, thank you for your patience in allow me to vent this frustration I've bottled
up for so long. Perhaps it will not change any minds..perhaps it will.

I will sometimes jump into a debate, just to sharpen my skills and to challenge a position, to keep someone from feeling sanctimoniously smug.

 

[Mike B]

I will sometimes jump into a debate, just to sharpen my skills and to challenge a position, to keep someone from feeling sanctimoniously smug.

Understood, and I may do the same from time to time. You have an achievable goal in mind,
and a benefit to be had.

 

[Ascetic X]

Understood, and I may do the same from time to time. You have an achievable goal in mind,
and a benefit to be had.

But I do not think people usually present doctrines to educate, but rather to assert their superiority.

They also provoke controversy and argument on purpose, perhaps due to boredom.

 

[Van]

Having followed the Calvinism vs. Arminianism issue for quite some time, some questions
have come to mind that I am hoping you all can help with

Does being either a Calvinist or Arminianist call for any changes in the faith and
practice of a church? By this, I mean does the church still actively preach the
gospel of Jesus Christ to the lost in hopes of winning souls to Christ?

Do the church services change as a result of either position being the agreed
upon theology for that church body? Are the Baptist ordinances of baptism
and communion any different?

I've watched so many good brothers in Christ debate this issue, and generally
it's like watching a couple of badgers, backed into their respective dens and viciously
defending their latest kill. It's never just a pleasant chat.

Considering that the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate actually began way back
around 1610, do you feel there will ever be an agreed upon single doctrine that
satisfies both parties?

Ultimately, is this debate of some benefit or edification to those who follow the Lord?

​

Yes, believing in the most correct doctrines, or believing in less correct doctrines changes how we present the gospel. There is an old chestnut that says, "Believe like a Calvinist, but preach like an Arminian."

1) Some professing Christians believe in exhaustive determinism, everything is predestined by God. However, such a gospel of futility, we cannot affect the outcome of our lives, would not attract people who believe in the pursuit of happiness, let alone liberty.

2) No, professing Christians can believe some of the correct or close to correct doctrines while being off target with their other beliefs. Also, apparent agreement can be found where lip service credence is given to supposed common beliefs. For example, we all can say loudly we believe in the bible alone, and not in additional traditions of men. Meanwhile advocating far fetched if not absurd interpretations of verses that plainly contradict traditions we believe are true.

3) Yes, the truth is available to all who are willing to study God's word. But the blockade is fabricated with falsehoods thought to be true. For example, 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says people are chosen for salvation through faith in the truth, thus those chosen already had some sort of faith.
You will NEVER find any Calvinist who can admit to this truth. NOT one. Why? Because they believe that everyone was chosen unconditionally, then given the "gift of faith."

 

[Reynolds]

Having followed the Calvinism vs. Arminianism issue for quite some time, some questions
have come to mind that I am hoping you all can help with

Does being either a Calvinist or Arminianist call for any changes in the faith and
practice of a church? By this, I mean does the church still actively preach the
gospel of Jesus Christ to the lost in hopes of winning souls to Christ?

Do the church services change as a result of either position being the agreed
upon theology for that church body? Are the Baptist ordinances of baptism
and communion any different?

I've watched so many good brothers in Christ debate this issue, and generally
it's like watching a couple of badgers, backed into their respective dens and viciously
defending their latest kill. It's never just a pleasant chat.

Considering that the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate actually began way back
around 1610, do you feel there will ever be an agreed upon single doctrine that
satisfies both parties?

Ultimately, is this debate of some benefit or edification to those who follow the Lord?

​

The issue will not be settled until Christ return. The issue is important. The way you view all doctrine filters through your soteriology. As a Calvinist, I present The Gospel. Most Non Cals Zi know feel the need to go way beyond presentation of The Gospel. They feel that they need to make The Gospel more appealing, dress it up, use clever tactics, etc.
I came out of Arminianism. I always felt a burden that so much depended on me. There is so much more peace in knowing that Jesus did the work.

 

[Ascetic X]

The issue will not be settled until Christ return. The issue is important. The way you view all doctrine filters through your soteriology. As a Calvinist, I present The Gospel. Most Non Cals Zi know feel the need to go way beyond presentation of The Gospel. They feel that they need to make The Gospel more appealing, dress it up, use clever tactics, etc.
I came out of Arminianism. I always felt a burden that so much depended on me. There is so much more peace in knowing that Jesus did the work.

Going beyond the gospel?

Adding “for whom Christ died” and “all the elect” to verses that speak of God wanting all to be saved and Christ sacrificing Himself.

 

[Reynolds]

Going beyond the gospel?

Adding “for whom Christ died” and “all the elect” to verses that speak of God wanting all to be saved and Christ sacrificing Himself.

I don't feel a need to add anything to anything. We simply disagree on the antecedent in thec2 Peter passage. I read it as plainly referring to the immediately pre mentioned elect. I don't need to add it, proper contextual analysis already has it there.

 

[Mike B]

Not sure if I'm allowed to, but since I started it I'd like to make this a "Debate Free" thread.

 

[Reynolds]

Not sure if I'm allowed to, but since I started it I'd like to make this a "Debate Free" thread.

I don't think there has ever been a thread in C A forum that didn't involve debate. The answer to your original question would simply be "yes" or "no" without some form of debate.

 

[JonC]

The issue will not be settled until Christ return. The issue is important. The way you view all doctrine filters through your soteriology. As a Calvinist, I present The Gospel. Most Non Cals Zi know feel the need to go way beyond presentation of The Gospel. They feel that they need to make The Gospel more appealing, dress it up, use clever tactics, etc.
I came out of Arminianism. I always felt a burden that so much depended on me. There is so much more peace in knowing that Jesus did the work.

Most I know go beyond presenting the gospel. Christians who hold Calvinism and Arminianism present the gospel in historical Calvinistic terms.

I do not believe they realize they are going beyond the gospel as this is how they understand the gospel message (how are you going to tell somebody the gospel unless it be how you understand the gospel?).

Answering @Mike B - Does it change anything? Yes. It changes a lot. Arminianism and Calvinism have a unique position on salvation (they have the same position on salvation but hold philosophical differences).

How does it change things? Calvinists and Arminians go beyond the gospel of Jesus Christ. They have to as they need to "set the stage" (explain the mind of God, incorporate their judicial philosophy, introduce the Catholic doctrine of sin, etc). Without providing this framework (or context) their gospel would be meaningless.

 

[Dave G]

Does being either a Calvinist or Arminianist call for any changes in the faith and
practice of a church?

I suppose that would depend upon whether the subject is the visible churches ( buildings on a street corner that hang signs out proclaiming themselves to be churches of Jesus Christ ) or the invisible, "man-looks-upon-the-outward-appearance-but-God-looks-upon-the-heart" actually and genuinely saved, born again individuals who may be in a given area of the world.

For visible churches, I would say, "yes", because the matter is an issue of Scripturally sound doctrine, and changes in practice will occur depending upon what is believed among all the members of an assembly. IMO, those differences are what make up "denominations" today.

For God's children, I see His word declaring that they will come into the knowledge of the truth gradually and over time, due to both their studies in His word and the fact that they have the Spirit within them doing the actual teaching. They will go from being "babes in Christ", easily carried about with every "wind" of doctrine, to being spiritually mature individuals who understand and believe every word of God, contextually.

For them, growing in both grace and knowledge will have a profound effect from their new birth to their eventual maturity.

 

[Dave G]

By this, I mean does the church still actively preach the
gospel of Jesus Christ to the lost in hopes of winning souls to Christ?

Which "church"...the visible church composed of both "wheat" and "tares", or God's people whom He knows, loves and works through? To me, there is a very big difference, my friend.
But, to answer your question as straight-forwardly as possible:

For "Calvinists", there is no "hope of winning the lost"... as to them, salvation is an operative effort on the part of God, with mankind serving in the passive role. The lost are lost, and the elect ( the saved ) are those that the preaching of God's word is intended for.

For "Arminians" , their hope of winning the lost is based on how they see salvation...as a co-operative effort on the part of both God and man. God does His part, leaving the decision to believe up to us as men.

For both sides,
The preaching of the Gospel is done from differing beliefs about how salvation works... and ultimately whether or not the results are in God's hands or ours as men.


IMO, Biblical evangelism is preaching Christ crucified for sinners to all, just as Paul did...and that has never changed.

 

[Dave G]

Do the church services change as a result of either position being the agreed
upon theology for that church body?

Of course, and the difference results in whether or not an "invitation" is given, and whether or not what can be characterized as "emotional pressure" or otherwise strong convincing is brought to bear in order to influence someone to make a decision for Christ.

In "Calvinistic" churches, there is no pressure or belief that it's up to an individual's will during the preaching of God's word whether or not to believe it; It is clearly understood that He works where and when He wants to, and the objects of His grace react to His inner working, while the lost reject Christ and His words out of hand.

To put it simply, the differences in beliefs result in a marked difference in practice.

Are the Baptist ordinances of baptism
and communion any different?

From my perspective, the historically " Baptist" ordinances of believers baptism and the Lord's Supper ( as a symbol of what's been done for us spiritually, by God through His Son Jesus Christ ), are Scriptural truths.

Among Baptists ( whether "Calvinistic" or "non-Calvinistic" ), that shouldn't change at all.

 

[Dave G]

I've watched so many good brothers in Christ debate this issue, and generally
it's like watching a couple of badgers, backed into their respective dens and viciously
defending their latest kill. It's never just a pleasant chat.

I've watched a lot of people who profess Christ absolutely trash one another back and forth over the years... and they do so regarding this subject and countless other ones. To me, this just happens to be one of the ones that elicits some very strong reactions among those who are valiant for their version of the truth.

I'm also fully aware, in these last days and in this age of ever-increasing apostasy, that not everyone who claims to be a Christian, actually is one.
Are they all brothers? To me, that remains to be seen.

That said, I hold that not one person who acts this way towards another is actually justified in how they handle the other person, as the Scripture is clear on how we as believers are to behave...both towards those who profess, and those who do not.

IMO, it's one thing to contend for the truth, and quite another to rip people to shreds in print or otherwise.

Considering that the Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate actually began way back
around 1610, do you feel there will ever be an agreed upon single doctrine that
satisfies both parties?

From my vantage point, it began a lot farther back than that...and what you've seen in recent history, pretty much all happened since the "Protestant Reformation" which began around that same time period ( early 1500's into middle 1600's ). The way I see it, the real differences began as soon as the last of the apostles passed on to their place with the Lord.

But to answer the last half of the question ( which I've underlined ), no, there will be nothing that will satisfy both sides... as both sides read and understand the scriptures on the subject quite differently.