Does it change anything?

[JonC]

From my vantage point, it began a lot farther back than that...

I disagree that the Calvinism/ Arminianism debate began a lot further back than 1610.

It began (its "roots") in 1591 with a man Beza considered the most promising theologians of his students, praising his scholorship. This was James Arminius. The beginning was Arminius suggesting that Romans 7:14 was speaking of a man living under the law and convicted of sin by the Holy Spirit, yet not presently regenerated. But Arminianism did not come to be until a decade later.

Calvinism came to be around 1530 AD. Calvin converted to Protestantism in 1530 and started working on the system (completing it about four years later).

But both systems changed over time into different theological systems. Both grew and developed sects within their perspective group.

 

[Mike B]

@Dave G Thank you for those great replies, and yes, it is sad to see brothers
in Christ almost at one another's throats over a doctrine that can not be
absolutely defined one way or another.

Some thirty years back I even participated in a few of those debates, feeling
that I was "contending for the faith". When it got to where I could almost argue
from either side of the debate I determined that there was no firm solution, and
that I would spend no more time trying to fit a souls move to salvation into some
undefinable framework of mankind.

Instead, I choose to just share the gospel at every opportunity, and pray that God
will use it do do His will and bring souls to Christ.

I believe the discussion itself, as an exercise, is good for getting into the word of God and
earnestly seeking biblical truth. Beyond that...it's simply an endless debate.

 

[Dave...]

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?

​

Hey Mike

Calvinism vs. Arminianism. I get what you're saying, but If you remove the labels, I believe that most people would see it as defending the Gospel both in and out of season. Though Scripture does warn us about endless squabbling over genealogies etc. It's kind of like the 'can't we just love and get along' statement, but as JMac pointed out, false doctrine cries the loudest for tolerance .

I think that the labels, especially loosely defined labels, become much like political parties, and with that you'll have party loyalists. Both Calvinists and Arminian hate what I believe that the Bible teaches. They keep trying to put a label on me, but I will not let them do it. Too much baggage comes with the labels. I wonder if the benefit of the labels are not lost ten times over because of this.

In my opinion, labels can keep the discussions stagnant, and force it in to a framework that is tired and four hundred years old with a forced and predictable and unfortunately a false outcome.

So, in short, remove the labels and what do you have? The same thing, but more productive discussions, or just the same thing?

Like anything, the original languages etc., labels can benefit us or be abused. Of course we also have A.I., which, if used correctly can be a useful tool when one can spot theological error. But it has also become a tool of lazy theology. So like anything, it can be useful or abused. 2 cents

 

[Reformed1689]

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

Yes. It is about knowing God and His ways better and fuller. So in that sense, it absolutely matters. Now, does it matter by way of spreading the Gospel? No, it doesn't. Both sides evangelize.

 

[Kai]

It is about knowing God and His ways better and fuller. So in that sense, it absolutely matters.

The Bible is the objective standard we all use to grow in our understanding of God, though Christians will never agree completely on every issue.

I believe God reveals certain things about Himself to some people more than others, and that this process unfolds differently for everyone.

The position I’ve maintained is that we don’t necessarily have to view God through the lens of a particular theological framework to know Him better.

 

[kyredneck]

From my vantage point, it began a lot farther back than that...

AGREE!

I disagree that the Calvinism/ Arminianism debate began a lot further back than 1610.

It began (its "roots") in 1591 with a man Beza considered the most promising theologians of his students, praising his scholorship. This was James Arminius.

"...3. Free Will and Divine Sovereignty: While the Pharisees taught a delicate balance of divine sovereignty and human responsibility (often allowing for God’s foreknowledge and guidance within human choices), the Sadducees tended toward a stronger emphasis on free will, with minimal acknowledgment of divine intervention beyond what they saw plainly in the Torah...."

What distinguishes Sadducees from Pharisees?

"...Is there unrighteousness with God?...Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will? ..."

 

[JonC]

AGREE!



"...3. Free Will and Divine Sovereignty: While the Pharisees taught a delicate balance of divine sovereignty and human responsibility (often allowing for God’s foreknowledge and guidance within human choices), the Sadducees tended toward a stronger emphasis on free will, with minimal acknowledgment of divine intervention beyond what they saw plainly in the Torah...."

What distinguishes Sadducees from Pharisees?

"...Is there unrighteousness with God?...Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will? ..."

If we are going to the roots of free-will vs predestination we go to the ancient Greek philosophers. And yes, the 1st century Jewish sects were heavily influenced by Hellenstic thought.

BUT that is not what I was talking about. I was talking about Calvinistic sovereignty as pertains to salvation. This goes back to the 15th century.

It is true that Calvin held Plato in high regard (Plato viewed fate, Providence and moral responsibility as woven together). But the concepts in terms of theology are different.

 

[kyredneck]

“That which hath been is that which shall be; and that which hath been done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.”

Nothing new about this debate.

 

[JonC]

“That which hath been is that which shall be; and that which hath been done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.”

Nothing new about this debate.

The philosophy is new (relatively new) as it originated in the 15th century as a revival of ancient thought.

Calvinism is to Christianity what Renaissance structures are to architecture. It pulls from past philosophies but becomes something unique.

Yes, the basic idea of fate-providence vs free-will is very old. But Calvinism is much more than salvation by divine decree.

 

[Armchair Apologist]

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.

I guess we should preface this as being "From my experience" and I would say that I share much of this same experience.

As a non-Calvinist, I often felt that it was ON ME to present the Gospel in a way that would make the message more appealing, clever tactics, and so forth and in many cases, that the onus was upon me to ensure that they heard the gospel and if they didn't trust Christ, what was wrong with me, my approach, and so forth?

Being a Calvinist has taken a great bit of that weight off of my shoulders and I understand that my job is to preach the gospel to all men as accurately and clearly as possible and from there, commit the results to God. If one rejects the message, it is understood that they have not rejected me but God and that they are now accountable to God for the message they have heard or that I at least tried to tell them. I will likely pray for this individual but I am also able to lay my head down and get a good night's sleep knowing that I was faithful in doing as the Lord had commanded me.

As I said, this is "from my experience" and I am sure that a non-Calvinist may likely respond that this was "Not their experience" and this is fine. Arminians (and other non-cals) who know their Bibles understand that it is God who gives the increase and all we can do is faithfully "plant and water." You do not have to be a Calvinist to understand this.

I am a big fan of Ray Comfort's approach and am therefore always keeping in mind that "By the law is the knowledge of sin" and if I can get someone to think about and consider this one matter, I will consider it as being a fruitful interaction.