Featured Calvinism and Arminianism are Each Partially Right

Absolutely correct. By definition Calvinism is a type of Christian philosophy. If you remove philosophy from Calvinism it cannot stand. But it is a theology systematically developed so, again, by definition it depends on more than Scripture. This does not mean it is wrong (I believe it is wrong). Arminianism (and any theology dependent on systematic theology....as they all are) also relies on philosophy and human reasoning.

The problem that you will run into are there are indoctrinated people on both sides that cannot read Scripture except through their own theological/ philosophical lenses. If one cannot identify what part of their theology belongs to God and what part is their reasoning then they are unable to grasp the difference between God's Word and human understanding of God's Word and will not be able to defend their beliefs and interpretations.

 

David,

From my experience on this and other forums you have pointed out an important aspect of theology. Our soteriology is dependent on systematic theology (which is based on Scripture but incorporates extra-biblical things, like philosophy, reasoning, history, past theological conclusions and arguments, etc.).

The problem that you will run into is some Arminians and some Calvinists are indoctrinated into one camp or another. We see this in KJO arguments all the time. They do not understand how anyone could possibly disagree with their interpretations or reasoning because they do not recognize interpretation or reasoning being a part of their understanding at all. I have found it best to simply ignore those type of people (even though they are the loudest).

Anyway, good point. All of these theologies, while based on Scripture, are also dependent on philosophy. Such dependency does not mean it is wrong, but it does mean we need to approach the subject with a greater reliance on Scripture and capable of at least exploring how our conclusions and interpretations are reached.

That is where the discussion has merit (not in accusing one side of rejecting the Bible but in discussing the philosophy and reasoning behind each view).

 

Comes off that way, doesn't it .

What I mean is when people cannot understand what is involved with how they handle Scripture it is useless to discuss differences in interpretation because you will only get passages you already believe as a reply.

One has to understand the philosophy and reasoning behind their interpretation before thay can discuss differences with folk who affirm the exact same Scripture but hold different interpretations because the actual difference is not Scripture but held presuppositions, philosophy, and reasoning.

Smug works too.

 

Yes, absolutely. The difference is not Scripture at all but interpretation. I deny Penal Substitution Theory as true insofar as the parts that are dependent on judicial philosophy. But I accept the rest of the theory. So our discussion would have to center on philosophy.

Look at it this way, on another thread you had defended Penal Substitution Theory to another member by evoking the passage that Christ was made sin for us. But neither you or the person you were addressing presented a literal view of the verse (that Jesus was literally made to be a sinful act). You reasoned out that God viewed Christ as if Christ were the vilest of sinners. But that is not what the verse actually says. It is based on philosophy and your reasoning into the passage). The other member's response was more akin to Christ being made flesh, taking on the sin of mankind (taking on a human nature). This also involves philosophy ("human nature") and interpretation.

What you do is you look at the interpretation and compare it to Scripture. In that case, the other person won the argument because his interpretation did fit within other passages of Scripture while you were not able to recognize the reason for your interpretation (you just left it as you think that is what the verse means).

 

You have it backwards.

Arminianism is based on the five articles of the Remonstrants.

The Canons of Dort address the five articles (Calvinism is the response, NOT the other way around).