Does it change anything?

Dave G said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

@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.

Mike B said:

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?

​

Click to expand...

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