Arminianism and Calvinism are not that different

[Dave G]

In the middle of the debates on here, I usually find myself thinking that Calvinism and Arminianism are really not that far apart, in the end.

I'm not sure why, but I've never gotten that impression...I see a great "gulf" fixed between the two.

Putting the labels aside for a moment (in case you want to use a different term for yourself, etc.), the reality is that under both schools of thought, the following beliefs are true:

1) From the very beginning, God knew that some would be saved and some would be lost.
2) God is omniscient, and his foreknowledge is exhaustive.
3) God therefore knows who will be saved and who will be lost.
4) God is omnipotent.

I don't look at them as "schools of thought", although I know that some here probably would.
I see them as diametrically opposed sets of doctrines that are derived from Scripture depending upon how one looks at the words on the page, and how they are understood as a whole and in their "parts".


1) To me, there's a big difference...one side believes that God knew ( knew beforehand ) that some would be saved and some would be lost, while the other side ( "Calvinists", as you call them ) believes that God determined who would be saved... "foreknowing" or deciding to show His grace and mercy in His fore-love, leaving the remainder to be judged for their sins in His wrath and hatred of them.

But, in a rough sense, I agree that God knew from the very beginning that some would be saved, and some would be lost.

2) God is not only Omnicient, in that His foreknowledge extends to knowing what man will do, think and say in every instance...
But He works what He wants, when He wants according to His own purposes.

This includes putting things in men's hearts that He wants them to do ( Revelation 17:17 ) and restraining men from sinning ( Genesis 6:20 ) if He so wishes.
His foreknowledge is both active and passive.
Please see Daniel 4:35 and passages like it.

3) God therefore either lets people choose whether or not to cooperate with Him in saving themselves, or He chooses a person according to His mercy and grace, with the person being saved having no say in it.

Again, it is more than what can be said commonly, as the details when one "dials down" to the core, are far different in how God is viewed and how salvation is viewed.

4) God definitely is Omnipotent.



From my perspective, "Arminianism" and "Calvinism" are two entirely different approaches to Scripture, doctrinally.
The first has men co-operating in gaining eternal life ( making it a reward for successfully cooperating with God ), while the second, being fully of God, makes it a gift ( man does nothing but stand there and receive God's grace. ).

With respect, I have to disagree with the title of the OP, as I don't see there being much in the way of common ground between the two sets of doctrinal beliefs:

"Foreknowledge" is different ( knowing about vs.knowing intimately ).
Love is different ( particular vs. general ).
Christ's atonement is different ( Particular vs General ).
Man's condition before God's Spirit does any work is different ( totally helpless vs crippled ).
Where faith comes from.
How faith works and what it accomplishes.
Man's will, and what condition it is in.

If one were to try and build common ground, much could be said...but to me, what's not being said ( some of which I've stated immediately above ) is equally important as what is being said.



At the end of it all, it comes back around to salvation being of the Lord in its entirety, or being partly of men and partly of God.

 

[Reformed]

Arminianism and Calvinism, notwithstanding any similarities, are vastly different. The basic theological foundation of Arminian soteriology is Synergism, whereas with Calvinist theology it is Monergism. If all we are looking at is the end result of who comes to faith in Christ, it is easy to downplay the intricacies of these respective theologies. But things are never that easy. There are real differences between the two theologies and those differences have consequences that cannot and should not be glossed over. That does not mean both camps should be in a constant war with each other. It also does not mean they cannot stand together on areas of agreement. Synergists and Monergists affirm the inspiration and sufficiency of scripture, the Trinity, the hypostatic union, and the virgin birth et al. They also have similar views on moral and social issues such as abortion and biblical marriage. Praise God for those areas of agreement! But what of the differences?

Synergists and Monergists often have different eschatological views. While Dispensationalists are found on both sides of the debate, Monergists tend more towards Covenant Theology. Worship practices are also affected as is church polity and ecclesiology. Both sides have their extremes. Extreme Synergism strays into the errors of denying eternal security and universalism/open theism. Extreme Monergism can be seen in avoiding evangelism and an arrogant/condescending attitude towards others. But the differences between both camps is most apparent in their views on soteriology and evangelism. The nature of sinful man, regeneration, the call of God, faith, justification et. al are all defined and interpreted differently. We use the same or similar terms but we arrive at different conclusions. If the issues were are simple as the author of the OP seems to make them appear to be, we should all join hands and sing a few stanzas of kumbaya. I really wish it was that easy.

 

[StefanM]

My point was not to downplay the legitimate differences between the systems. As the posters above have explained well, there are definitely major differences. We know those differences pretty well on this board.

What came to mind when I thought of this post was the common objection to unconditional election--that God would be unjust. In reality, the "fairness" question actually affects both systems.

 

[Reformed1689]

My point was not to downplay the legitimate differences between the systems. As the posters above have explained well, there are definitely major differences. We know those differences pretty well on this board.

What came to mind when I thought of this post was the common objection to unconditional election--that God would be unjust. In reality, the "fairness" question actually affects both systems.

There was a good presentation of that very fact at a Ligonier conference a few years back. I'll try to find it and post it.

 

[Alan Gross]

I know I'm rehashing a well-worn concept here, but that's kind of the M.O. of this forum, right?

In the middle of the debates on here, I usually find myself thinking that Calvinism and Arminianism are really not that far apart, in the end.

Putting the labels aside for a moment (in case you want to use a different term for yourself, etc.), the reality is that under both schools of thought, the following beliefs are true:

1) From the very beginning, God knew that some would be saved and some would be lost.
2) God is omniscient, and his foreknowledge is exhaustive.
3) God therefore knows who will be saved and who will be lost.
4) God is omnipotent.

Whether or not election is based on foreknowledge of human choice (Arminianism) or solely God's decree (Calvinism), God knew that not all would be saved.

Also, even if you believe that God possesses "middle knowledge"--full knowledge of what would happen in a hypothetical situation that will never come to pass (as with Molinism), then you still must accept that God chose to create a universe in which some people would never be saved.

If you believe that free choice is possible and is the determining factor between salvation and remaining in one's lost state, it seems untenable to believe that God is incapable of leading any given lost person to a free choice of faith in every possible world. Surely there would be at least one possible world in which God would be able, by his power, to bring such a person to voluntary faith.

If even one person who dies without Christ in this world could have come to Christ by God's intervention in another hypothetical world that God did not choose to create, then God is making a choice to actualize a world in which a person would not be saved who could have been saved, had a different world been actualized.

To avoid this conclusion, you have to go into universalism or open theism, but you have to deny one of the numbered points above.

My point is that Calvinists and Arminians (or if you prefer a different term for either group) are primarily arguing over the means God chose to use to save some, not over the decision itself only to save some.

You may object that I haven't cited Scripture in this post, but I have intentionally not done so. I'm not trying to litigate the truth claims of any specific framework. I'm merely seeking to draw attention to the similarities of the systems as they exist.

Free choice is possible.

Free choice is available for water to flow uphill, hundreds of feet.

Water has never had any ability to flow uphill, hundreds of feet, but it is free to do so.

There is a law that works against water flowing uphill.

Water is Free to do what it has no ability to do.

In that, you are right.

Sinners are also Commanded by God
to Keep The Universal Law of God, Perfectly, as Jesus Did,

although God is NOT OBLIGATED
to Provide a lost descendant of Adam
any 'ability' to fulfill His Command.

And He DOES NOT.
...

You are also right, if "Infinitely different" could be said to be "similar".

It's not, but you would be absolutely right if you were not Infinantely Wrong.

...

The Reverse corollary to this quote of your OP:

"My point is that Calvinists and Arminians (or if you prefer a different term for either group) are primarily arguing over the means God chose to use to save some, not over the decision itself only to save some"

is this:

"My point is that Calvinists and Arminians (or if you prefer a different term for either group) are NOT primarily arguing over the means God chose to use to save some, not over the decision itself only to save some",

but that Bible Believers Teach and Preach
that sinners have no Spirit
that is Acceptable to God,
Who IS SPIRIT,

AND:

that all dead souls

ARE Not Only STILL:
DEAD IN TRESPASSES AND IN SINS, in Hell,
and are now all Calvinists,
in their understanding and 'beliefs',...

but are 'twice dead',

dead in their body
( in which they did not Repent of their sins)

and dead in the loss of their Eternal soul.

 

[StefanM]

Free choice is possible.

Free choice is available for water to flow uphill, hundreds of feet.

Water has never had any ability to flow uphill, hundreds of feet, but it is free to do so.

There is a law that works against water flowing uphill.

Water is Free to do what it has no ability to do.

In that, you are right.

Sinners are also Commanded by God
to Keep The Universal Law of God, Perfectly, as Jesus Did,

although God is NOT OBLIGATED
to Provide a lost descendant of Adam
any 'ability' to fulfill His Command.

And He DOES NOT.
...

You are also right, if "Infinitely different" could be said to be "similar".

It's not, but you would be absolutely right if you were not Infinantely Wrong.

...

The Reverse corollary to this quote of your OP:

"My point is that Calvinists and Arminians (or if you prefer a different term for either group) are primarily arguing over the means God chose to use to save some, not over the decision itself only to save some"

is this:

"My point is that Calvinists and Arminians (or if you prefer a different term for either group) are NOT primarily arguing over the means God chose to use to save some, not over the decision itself only to save some",

but that Bible Believers Teach and Preach
that sinners have no Spirit
that is Acceptable to God,
Who IS SPIRIT,

AND:

that all dead souls

ARE Not Only STILL:
DEAD IN TRESPASSES AND IN SINS, in Hell,
and are now all Calvinists,
in their understanding and 'beliefs',...

but are 'twice dead',

dead in their body
( in which they did not Repent of their sins)

and dead in the loss of their Eternal soul.

I'm not sure what your point is.

 

[Reformed]

In reality, the "fairness" question actually affects both systems.

From the Monergist point-of-view, God is not fair; at least not in the way finite human beings define fairness.

 

[Alan Gross]

I'm not sure what your point is.

Sin.

 

[Alan Gross]

From the Monergist point-of-view, God is not fair; at least not in the way finite human beings define fairness.

Because all human beings must suffer, Justly, in The Lake of Fire, bodily and consciously, Eternally, for their personally Eternal transgressions, sins, and iniquity, etc., against The Thrice-Holy, Eternal Creator God of The Universe?

That is fair to God and finite human beings and no Created creature in The entire Universe could accuse God of Being Unjust, in Doing so.

 

[MartyF]

4) God is omnipotent.

Occasionally, someone will float the idea that God is not omnipotent, but such a person is usually so far beyond the bounds of orthodoxy as to render this discussion entirely irrelevant.

Arminians have a different view of omnipotent. This is the whole point of Arminianism. God does not directly control the action and will of everyone at every time. A properly educated Calvinist would say that God does control every action and thought and that Arminians are impugning God's omnipotence (except they like to improperly use the word sovereignty on this forum for some reason).

Now as time as gone on, "Calvinists" have deviated from those at the council of Dort and have started to believe in a "limited determinism". They somehow believe that not all their actions and thoughts are determined by God while at the same time claiming Calvinism.
​

2) God is omniscient, and his foreknowledge is exhaustive.

Arminians have a difficult time with omniscience and usually end up claiming mystery if pressed hard. The fact is if God knew what was going to happen when he snapped his fingers and created the world, couldn't he have snapped them in a way to prevent the fall in the first place?

Calvinists have no problem with omniscience. If God is controlling all actions and thoughts, he obviously knows what is going to happen in the future.

Of course, open theism isn't biblical, so Arminians and Calvinists rightly reject it.

This is perverted and funny. Arminianism and Calvinism are a part of Classical Theism. Classical theism is called classical because it is based on the classics - Plato, Aristotle, and Plotinus. Their ideas were forced onto the Bible by Augustine and John Calvin. Now, some might say their current "Calvinism" or "Arminianism" came from the Bible, but if you look at origin stories, they are not originally based on the Bible.

Every open theist conversion I've seen came about through reading the Bible - not the 12-page pamphlet used on this forum, but the Bible as a whole.​

 

[1689Dave]

I know I'm rehashing a well-worn concept here, but that's kind of the M.O. of this forum, right?

In the middle of the debates on here, I usually find myself thinking that Calvinism and Arminianism are really not that far apart, in the end.

Putting the labels aside for a moment (in case you want to use a different term for yourself, etc.), the reality is that under both schools of thought, the following beliefs are true:

1) From the very beginning, God knew that some would be saved and some would be lost.
2) God is omniscient, and his foreknowledge is exhaustive.
3) God therefore knows who will be saved and who will be lost.
4) God is omnipotent.

Whether or not election is based on foreknowledge of human choice (Arminianism) or solely God's decree (Calvinism), God knew that not all would be saved.

Also, even if you believe that God possesses "middle knowledge"--full knowledge of what would happen in a hypothetical situation that will never come to pass (as with Molinism), then you still must accept that God chose to create a universe in which some people would never be saved.

If you believe that free choice is possible and is the determining factor between salvation and remaining in one's lost state, it seems untenable to believe that God is incapable of leading any given lost person to a free choice of faith in every possible world. Surely there would be at least one possible world in which God would be able, by his power, to bring such a person to voluntary faith.

If even one person who dies without Christ in this world could have come to Christ by God's intervention in another hypothetical world that God did not choose to create, then God is making a choice to actualize a world in which a person would not be saved who could have been saved, had a different world been actualized.

To avoid this conclusion, you have to go into universalism or open theism, but you have to deny one of the numbered points above.

My point is that Calvinists and Arminians (or if you prefer a different term for either group) are primarily arguing over the means God chose to use to save some, not over the decision itself only to save some.

You may object that I haven't cited Scripture in this post, but I have intentionally not done so. I'm not trying to litigate the truth claims of any specific framework. I'm merely seeking to draw attention to the similarities of the systems as they exist.

Foreknowledge implies fixity, and fixity implies decree.—From eternity God foresaw all the events of the universe as fixed and certain. This fixity and certainty could not have had its ground either in blind fate or in the variable wills of men, since neither of these had an existence. It could have had its ground in nothing outside the divine mind, for in eternity nothing existed besides the divine mind. But for this fixity there must have been a cause; if anything in the future was fixed, something must have fixed it. This fixity could have had its ground only in the plan and purpose of God. In fine, if God foresaw the future as certain, it must have been because there was something in himself which made it certain; or, in other words, because he had decreed it.

Strong, A. H. (1907). Systematic theology (p. 356). Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society.

 

[StefanM]

Foreknowledge implies fixity, and fixity implies decree.—From eternity God foresaw all the events of the universe as fixed and certain. This fixity and certainty could not have had its ground either in blind fate or in the variable wills of men, since neither of these had an existence. It could have had its ground in nothing outside the divine mind, for in eternity nothing existed besides the divine mind. But for this fixity there must have been a cause; if anything in the future was fixed, something must have fixed it. This fixity could have had its ground only in the plan and purpose of God. In fine, if God foresaw the future as certain, it must have been because there was something in himself which made it certain; or, in other words, because he had decreed it.

Strong, A. H. (1907). Systematic theology (p. 356). Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society.

This quote is one logically consistent way of understanding foreknowledge, but it's still true that Arminians and Calvinists both claim that God has exhaustive foreknowledge. I will admit that Arminians and Calvinists will probably disagree on the nature of that foreknowledge, but an Arminian would not deny omniscience (inclusive of exhaustive foreknowledge).

(Note: I'm excluding open theists here because, even if they claim to be Arminian, their beliefs do not reflect either classical or Wesleyan Arminianism. It's like when someone claims to be a Calvinist while denying unconditional election and irresistible grace.)

 

[Iconoclast]

This quote is one logically consistent way of understanding foreknowledge, but it's still true that Arminians and Calvinists both claim that God has exhaustive foreknowledge. I will admit that Arminians and Calvinists will probably disagree on the nature of that foreknowledge, but an Arminian would not deny omniscience (inclusive of exhaustive foreknowledge).

(Note: I'm excluding open theists here because, even if they claim to be Arminian, their beliefs do not reflect either classical or Wesleyan Arminianism. It's like when someone claims to be a Calvinist while denying unconditional election and irresistible grace.)

That is not [ my understanding of ] the biblical usage of foreknowledge, which is of persons, not events!

29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

All Christians are Calvinists. We are at different levels of growth and maturity. Like the five green bars on your phone, some of the bars are stronger, some are weaker, but they are there in seed form, needing to grow. Like a baby bird, their feathers need to strengthen and grow before flight can take place. Like the dead baby bird you see on the ground, some Arminians try to fly before their feathers do.

 

[1689Dave]

This quote is one logically consistent way of understanding foreknowledge, but it's still true that Arminians and Calvinists both claim that God has exhaustive foreknowledge. I will admit that Arminians and Calvinists will probably disagree on the nature of that foreknowledge, but an Arminian would not deny omniscience (inclusive of exhaustive foreknowledge).

(Note: I'm excluding open theists here because, even if they claim to be Arminian, their beliefs do not reflect either classical or Wesleyan Arminianism. It's like when someone claims to be a Calvinist while denying unconditional election and irresistible grace.)

Calvin claims if God looked down through time, what would there be to see but a mass of ruined spiritually dead humanity? Loosely quoted.

 

[StefanM]

That is not the biblical usage of foreknowledge, which is of persons, not events!

29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

All Christians are Calvinists. We are at different levels of growth and maturity. Like the five green bars on your phone, some of the bars are stronger, some are weaker, but they are there in seed form, needing to grow. Like a baby bird, their feathers need to strengthen and grow before flight can take place. Like the dead baby bird you see on the ground, some Arminians try to fly before their feathers do.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Foreknowledge can be of people or of events, depending on the context.

 

[StefanM]

Calvin claims if God looked down through time, what would there be to see but a mass of ruined spiritually dead humanity? Loosely quoted.

Based on what you've cited, I would probably agree with you personally.

But for the purposes of this thread, I have tried to represent the Arminian position as charitably as possible.

 

[Alan Gross]

Calvin claims if God looked down through time, what would there be to see but a mass of ruined spiritually dead humanity? Loosely quoted.

Yes, sir. He did that.

Psalm 14:2 "The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.

3 "They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one."

In Genesis, HE Determined to Send a Flood and Wipe them all out.

Genesis 6:5 "And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."

Unless they were all able to hide, there must have been a few Armenians hanging around with their bright ideas of 'believing', 'having faith', and 'the power to choose', when God Said this?

They have no concept of anything needed to be 'saved' from, but God Sees All human beings as His enimies, hating Him, with deceitful and desperately wicked hearts, dead in trespasses and sins, without strength, alienated from God.

That is the issue.

Bible Believers see God's Revelation of Mankind's sinfulness and Armenians see them as a man named Calvin, born in the 1509 who was a big double- decker blue meanie, who's highchair tipped over and bumbed his head.

 

[Iconoclast]

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Foreknowledge can be of people or of events, depending on the context.

Not in the bible....it is used of persons

 

[StefanM]

Not in the bible....it is used of persons

I apologize for not explaining my position like I should have. I agree with you that biblical usage of the Greek word we translate as foreknowledge is used as you indicated.

I was trying to refer to the use of the term in a philosophical/theological sense. When I say that God has exhaustive foreknowledge, I mean that his omniscience is such that he has comprehensive, total, and perfect factual knowledge about all future events.

I should have said that the meaning of the term "foreknowledge" in theological discussion (i.e., not a translation of the biblical text) depends on context and could refer to foreknowledge of persons in an personal/elective sense or to factual foreknowledge. The former is what we would find in the Pauline epistles, for instance, but the latter is deduced conceptually from the Bible and philosophy.

God has deeply personal foreknowledge of his people, but, based on prophecies, other biblical statements, and reasoning (in light of the biblical witness), we can conclude that God also has exhaustive factual knowledge of the future. In English usage, the term foreknowledge can include both personal and factual aspects, depending on the context of the conversation (not necessarily the context of a biblical passage).

 

[kyredneck]

Arminianism and Calvinism are not that different

The difference crystalized:

Synergism: the doctrine that the human will cooperates with the Holy Ghost in the work of regeneration.

Monergism: the doctrine that the Holy Ghost acts independently of the human will in the work of regeneration.