Calvinism and Arminianism are Each Partially Right

[Yeshua1]

I was a four-point Calvinist myself for a couple of years (and the 5 pointers are right that if you're 4, you must be 5).

Brother, there is not a single verse in that Book that speaks of a lost man being predestinated unto salvation.
The verses on predestination are always about saved men being predestinated to inherit a resurrection body in the image of Christ and to stand before God in love and holiness.

I am a Calvinist myself, and also do not see God predestinations towards both saved and lost in an equal extent and fashion!

 

[Yeshua1]

What do you understand by "Arminianism"? Because a lot of Arminianists disagree with me.

The theology that arose with its 5 responses to Calvinism!

 

[George Antonios]

That is a subjective point of view that is offered by those who do not welcome the Absolute Sovereignty of God

I welcome it in the form and along the parameters that God presents relating to it - not in the Calvinistic cast which is raises "sovereignty" to levels that God himself did not raise in the scriptures. Calvinism, I keep saying it, is more royal than the King.

God says: "I give man a free will which can, in many [not all] areas thwart my free will for that man."
Calvinism says: "Oh no your Sovereign Majesty! You are more sovereign than that. I didn't have a free will till you regenerated me"

God says: "Volitional faith is not a work in my estimation"
Calvinism says: "Oh no Sovereign Majesty! I'm more humble than that because I esteem even pre-regeneration faith as a work"

God says: "I elect those I foreknew would believe on my elect Son"
Calvinism says: "Oh no Sovereign Majesty! You do more than that! You predestinate them to choose him"

It's like Job's friends who flattered God, and of whom Job reproachfully asked: Will ye accept his person? will ye contend for God? And God wasn't too impressed with them despite their flattery.

Calvinism has defined humility and human depravity to levels beyond God's own definitions thinking that they thus "accept his person".
Brethren, the Lord is not impressed by a humility which is more humble than the King's own standard.
And then you walk around looking down your noses at your not-as-humble-as-you-are brethren.

 

[George Antonios]

The theology that arose with its 5 responses to Calvinism!

Well I oppose all 5 points yet am opposed by many Arminians, so you'll have to be more specific.

 

[George Antonios]

God's method of salvation same in both old and the new, as it has always been based upon the Cross and resurrection of Jesus, and saved by grace alone thru faith alone!

Oh yeah? Tell that to Nicodemus or to the apostles in the gospels. Because they had NO idea of any of that.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

There is a natural law as well. But there was a law of God given from the very beginning in the Garden.

I understand your point and agree. They had natural law and the revelation they had been given up to that point concerning God and how to please Him. It makes me want to read Genesis with an eye to seeing what each patriarch knew about God and His ways up to Moses and the Law. It would be a fascinating read.

I do believe in natural law, but philosophically I must differ to many scholars who claim natural law as their guide. This includes Rousseau, Locke, and the Founding Fathers of America like Madison and Jefferson. The Word tells us you can derive God's existence from nature, specifically His eternality, His Divinity, and His omnipotence (Romans 1:18-23). This is enough for all people to reverence and thank such a God.

Acts 17:26-27 tells us that God wants all people to seek Him so as to find Him, since He is not far from us.
26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, 27 that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us,

There are also some basic moral points you can draw from nature, such as the conclusion homosexuality is against nature (Romans 1:26-27). Another point is that nature should make us stand in awe and fear of God our Creator (Psalms 65:5-8).

I just don't see much more than these two broad points though. God and some aspects of Who He is, enough to want to seek Him, thank Him, and fear Him. And, some very basic aspects of morality, which unfortunately the modern world truly does not even understand these points anymore.

I agree though, before and probably for a time after the Flood, humanity must have had the knowledge of good and evil from their ancestors back to Adam and Eve, or from Noah a preacher of righteousness. Then at Abraham we have progressive revelation of Who God is and how to please Him, instead of only natural law and whatever knowledge of good and evil survived from the Flood.

 

[Steven Yeadon]

God says: "Volitional faith is not a work in my estimation"
Calvinism says: "Oh no Sovereign Majesty! I'm more humble than that because I esteem even pre-regeneration faith as a work"

That gets me, because I noticed that in the scriptures too.

The scriptures tell us that even if you have faith in Jesus Christ it is neither a work nor is it something to boast about.

Luke 17:7-10
7 “Which of you, having a slave plowing or tending sheep, will say to him when he has come in from the field, ‘Come immediately and [g]sit down to eat’? 8 But will he not say to him, ‘Prepare something for me to eat, and properly [h]clothe yourself and serve me while I eat and drink; and afterward you [j]may eat and drink’? 9 He does not thank the slave because he did the things which were commanded, does he? 10 So you too, when you do all the things which are commanded you, say, ‘We are unworthy slaves; we have done only that which we ought to have done.’”

*Notice God has created us as His slaves.
*Notice God’s commands may appear harsh and exacting on us, since we do not understand our slavery to Him.
*Righteous acts of obedience to God's commands are only what we ought to do as human property. They are an obligation to be fulfilled always. We get no thanks when we do them.

Romans 4 shows that God imputed to Abraham righteousness because of his faith. Faith is contrasted with works in Romans 4. It clearly is not a work to God. Romans 4 goes onto say works are something that makes due a person like a wage. Belief is contrasted with works. The promises to Abraham were given due to his faith, which is not a work, and this applies to us all who are his descendants. The Law on the other hand brings wrath since we cannot keep it perfectly. The imputation of righteousness is an act of grace we are told.

Gifts of grace are never worth boasting of before God. So faith in God or Jesus Christ is not a work to boast of, so the scriptures say.

 

[George Antonios]

That gets me, because I noticed that in the scriptures too.

The scriptures tell us that even if you have faith in Jesus Christ it is neither a work nor is it something to boast about.

Luke 17:7-10
7 “Which of you, having a slave plowing or tending sheep, will say to him when he has come in from the field, ‘Come immediately and [g]sit down to eat’? 8 But will he not say to him, ‘Prepare something for me to eat, and properly [h]clothe yourself and serve me while I eat and drink; and afterward you [j]may eat and drink’? 9 He does not thank the slave because he did the things which were commanded, does he? 10 So you too, when you do all the things which are commanded you, say, ‘We are unworthy slaves; we have done only that which we ought to have done.’”

*Notice God has created us as His slaves.
*Notice God’s commands may appear harsh and exacting on us, since we do not understand our slavery to Him.
*Righteous acts of obedience to God's commands are only what we ought to do as human property. They are an obligation to be fulfilled always. We get no thanks when we do them.

Romans 4 shows that God imputed to Abraham righteousness because of his faith. Faith is contrasted with works in Romans 4. It clearly is not a work to God. Romans 4 goes onto say works are something that makes due a person like a wage. Belief is contrasted with works. The promises to Abraham were given due to his faith, which is not a work, and this applies to us all who are his descendants. The Law on the other hand brings wrath since we cannot keep it perfectly. The imputation of righteousness is an act of grace we are told.

Gifts of grace are never worth boasting of before God. So faith in God or Jesus Christ is not a work to boast of, so the scriptures say.

Exactly!
P.S. the Bible never calls us "slaves", but "servants" - and yes, I know what the word is in Greek.
Believers are not bondmen. They are free sons who chose to serve.

 

[JonC]

Guys, I gotta tell you. Calvinistic arguments are always philosophical in nature. Study the arguments.
They are pre-supposed philosophical talking-points which sound good and rational, and which are then used as molds into which Bible verses are forced to fit despite the verses contradicting our dearly-beloved philosophical gems.

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

Oh yeah? Tell that to Nicodemus or to the apostles in the gospels. Because they had NO idea of any of that.

Not dependent on what they knew, as the truth is God's method to save lost sinners has never changed, nor the basis for salvation!

 

[JonC]

And you think Arminianism isn't?

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).

 

[George Antonios]

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).

That's more than a little smug.

 

[Yeshua1]

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).

I tend to see the issue as coming down more to what we see the things such as the Fall and its effect upon us, for if does not see the Bible teaching that we have sin natures and are now totally depraved due to being found in Adam, how God choose to save us now in Christ would be hard to grasp from the scriptures...

 

[Reformed1689]

That's more than a little smug.

Actually it wasn't.

 

[Reformed1689]

God says: "I elect those I foreknew would believe on my elect Son"

Not in Scripture. You just put words in the mouth of God.

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

If, for example ,someone denies though that we have sin natures, or that Pst is true, that person has to be appealing outside of the scriptures also in order to conclude those things.

 

[Reformed1689]

God says: "I give man a free will which can, in many [not all] areas thwart my free will for that man."
Calvinism says: "Oh no your Sovereign Majesty! You are more sovereign than that. I didn't have a free will till you regenerated me"

So man is more powerful than God?

 

[JonC]

That's more than a little smug.

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.

 

[JonC]

If, for example ,someone denies though that we have sin natures, or that Pst is true, that person has to be appealing outside of the scriptures also in order to conclude those things.

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).

 

[JonC]

The theology that arose with its 5 responses to Calvinism!

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).