• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Calvinism and Arminianism are Each Partially Right

Status
Not open for further replies.

Steven Yeadon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Comes off that way, doesn't it :Laugh.

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. :D

I would love to hear more of this wisdom you accumulated about the underpinnings of the theological positions on soteriology.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
I would love to hear more of this wisdom you accumulated about the underpinnings of the theological positions on soteriology.
You're the only one, but that's why I like you Steven. :)

I attended the same seminary as a few members here, so I think that they set through the same lectures and probably hold the same views at least on the nature of these things.

When I was just a young pup (not too young and not too much a pup) I took an undergraduate class on theology. The professor was Elmer Towns (one of the co-founders of Liberty University). At the start he defined theology (and the different areas under theology).

Biblical theology as a branch of theology (all theology should be biblical, but speaking of a branch of theology) deals with the text of Scripture in a limited view (not the whole of Scripture).

Systematic theology is built on Biblical Theology (it is found first and foremost on Scripture) but looks at Scripture as a whole and implements extra-biblical means to develop doctrines. Systematic Theology uses reasoning, philosophy and makes use of things like historic theology, and historical/ scientific developments. Systematic theology is where doctrines are developed and address the questions that are being asked.

Take the Doctrine of the Trinity, for example. What was being asked (actually challenged) was assumptions and biblical ideas that had not been presented as a complete doctrine previously. People had to wrestle not only with Scripture but also philosophical ideas concerning terms like "persons" and "nature". They had to reason out Scripture and come up with a working doctrine to express how they determined Scripture to teach (in an overall sense) about the Trinity.

Calvinism is like this. Calvinism looks to the same Scripture that non-Calvinists look to. But in addition to Scripture there are questions that have to be asked in regard to Calvinism as a theology. What is sin, exactly? What type of justice is divine justice? Can sin be transferred? What effect does sin have on human nature? What is human nature? And the list goes on.

There is an inherit flaw in theology - that is the human condition. We cannot comprehend the mind of God except insofar as God has revealed Himself to us. This does not mean that Calvinism is wrong. It does not mean that Arminianism is wrong. What we have to do is look at the process, the philosophy, the reasoning and compare this to Scripture. And we will each make different determinations.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Actually, to his credit, he admitted it was.
But I did not mean it that way.. Perhaps the inferiority of your reasoning missed the preeminence of my intellect. It was not smugness because of my humility. In fact, if I have any attribute that surpasses the character of those on this board it is humility. I am proud of my humility and anti-smugness. You don't have to apologize. I know you mean it way deep down, even if you don't know it yet, and that's all that matters. :D

(I really did not mean the comment as smugness, I meant sometimes it does no good to argue).
 

Steven Yeadon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You're the only one, but that's why I like you Steven. :)

I attended the same seminary as a few members here, so I think that they set through the same lectures and probably hold the same views at least on the nature of these things.

When I was just a young pup (not too young and not too much a pup) I took an undergraduate class on theology. The professor was Elmer Towns (one of the co-founders of Liberty University). At the start he defined theology (and the different areas under theology).

Biblical theology as a branch of theology (all theology should be biblical, but speaking of a branch of theology) deals with the text of Scripture in a limited view (not the whole of Scripture).

Systematic theology is built on Biblical Theology (it is found first and foremost on Scripture) but looks at Scripture as a whole and implements extra-biblical means to develop doctrines. Systematic Theology uses reasoning, philosophy and makes use of things like historic theology, and historical/ scientific developments. Systematic theology is where doctrines are developed and address the questions that are being asked.

Take the Doctrine of the Trinity, for example. What was being asked (actually challenged) was assumptions and biblical ideas that had not been presented as a complete doctrine previously. People had to wrestle not only with Scripture but also philosophical ideas concerning terms like "persons" and "nature". They had to reason out Scripture and come up with a working doctrine to express how they determined Scripture to teach (in an overall sense) about the Trinity.

Calvinism is like this. Calvinism looks to the same Scripture that non-Calvinists look to. But in addition to Scripture there are questions that have to be asked in regard to Calvinism as a theology. What is sin, exactly? What type of justice is divine justice? Can sin be transferred? What effect does sin have on human nature? What is human nature? And the list goes on.

There is an inherit flaw in theology - that is the human condition. We cannot comprehend the mind of God except insofar as God has revealed Himself to us. This does not mean that Calvinism is wrong. It does not mean that Arminianism is wrong. What we have to do is look at the process, the philosophy, the reasoning and compare this to Scripture. And we will each make different determinations.

I see. My big difference is that I treat all historical sources as suggestive, including ecumenical councils, but my arguments must be founded in scripture. Long study of the bible is the first and last, but not only, tool of the theologian. So far I agree with the councils, but if I differed even slightly, I know I need an avalanche of scripture to defend my view. I'll even go so far as to say I checked the doctrine of the trinity a few years ago, and felt it was supported by a conclusive avalanche of scripture.
 

Steven Yeadon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You're the only one, but that's why I like you Steven. :)

I attended the same seminary as a few members here, so I think that they set through the same lectures and probably hold the same views at least on the nature of these things.

When I was just a young pup (not too young and not too much a pup) I took an undergraduate class on theology. The professor was Elmer Towns (one of the co-founders of Liberty University). At the start he defined theology (and the different areas under theology).

Biblical theology as a branch of theology (all theology should be biblical, but speaking of a branch of theology) deals with the text of Scripture in a limited view (not the whole of Scripture).

Systematic theology is built on Biblical Theology (it is found first and foremost on Scripture) but looks at Scripture as a whole and implements extra-biblical means to develop doctrines. Systematic Theology uses reasoning, philosophy and makes use of things like historic theology, and historical/ scientific developments. Systematic theology is where doctrines are developed and address the questions that are being asked.

Take the Doctrine of the Trinity, for example. What was being asked (actually challenged) was assumptions and biblical ideas that had not been presented as a complete doctrine previously. People had to wrestle not only with Scripture but also philosophical ideas concerning terms like "persons" and "nature". They had to reason out Scripture and come up with a working doctrine to express how they determined Scripture to teach (in an overall sense) about the Trinity.

Calvinism is like this. Calvinism looks to the same Scripture that non-Calvinists look to. But in addition to Scripture there are questions that have to be asked in regard to Calvinism as a theology. What is sin, exactly? What type of justice is divine justice? Can sin be transferred? What effect does sin have on human nature? What is human nature? And the list goes on.

There is an inherit flaw in theology - that is the human condition. We cannot comprehend the mind of God except insofar as God has revealed Himself to us. This does not mean that Calvinism is wrong. It does not mean that Arminianism is wrong. What we have to do is look at the process, the philosophy, the reasoning and compare this to Scripture. And we will each make different determinations.

Thank you for ther explanation.

I'll add that I think historical sources can be treated as non apostolic Gospel by those in a tradition of Christianity founded by a famous teacher. To my knowledge that is almost all of them. This reminds me of rabbanical Judaism's Mishnah. We should never reference theologians with authority but reference how their works make sense of scripture.
 

George Antonios

Well-Known Member
But I did not mean it that way.. Perhaps the inferiority of your reasoning missed the preeminence of my intellect. It was not smugness because of my humility. In fact, if I have any attribute that surpasses the character of those on this board it is humility. I am proud of my humility and anti-smugness. You don't have to apologize. I know you mean it way deep down, even if you don't know it yet, and that's all that matters. :D

(I really did not mean the comment as smugness, I meant sometimes it does no good to argue).

Funny. And it was smug. And we all know it. Moving on.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Funny. And it was smug. And we all know it. Moving on.
It really was not smug on my part, but I do understand how it could be taken that way. I had one thought in mind but it seems you (probably others) saw something I did not intend in my words. Such is the problem of communication (especially this type).

Given your assumption I suspect you are King James Version only (or at least prefer that version).

Sometimes the beliefs we hold forces us to assume things about other people that is not true. I think that is what happened here. My example (KJVO) was ultimately a poor choice but it was chosen because I was unaware it was a view held on this thread.

I was being kind (trying to be anyway) by my initial dismissal of the charge of smugness. That's all. I did not think the accusation an error worth addressing (I am not that important). As it has continued I thought it best to clear the air. You misjudged my intent based on your own views and expectations.
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
George Antonios,

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.

You say that, Calvinists do not.

God says: "I give man a free will which can, in many [not all] areas thwart my free will for that man."
No, you say that, Scripture says no such thing anywhere. You post it like it is mentioned somewhere in scripture, it is not.

Calvinism says: "Oh no your Sovereign Majesty! You are more sovereign than that. I didn't have a free will till you regenerated me"

That is not what Calvinism says...you say it.

God says: "Volitional faith is not a work in my estimation"
No, you said that not God.

Calvinism says: "Oh no Sovereign Majesty! I'm more humble than that because I esteem even pre-regeneration faith as a work"

No Calvinist says that. What is this a strawman fest?
God says: "I elect those I foreknew would believe on my elect Son"[/QUOTE]

No biblical Calvinist says this. You say it, but you are not really acquainted with biblical Calvinism. Go ahead, show me John Owen, or John Murray saying this.
 

Reynolds

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
To answer the problems of how God works in history given the claims of scripture I have created the following theory to test.

My theory is that God uses single predestination to choose certain elect individuals from before birth. This is equivalent to the special grace shown to those like Isaac and Jacob. God may also be using double predestination concerning certain individuals who seem destined to perdition from before birth such as Pharaoh, Judas, the Antichrist, and the False Prophet. However, God has made it so that most of His creatures are saved through a resistible Call to faith, a Call to faith that always requires mercy and compassion on God’s part. A Call that originates from God through Nature, Law, or Gospel and must find its resolution in Jesus Christ and the Cross. A Call the vast majority of humanity has rejected. God also hardens people, potentially to damnation, for His own purposes, as in the case of Pharaoh. A hardening that may be removed at a later time in a person or group’s lifetimes, as I argued happened to the Jews of the apostolic era in a previous thread on Romans 9-11.

Thus, I agree with Arminianism that God uses Synergism at all.

The key problem facing this theory is whether the Bible disallows synergism. Is monergism the only way in which God works according to the bible?

Although, I affirm some of Arminiansism, I must believe the following, despite this.

1. Reasoned choice is not the highest good. No where does the bible say that.

2. God does give false options, look at the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in Eden. Everything was permissible in Adam and Eve's innocent state except one bad thing that carried a death penalty.

3. God is omniscient according to scripture, open theism is thus in error. I provide scriptures to prove God is omniscient,
14 Bible verses about God, Omniscience Of

4. God never looked forward to see who would love him to then create the cosmos. That is an evil idea that allows great boasting before God. The idea of looking forward in time to choose people based on merit is not found in scripture at all.

5. The will is clearly degraded before salvation according to scripture. Any refutation of universal double predestination must include God’s previent mercy, compassion, and Call. Romans 1 through Romans 8 shows the Law cannot be kept, that is why we need the Cross. Even then, Romans 7-8 are clear that without Life by the Spirit it is impossible to be holy and obedient. We are changed forever when the Holy Spirit comes in us at salvation. Thus, free will is given a holy life by the Holy Spirit.

6. Calvinism is correct, Romans 9 makes it clear that God must show mercy and compassion in choosing one for salvation to be saved. However, there are verses indicating God wants all saved.

7. Calvinism is correct that double predestination is not beyond God's character according to Romans 9. If He wanted children of wrath He could do so, and what right has clay to complain?

8. The mind cannot save us from besetting sin as explained in Romans 7:21-23,

9. God does not desire all saved equally. There is no other explanation if Jesus can make this remark in Matthew 11:22-24,
22 Nevertheless I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will descend to Hades; for if the [a]miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day. 24 Nevertheless I say to you that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for you.”

Arminians too often say, "Let God be good!" To this I must retort with the Reformers: "Let God be God.

10. Another important point to make is that Romans 8:4-17 makes it abundantly clear that free will is given a holy life by the Holy Spirit.
They are both right on total depravity. Past that, one is right and the other wrong.
 

Agent47

Active Member
Site Supporter
Here is reality.

Evil exists, and God exists. Therefore God wills evil to exist. If God did not will for evil to exist it would not exist. Evil is not good but it is good that there is evil because it brings ultimate glory to God as his attributes are put on display.

Arminianism tries to give God a pass by explaining away evil but the problem is it all leads back to God. Now, God is not evil, God is only good, but you have to say He wills evil to exist.

Arminianism rationale for evil makes more sense than Calvinism. Evil exists because of free will. God made us with a level of autonomy and from this we choose evil. God allowing us autonomy is not God willing us evil anymore than sinners perishing is God willing part of his creation to perish
 

Reformed1689

Well-Known Member
Arminianism rationale for evil makes more sense than Calvinism. Evil exists because of free will. God made us with a level of autonomy and from this we choose evil. God allowing us autonomy is not God willing us evil anymore than sinners perishing is God willing part of his creation to perish
Here's the problem with that. God still had to create the possibility didn't He? If he did not will evil to exist why would you create the possibility?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top