Calvinism vs Arminianism: The Real Difference

Clark Pinnock,
" The fall of man is an eloquent refutation to the theory that God's will is always done."
" Personal fellowship of the kind envisioned in the Gospel ONLY EXISTS WHEN CONSUMATED IN A FREE DECISION. If we wish to understand God's grace as personally addressed to His creatures, we MUST comprehend it in DYNAMIC, NON-MANIPULATIVE NONCOERCIVE TERMS, like the Bible does.

"Human freedom is the precondition of moral and intellectual responsibility."

Geisler: "Denial of free will makes God the author of sin." "Without it (free will) men are not responsible for their actions."

You're right, I can't find anybody that actually uses those words, but you must admit that the effect of such statements is "Without free will, there is no human responsibility." Also, you must admit that, according to your view, God WOULD NOT violate man's free will, even if He could, or else that makes God unloving, people puppets, etc.

It's closer to the exact truth than the caricatures of Calvinism that exist in this very forum. I would hope you'll quickly rise to challenge those that try to argue them with equal indignation. We're told we make God the author of sin, men puppets and robots, I've even seen people here that say we believe men can be saved without Christ. The fact is that Arminianism is committed to man's free will. At least the Open Theists are honest about where Arminianism leads.

It is also true, that they did not derive those views from exegesis, they simply assumed those things. Are you arguing that they believed in libertine free will as derived from an exegesis of the Scriptures? If so, then, by all means show us this mystery text that not one single Arminian to this day can find. The ANF also believed many other things that today we label heresy, like baptismal regeneration. Are we wrong to repudiate baptismal regeneration? Will you seriously argue that we should abandon congregationalism for a collegial/episcopalian church government. Are the non-historic premillenialists and non-amillenialists among us wrong too? The Ante-Nicene Church did write extensive ecclesiologies that discussed the perpetuity and indefectibility of the church that were dependent on the assumptions of the very things you say they denied. They simply did not apply them to the area of soteriology. They also spent a great deal of time combating more cardinal heresies, namely the Anti-Trinitarians. Read Thomas Oden on Patristic theology before making statements that display your manifest ack of understanding of Patristic theology and the motivations for it. In his three volumes on God (The Living God, The Word of Life, and Life in the Spirit, Oden addresses this issues. He is an Arminian, and he specializes in Patristic theology. His ecclesiology section in the last volume is very interesting, because it quotes extensively from the ANF. You couldn't tell the quotes on the indefectibility and imperishability of the church from a treatise on perseverance of the saints in a Reformed theology text today unless you knew their origin. In other words, many of the doctrines that you say were "unknown" were taught, articulated, and applied to the Church as an institution, not the individuals in it. Thus, there WAS an understanding of these doctrines in the ANF.)

The issue is what Scripture says, not what the Ante-Nicene churches said, and, of what they did say, much of it is contradictory. I remind you that Semi-Pelagianism is and remains the position of Rome in these matters do this day. It is you, not we, who have inherited her synergism.

You've changed God's word. It says that He is not willing that ANY should perish it does not say ANYONE. You who love lexicons and Greek grammar, go back and check what the antecedent to ANY is. It is the YOU / US of the previous clause. God is holding back the second coming, because He is not willing that any OF YOU or of US perish. A basic grammar shows that all people without exception are not in view.

And "all men" has a context. What is the context here? Again, taking Scripture from its context lends no credibility to your position. If God desires all men to be saved and DECREES IT consequent to that desire, then all men would be saved. You MUST affirm that God's will goes undone in such a case. God is, therefore, not the sovereign of this universe. Man is. You have made God dependent on man.

And no Calvinist says otherwise. The issue is whether or not God decrees this consequent to His desire. This is what we mean when we say there are two wills in God. One is His will of decree. One is His moral/preceptive will.

The problem, here, icthus, is your own inconsistency. This is issue a problem for you as well, and this is what Monergist is trying to get you consider. Think about your position.

You hold to the view that God foreknows who will choose Him and elects them based on His prior knowledge of their choice, correct? But here is where the problem arises in your system. No one could consistently say that God foreknew which sinners would be lost and then claim that it is not within God's will to allow these sinners to be lost. Why did He create them? He knew what their final destiny was even before He created them. With full knowledge that they would not chose Him, it is evidently within God's providence that some sinners be lost, so He obviously has some purpose in it which we human beings cannot fully discern. In your scheme, God had to create those that He knew would perish, even against His revealed will, yet this would make God subject to Fate. If you were consistent, you would apply the same conclusion you applies to the Reformed view to your own system, but this would be a fatal blow. Unfortunately, many people are content to remain inconsistent and cling to presuppositions that have been shown to be false.

 

[/QUOTE]Rom 3:11 no one understands; no one seeks for God. [/qb][/QUOTE]Again, you be wrong! You are citing text originally spoken of the jews and NOT THE GENTILES. Until you understand that you never will understand the truth! [/QB][/QUOTE]

Rom 3:9b-11 "for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; as it is written, 'There is none righteous, not even one; There is one who understands...'

It seems Paul is speaking of both Jews and Gentiles here, isn't he?

 

GeneMBridges

In the first place, I don't rate Pinnock at all, especially after he said the Bible has errors, and more recently, that God does not know the future. I agree with Geisler, that without free will, God would be the author of sin

You say that I have changed God's Word in 2 Peter 2:9. Quite a serious charge. I will refer you to the Greek Lexicon by Ardnt and Gingrich, where it says: "any one 2 Peter 3:9b" (page 827)

With regards to the 1 Timothy passage. You have chosen to take the Calvinistic routem, which as you have put it, actually does NOT teach what the context says. Open up 1 Timothy, and see how Paul begins chapter 2: "Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men,for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence" Can you see what he says in verse one? "be made for all men". Why are these? "for kings, and for all that are in authority..." Are you suggesting that "kings and all under authority", whom Paul means by "all men", are the "elect"? He then goes on to say: "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, Who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" Can anyone honsetly doubt that the "all men" here includes those referred to at the start of this chapter? Let the Bible speak for itself, and quit trying to squeeze your Calvinistic slant in to every Scripture. It clearly states here, that "God wills or desires, that ALL MEN be saved". NOT "all kinds of men", but "everyone without exception" For your information, A&G say here: "all men, everyone" (p.637)

 

That does not mean "God's main purpose is to maintian man's freewill", nor it is two wills, it is simply a recognition that God does not force us to anything - he wants all to come to him, but he wants us to do so freely.

 

One more thing, Gene, your interpretation of 2 Peter 3:9 is flawed. You say:

"God is holding back the second coming, because He is not willing that any OF YOU or of US perish."

In other words you are taking the "anyone" "all" to refer to the "elect"

Now, does this make any sense? Think about what you are saying. "God is not willing that any of the elect should perish". Why should He even "will" such a thing, seeing that the "elect" cannot perish? It makes complete nonsense to even speak about something that God does, that He would not even consider. Can you see the problem with your view of this verse? If you take the "anyone, all" to refer to just that, "everyone without exception", then there is no difficulty. I really can't see any other way in understanding this verse. I am not surprised that John Calvin rejected Pater as the author of this Epistle. What with this verse, and 2:1, which basically would destory Limited Atonement.

 

okie dokey Larry. By the way are you and Dr. Bob on other boards. Was doing a web search on forums and found Pastor Larry and Dr Bob on quite a few?

 

I am not on any other boards as Pastor Larry.

 

Rom 3:11 no one understands; no one seeks for God. </font>[/QUOTE]Again, you be wrong! You are citing text originally spoken of the jews and NOT THE GENTILES. Until you understand that you never will understand the truth! </font>[/QUOTE]And you clearly do not understand. The text you would apply only to Jews is used by Paul to apply to all persons or else vs 9 preceding it makes no sense. He cites Psalm 14 and 53 to support his contention that both Jews and Greeks alike are under sin. NNE understands, NNE seeks for God. </font>[/QUOTE]That doesn't change the fact of my statement. You see, the Jews rejected the Christ, the Gentiles welcomed the Christ! So in reality that which was said of the Jews hundreds of years earlier, is not necessarily true of the Gentiles who so eagerly received the Christ in Paul's day.

 

The whole point of this discussion is that God's plan of salvation for man does not requires man's intervention for it to be successful, it does however require man's faith for the individual man to realize success in being saved. God does not give to man the faith that saves! He does however give man every reason to believe unto faith that saves. If you know anything at all about God's created man, you will realize that you cannot give to man that which he does not want! If he does not want to be saved God won't interfere with him. If he does, God welcomes him with open arms and eternal love.

 

I think that is one of the major difference between calvin's teachings and the Bible. Christians believe that you do have choice, love is not forced, choosing is not forced, drawing is not forced. God has revealed Himself by the Word, Nature and the HS. What man does with it is up to him. I will not tell God He is not soveriegn because He gave man a choice. I don't when I see those who disobeyed Him in the Bible when He commanded them to do otherwise. NO, I see that man rebels but His will is still done.

 

1. "Believe" and this is what will happen.

2. "Do not believe" and this is what will happen.

Ultimately sovereign.

 

yep! regardless how we veiw His decisions we know He is sovereign.

 

This seems like a good place to post the DIFFERENCE between 4-5PT Calvinism (sorry 3 pointers)... and the Arminian view.

First the Calvinist view -- the end result once the world has ended given the case where you OWN precious little girl is the one that DID NOT go to heaven.

The Calvinist sees his precious little daughter suffering torments of hell and rushes up to God and says "...." (Calvinist may fill in the blank here).

Arminians may fill in the blank by QUOTING a post from a Calvinist talking about how God cares for those that are not going to heaven.


In Christ,

Bob

 

First my turn.

5 and 4 pt Calvinist Future Scenario:
“Showing” the requirement of 4 and 5 point Calvinism to have the “luxury” of a cold disregard for the non-elect “When the non-Elect are finally Known”. This scenario simply removes that “luxury” in order to emphasize the point 4-5 Pt Calvinism makes about God Himself – vs the view that “God so Loved the World that He Gave…Really” (something that both Arminians and 3-pt Calvinists seem to Agree on).

Here is a quote showing the fact of arbitrary selection accepted by Calvinists today.

 

Speaking about the "will of God". Here is what a Calvinist says about God's will in Salvation of souls.

"we are told that God is not willing that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9), yet apparently he does not actually will for all to be saved, since not everyone is saved" (Millard Erickson; Introducing Christian Doctrine, p.117)

On the one hand, "God is not willing that any should perish" (it is interesting to note that Erickson sees this verse in 2 Peter to refer NOT only to the "elect"); but, on the other hand, "He does not actually will for all to be saved" What does this make God? Is He confused? Or, is He not serious with what He actually "wills"? Or, Is He playing with the lives of people, like in the general offer of the Gospel to "everyone without exception", when He knows that He does not actually "will" the salvation of all He is offering eternal life to? This is the twisted concept of God that Calvinsim has. And yet there are still many misguided souls that believe that Calvinism is based on the Holy Bible.

I have read, that Calvinism teaches, that in God's "revealed will", He desires the salvation of everyone; and, in His "secret will", He really only desires that the elect be saved.

If this is not blatant heresy, I don't know what is.

 

It would certainly make for a sleazy marketing campaign were Enron to do it with some kind of PRIZE offer.

 

You certainly hit the nail on the head there. Your citation of Erickson is not blatant heresy, thus revealing by your own admission that you don't know what is ... You have to admit you walked right in to that one and left the door wide open!! I am just tweaking you a bit there ... but seriously ...

... Erickson is right. The failure to understand the difference between God's decreed will and his desirative will has led many to be confused.

Consider in the OT
Psalm 33:11 The counsel of the LORD stands forever, The plans of His heart from generation to generation.
Isaiah 14:24 The LORD of hosts has sworn saying, "Surely, just as I have intended so it has happened, and just as I have planned so it will stand,
Isaiah 46:10 'My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure';

And many more could be listed but the forum wiouldn't handle them all. The point is that the OT declares that all God's will will be accomplished.

Therefore, if 2 PEter 3:9 is talking about that will spoken of in these verses, than all would be saved. That is clearly not the case, so it is clear that God's will has another dimension.

 

</font>[/QUOTE]Bob, You said you were going to post a Calvinist who admits arbitrary election and then quoted me. Why? I don't believe in arbitrary election.

What you quoted was a direct refutation of your old, tired scenario that wasn't true when you posted it the first time, and certainly hasn't gained any truth over time. Your position makes God a respecter of persons because he respects those who choose him. That is unbiblical.

God's choice is not arbitrary. It is for his own glory. That fact that our minds are too finite and uneducated to understand that is our problem. It does not mean that God is arbitrary.

Next time you say you are going to support something with a quote, make sure the quote supports what you say it will. Don't quote me (or anyone else) in support of something they do not believe. That is unethical.