Calvinism vs Arminianism? Why either/or? Why not both?

[The Archangel]

s this argument worth fighting over when we should be spending that vocal energy actually sharing the Gospel?

I'm channeling my inner DA Carson with this answer, so though I whole-heartedly agree with what I've written below, know that the articulation of my position has been heavily influence by Carson (and others).

The issue is, among other things, a matter assurance. For those who hold to non-reformed theology, the issue of assurance of salvation rests with the believer himself (or herself). For those who espouse reformed theology, on the other hand, the issue of security ultimately rests with God.

RC Sproul, I believe, once described our [reformed] eternal security in terms of a mother holding her baby. It isn't the baby's strength that matters, for the baby has none. It is the mother's strength that keeps the baby secure in her arms.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Van]

I have noticed very quickly on this forum that people tend to wrongfully assume that there are only two options, Calvinism or Arminianism. People tend to assume that if someone is not a Calvinist, they must be Arminian and vice versa. Did theology not exist prior to Calvin?

I mean no offense to anyone. However, I have noticed there is much ignorance on all sides in the fact that Calvinist really don't know what Arminians believe, Arminians don't know what Calvinists believe, and neither know there are actually more than two options. Otherwise, why did it take more that 1500 years for Calvin (or Arminius) to finally get things right?

So my question is this, is it possible that both Calvin AND Arminius are right? Could they both be wrong in some areas? If so, where? Third and most importantly, is this argument worth fighting over when we should be spending that vocal energy actually sharing the Gospel?

I see we are on at least page 4, so a disclaimer is necessary, I am responding to the OP only and have not looked at the follow-on posts.

I am a non-Cal, but not a full blooded Arminian. I believe the P of the tulip, OSAS, is valid theology. I believe the Arminians are also right in their beliefs that Christ died for all mankind, and not only for the elect. Of course, He died for both. And like Arminians, I believe we were chosen individually for salvation through faith in the truth, thus a conditional election..

However, I part ways with both views, in that firstly, I believe fallen unregenerate people can receive, understand, and respond to spiritual milk, according to 1 Corinthians 3:1-3, where Paul spoke to new Christians as to "men of flesh" using milk.

Secondly, I believe we are chosen individually for salvation during our lifetime, not before the foundation of the world. Thus my view of Ephesians 1:4 differs from both the Cals and the Arms. This verse addresses the corporate election of the target group of God's redemption plan, thus when God chose His Redeemer, He chose in Him corporately those His Redeemer would redeem.

 

[delizzle]

Truth is always worth fighting for.

True. However, when we now have literally thousands of Christian denominations who claim to have the truth, that tends to be counter productive.

 

[delizzle]

Says whom?

In short, Atheists. I spend a lot of time on atheist forums. The Thinking Atheist is one of them. Many of the atheists were former Calvinist. Most of the rest were Catholic. I know I may come across as a troll at times. I am sure TCassidy and others are pulling their hair out. However, the questions that I raised and the comments that I have made are the very same reasons why they are no longer Christians. Believe be when I say that the information that I receive here on this thread may be used to bring a lost sheep home.

 

[delizzle]

Then you don't understand what a calvinist is.

Most Particular or Reformed Baptists call themselves calvinists but none of them accept Calvin's views on church polity or infant baptism.

By definition, a Calvinist is one who follows the theological teachings of John Calvin and his successors. It doesn't seem logical that people would follow someone they believed to be wrong. It was an assumption. But a reasonable assumption in my opinion.

 

[The Archangel]

By definition, a Calvinist is one who follows the theological teachings of John Calvin and his successors. It doesn't seem logical that people would follow someone they believed to be wrong. It was an assumption. But a reasonable assumption in my opinion.

That isn’t necessarily the case. “Calvinism” is not about Calvin, per se. it usually refers primarily to a reformed soteriology.

As for myself, I rarely if ever read Calvin. I’ve never read The Institutes. If I have any debt to Calvin it is to look into the text of Scripture to see what it actually says, not what I want it to say.

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Van]

Many of the atheists were former Calvinist. Most of the rest were Catholic.

While my interaction with Atheists is limited, I too have noted they use Calvinism as a whipping boy. They show how Calvinism seems flawed, but are unwilling to engage in discussion of non-Cal doctrine.

So the same pattern you (Delizzle) identified in the OP, that people seem willing to offer copy and paste arguments against Chiristianity (Atheists) or non-Cals (Cal leaning folks) which actually are not applicable to non-Cal/Arm folks and non-RCC folks.

 

[delizzle]

I am of the opinion that all 5 points are interlocked and each depends on the other 4. But I know a lot of good men, including theologians, who disagree with me.

As I posted originally, I dealt with each point separately. "You either accept T or deny it" etc.

I know many fine Christian people who accept 4 or 3 points but reject the others.

Even Jacobus Arminius was a 4 pointer. He disagreed only with Unconditional Election, and taught election was based on the Foreknowledge of God's knowing that eventually that person would believe.

The Remonstrance was published after his death and reflects more the positions of his colleagues and students than his own.

The same is true of "Calvinism." The so-called "5 Points of Calvinism" published as the "Five Heads of Doctrine" by the Synod of Dort came out 54 years after Calvin died. And the "Five Heads" were later edited down to TULIP but that did not happen until the early years of the 20th century.

Okay....I see where the confusion is. I think we may be more on the same page than we first assumed. So let me clarify going back to my fruit analogy. You are correct that individually, T.U.L.I.P is a binary choice. You either like bananas or you don't. However, where I disagree is your assertion that if you don't like bananas, you must like apples. Here is a video about oranges. [emoji521][emoji16]

Btw...i do want to tell you that I appreciate your valuable contributions. I spend a lot of time on atheist forums and most of the comments and questions I have made have been the reasons why these atheist left the church. The information you provide will be used to hopefully bring a lost sheep home.

 

[TCassidy]

By definition, a Calvinist is one who follows the theological teachings of John Calvin and his successors.

Sorry, but that is incorrect. Most people who are called "Calvinists" accept the soteriological doctrine of Augustine of Hippo, writing in the 4th century ad.

The "5 Heads of Doctrine" - often called "Calvinism" were published 54 years after John Calvin died.

Reading the "Institutes of the Christian Religion" by John Calvin will show that Calvin departed from which is currently called "Calvinism" in several areas. One of my seminary professors, a Particular Baptist, once said, "Calvin was not a Calvinist." He was right.

 

[TCassidy]

True. However, when we now have literally thousands of Christian denominations who claim to have the truth, that tends to be counter productive.

Thousands? Uh, no. 234. Suggested reading: "Handbook of Denominations" by Frank Mead and Samuel Hill.

 

[delizzle]

Thousands? Uh, no. 234. Suggested reading: "Handbook of Denominations" by Frank Mead and Samuel Hill.

According to the national Catholic register, there are over 33,000 protestant denominations in the world.

We Need to Stop Saying That There Are 33,000 Protestant Denominations

 

[TCassidy]

According to the national Catholic register, there are over 33,000 protestant denominations in the world.

We Need to Stop Saying That There Are 33,000 Protestant Denominations

Actually your own source says differently. "There are not—repeat with me—there are not 33,000 Protestant denominations. There are not anywhere close to it. It is a myth that has taken hold by force of repetition, and it gets cited and recited by reflex; but it is based on a source that, even Catholics will have to concede, relies on too loose a definition of the word “denomination."

Suggested reading: "Handbook of Denominations" by Frank Mead and Samuel Hill.

 

[Reformed]

By definition, a Calvinist is one who follows the theological teachings of John Calvin and his successors. It doesn't seem logical that people would follow someone they believed to be wrong. It was an assumption. But a reasonable assumption in my opinion.

And one of the reasons I have been using the term Monergist vice Calvinist is to disarm opponents of Calvinism from making the charge that Calvinists believe everything Calvin espoused. Spurgeon famously said, "Calvinism is the Gospel" but no one would accused him of holding to paedobaptism or Presbyterian ecclesiology. Of course, opponents of Calvinism know this already but they love to poke Calvinists in the eye with this bogus charge.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[delizzle]

Actually your own source says differently. "There are not—repeat with me—there are not 33,000 Protestant denominations. There are not anywhere close to it. It is a myth that has taken hold by force of repetition, and it gets cited and recited by reflex; but it is based on a source that, even Catholics will have to concede, relies on too loose a definition of the word “denomination."

Suggested reading: "Handbook of Denominations" by Frank Mead and Samuel Hill.

Thank you. I will check out the book. But my point remains with "hundreds" of denominations all claiming to be right, it's counterproductive to the Church.

 

[Yeshua1]

How foolish of me to question the infallibility of the institutes of Calvin. Which brings me back to the purpose of this thread. There comes a point where a it is no longer really about Christ. Rather, it is about the brand of Christ. Ford vs Chevy, Calvinism vs Arminianism, Paul vs Apollos. Who's right? Don't get me wrong. John Calvin is hands down the greatest theologian of the reformation. But I would not say that his views are any better or worse than Augustine or Aquinas. But as the "big C" Church, we need to ask ourselves if we love our brand of church more than being the Church.

Actually, we calvinists do not get the theology from Calvin, nor Augustine, even though both of them affirmed it, but from Jesus and the Apostles themselves!

 

[The Archangel]

Thank you. I will check out the book. But my point remains with "hundreds" of denominations all claiming to be right, it's counterproductive to the Church.

It isn’t counterproductive if the splits are due to wrong doctrines or heresies.

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Yeshua1]

The reason why they won't admit that it's a false dilemma is because they believe that their Theology of Salvation (Soteriology) is 100% correct. They believe everything else is wrong

Not totally wrong as in nothing right, but not as correct in regards to salvation as Calvinism would be....

 

[delizzle]

And one of the reasons I have been using the term Monergist vice Calvinist is to disarm opponents of Calvinism from making the charge that Calvinists believe everything Calvin espoused. Spurgeon famously said, "Calvinism is the Gospel" but no one would accused him of holding to paedobaptism or Presbyterian ecclesiology. Of course, opponents of Calvinism know this already but they love to poke Calvinists in the eye with this bogus charge.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Pixel 2 XL huh....how are you liking it? [emoji5]

 

[delizzle]

It isn’t counterproductive if the splits are due to wrong doctrines or heresies.

The Archangel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You spend some time on the atheist forum you would see otherwise. The division in the church is making Christ a laughing stock for many outsiders.

 

[Yeshua1]

That's not what I said. Is the Gospel only found in Calvinism?

Calvinism is not the Gospel, but the bet way to understanding what the Gospel means!