Calvinist and Arminiam Debate

Civilized debates

I think we should have these debates. They probably are inevitable, anyway. However, I think they would be a lot more civilized if people did not come into them with an axe to grind. They would be more profitable if those on one side would really try hard to understand the other side not just the way they think the other believes and push "logical conclusions" at them, but much more the thought process and motivation behind why others would believe differently. I mean, we know that these fellow believers are not speaking maliciously or being led by the devil.

Also, two views may seem at opposite ends of the spectrum while the actual core of why they are so distinct are actually very close, just with a slight emphasis on one area while everything else logically falls into place.

So, instead of coming with an agenda and telling others what they believe, try deeply and intently to understand the thoughts of others and maybe you just may accept the views of others as feasible and legitimate (not necessarily correct).

 

Yes, there should be. Talking to others about God is good. Listening to others would be even better.

 

[SIZE=-1]The Puritan William Gurnall (who I assume was a Calvinist) said in his Whole Armor of God that getting wrapped up in such debates were the devil's work; a way to get Christians to divide. I love that book (actually 3 volumes, I think), but this is one of the very few points on which I disagree. I think it's a very important issue and needs to be discussed.
[/SIZE]

 

Yes, npet, I agree and voted 'NO' because until God is ready for one to see such great doctrines in their whole truth ones eyes, ears and heart will remain closed and the argument is to no avail except to heighten tension.I was involved in one on BB over a year or so ago and it ended up being closed down for that very reason. As we've seen demonstrated so well on discussions about such so far on this board recently passion can cause one to lose their cool and to speak in a most unchristian like manner! I've been truly amazed and disappointed at some of what I've seen here by supposed christians. If one spends much time in prayer, seeking God and reading His word, sincerely desiring His truth they will come to find truth. Jer 29:13
Gurnall was definitely puritan. My copy of The Christian's Whole Armor is falling apart and is such a great 3 volumes!!

 

Yes, I think Gurnall makes a very good point. And I do think it OFTEN needlessly causes division, anger, etc. However, division isn't always a bad thing (I'd elaborate with bible quotes but I have a herneated disc that is causing extreme pain and numbness in my right arm, so it's difficult to type). And it is never wrong to declare the whole truth of God. So I have to disagree with his point if it's taken as a rule.

 

Both are extremes. Neither is sound Biblical interpretation. It is shouting at the wind to debate them. If they must, let them create their own blog. Perhaps, with the heated exchanges that take place, it will go up in smoke.

 

Grace and Peace Everyone,

Reviewing my posts I believe I have been able to hold a discussion concerning Calvinism and Arminianism without insults and rhetoric. I found it very interesting and ultimately boiling down to a difference in outlook which distorts the whole interpretation of Scripture. I don't see Arminianism as an extreme as it simply agrees the the bulk of Calvinist Biblical exegesis 'except' in viewing salvation as simply cause and effect determinism. It broadens the prespective to influence and response. That is it, period.

Peace and God Bless.

 

What the debate is really about?

Although so-called "Calvinism" has five points, it seems that the debate centers mainly on one, and the others follow from it: Limited Atonement or better expressed as Particular Redemption. IMO, the non-Calvinist is not so much a "free will" advocate for its own merit, but rather tenaciously clings to "free will" out of opposition to the implications of particular redemption. "Free will" is mainly a necessary explanation for a "general atonement" for which the scope is universal, yet its application is not.

To the non-Calvinist it seems harsh and anti-missions-minded for the Calvinist actually to declare that some cannot be saved (or rather will not).

The Calvinist may feel the non-Calvinist is being self-aggrandising by clinging tightly to "free will" when it is only because of staunch opposition to "limited atonement."

Would I be correct in inferring that the whole debate centers on the L and stems from it?

 

In most places I have debated, I would say yes I would agree. I would disagree that this is the case with non-Calvinist on this board. I would say it is more on election then atonement on here. All other points seem to fall in line with the view one holds on election.

Another funny thing I have found is that the missions-minded folks, is more Calvinist. They seem to speak in favor of missions more so then non-Calvinist...which is kinda new to me. In most cases, as you have said, Calvinist are said to be anti-missions by non-Calvinist, until both sides talk and find they agree pretty close. Not so, on this board for whatever reason. However, I can't help but believe it was because of the subject matter, that they have claimed this.

 

Let us not forget that the only reason there are five points to calvinism is that their origin at the Synod of Dort was to refute the false five claims of arminianism!
Read the history! Calvinists clearly know that calvinism is not limited to five points but encompasses the whole of scripture and is fully centered on glorifying God and His word in every way!

 

I rarely see calvinists on the missions forum. why?

 

U because of L

I know that most of the talk is about election, but somehow I feel that many non-Calvinists would be more than happy to accept the U if it didn't imply the L. Few want to be told that they are not ascribing to God His due glory by giving man credit for salvation; however, they reject the concept of "election" because it implies "particular redemption" and the concept that some are ultimately unsavable, and some just can't stomach that. I still think that the whole conflict ultimately boils down to the L in one form or another.

 

Double post. (Don't ask me how I got the double before the intended one!) :flower:

 

You are wrong here. I'm a missionary and I'm not a Calvinist. If the Calvinists on the BB are missions minded, why do so few of you ever show up on the missions/evangelism thread? I don't remember ever seeing you there, Jarthur001! And when you replied to a debate thread elsewhere asking about Calvinists and missions, all you did was give a long theological lecture, nothing about actual Calvinist missions efforts!

I don't think we should shut down the C/A debates, but I do wish they were in their own forum like they used to be.

As for me, the Calvinists on the BB have: called my grandfather a liar and insulted his integrity; questioned my integrity; questioned my motives; asked me if I was willing to "take the consequences" of what I had written (I immediately said yes, and then the Calvinist never answered back); etc. And all of this in spite of the fact that I have never even participated in the C/A debates!! And I have no plans to, due to this kind of nastiness.

It's a good thing I have a dear friend from college 30 years ago who is a Calvinist, and a Calvinist friend here on the BB, or I might think they were all that way!

 

Hear hear, webdog. I started a thread on the missions forum some time ago asking the Calvinists how they did evangelism, and it quickly petered out--did not turn into a discussion, really. And one Calvinist has now twice appeared on the missions forum thinking it was a debate thread and turning it into a C/A debate.

Hey, I'd fellowship with them if they came!

 

I would say that Calvinism is much broader than the 5 points used to combat the 5 points of the Remonstrats . But since we are on the subject of the points -- the T is certainly the most important one . Every thing else follows logically and biblically from that proposition . Arminians , Semi-Pelagians , Biblicists whatever they can be called -- don't really give a scriptural answer to it .

Non-Calvinists do not own up to history on the whole . They run away from incriminating facts -- which as J.C. Ryle has said are very inconvenient at times .

I really haven't posted all that much in the C and A threads as I used to . Some from the other side of the aisle are going over the same old tired accusations which have been addressed so painstakenly by the Calvinists here . It gets rather tedious . I really doubt the sincerity of a few .

 

I voted no. For one thing, the majority of Christians who hold to Arminianism are Methodists, based on the teachings of John Wesly. Although I understand that some Baptists hold to this doctrine. As one who is a Calvinist to some measure, I do not debate or force people to hold to my viewpoint. As a member for one year on the CF, with over 1500 posts, I get tired of showing people that I have nothing to do with my salvation as does Arminianism. The way I read the Bible it tells me that:

"And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:"-John 16:8

I had nothing to do with my salvation except obeying the Holy Spirit and getting to the altar. Yes I believe man is utterly depraved to such an extent that he in and of himself, could not come to God without the Holy Spirit. And while I'm at it, I also reject the notion of Synergism. I'm monergistic all the way.

Now that I've said my piece, I'll leave the debating to you all.

I know that we are:

"But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day;" -Heb. 13:3

This does not exhort the body, this divides it.

Till all are one.

 

John, I suppose you were referring to me. Things I'd like to correct with you and with some, and I am not being confrontational here, just correcting.
I am not a Calvinist.
Calvinist means 'a follower of Calvin', just as Christian means a follower of Christ. A Calvinist is one who holds to the Doctrines of Grace, may or may not be a paedo-baptist, may or may not be somebody who holds to the ridiculous doctrine of Absolute Predestination, and believes that Christ is Savior of a people whom He elected from eternity past, but which election and Saviorhood takes effect only when one is regenerated thru the preaching of, hearing of, and believing of the gospel. Some Calvinists practice open communion, some close, some closed, some may or may not use modern musical instruments, some use only piano and organs, and all have Sunday Schools. PB's practice only close communion, the majority of us do not use any musical instruments of any kind, nor have Sunday Schools.

Primitive Baptists hold to the Doctrine of Grace. As Primitive Baptists we only baptize adult believers who have given evidence of grace and this baptism only by immersion, like Calvinists there are those among us who hold to the Doctrine of Absolute Predestination, but we believe that Christ is Savior of a people whom He elected from eternity past, and that when He came to save His people He DID exactly that, because that was one of the reasons His name was to be called Jesus.

We separate salvation from regeneration in the sense that salvation is a finished act, from eternity past, else how could God take Moses, Elijah, and Enoch to heaven except for the blood of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world that covers the sins of His people in all ages, which salvation was sealed in and made manifest in time.
Regeneration, on the other hand, to Primitive Baptists, is that act of the Holy Spirit by which He quickens those elect children of God, born in enmity with God here in time because of their inherited fallen nature, but quickened without any use of means. Not the preacher, not the teacher, not the pastor, not the gospel, not any translation of the Bible. This quickening and the time of this quickening is solely and purely that of the Holy Spirit.

That is why we are perceived as anti-missions, because we do not send out missionaries according to the purpose of missions as defined by missionary societies or other Baptist or Episcopalian or whatever churches, and that is to save souls in the eternal sense.

We believe in evangelism, and we believe that God still separates and calls out men to do such in foreign lands, but the purpose is to preach a gospel as good news of a finished salvation done by a successful savior, to a people already known to God and separated for the purpose of starting a church in that locale, and if one is separated by God as preacher and called to do this, then one is to go immediately not waiting till he gets a diploma, not waiting till he gets a Ph.D., or a Th.D., not making the rounds of churches to get support and pledges of support, but immediately. Else the Bible is not true when it said, "my God shall supply all your need according to the riches of his glory by Christ Jesus".



We are not hyper-Calvinists therefore who believe that there is no longer any need to send out the gospel. We believe that the gospel and believing in it results in timely salvation from false religions, false doctrines, and false creeds, in timely salvation from the consequences of a sinful life being lived on account of ignorance of God's precepts, and in a congregation, amidst a crooked and perverse generation, where God is glorified in their midst, in their lives, and in their worship.

Sorry for the lecture, but, time and again Primitive Baptists have been classified Calvinists, and labeled hyper-Calvinists, and I feel obliged to give this clarification.

My fellow PB's in this board may correct me if I have misrepresented our doctrines.

As for you and me, John, I made a mistake on the fellowship forum, and it will not happen again.

If I am among those "Calvinists", or am the "Calvinist" who have insulted your grandfather, pm me what I said, and I will be man enough to make a public admission and apology here on this board.

 

Hello John of Japan,

I’m not here to say my dog is better then your dog. I said I thought it was funny that in the c/a debates I have been in, for the most part both sides agree on missions, thought the Arminian starts out saying the Calvinist do not care for missions. And what makes this board strange is we have Arminian’s giving reasons not to go to the mission field. This I have never seen before till now. However, for the most part I would say Arminianism holds to missions but so do most Calvinist churches.

As to the missions threads. I can only speak for myself, but it would be wrong for you to think I have never been on that thread. I go there weekly. It is not a debate thread, and some have tried to start debates there and was stopped from doing so. My post there are fewer, but this does not mean I do not agree with most of the post. Still, I have been there posting a few times. My post here on this thread was addressing the c/a debates as the OP had asked. In the c/a debates is where you find Arminian saying there is no need to go.

You have shared you grandfathers story. You have no idea about my family, but please let me share. My father planted 3 churches. Each church was a heavy mission minded. They never grow too much in size, for the young would leave to go to the field. One of those churches we were told by a few Baptist board, was in the top 5 churches in mission giving in the nation. This church was about 230-250 in size. But there was good reason for this. We had 3 pastors and none of them took money from the church. The church building was paid for and given to the church. We just paid the power bill and the rest went to missions. The church and many of its members would get audited every other year, for the giving was much higher then national levels. My dad was called in to the IRS many times to prove he gave that much. He preached in the church, held Bible studies each day to around 20 men at lunch, were he worked. He also had services at nursing homes each week.

Ever church I have been a member to, was big on missions. I went to a church for 25 years that had a Christian school of 250 kids and membership around 800. The giving to missions was higher then local giving. The church I go to now ordained 8 new young men in the last 12 mouths. Half will be pastors and the others are evangelists or missionaries. There were 2 other young men that were ordained this year they grow up in the church, but they had their ordination at other churches. The church I now go to also supports nearly 30 missionaries. This is a small 300-400 member church. Again they keep leaving to “go tell” the good news. My pastor’s calling is to raise young men to Go OUT!!

I would never be a member at church that had not a heart for missions. My girls go each summer to the field. Sometimes it is in the states, other times it is across the sea. Sometimes it is for 2 weeks and other times it was almost 3 months. 40% of the kids that grow up with my girls are now on the mission field.

Now, you may have a bigger better dog to show then I and that would be good. Its not to say I have a better record then you. I know I could do more myself. I have been, and my heart burns now to go. Maybe someday I will. But let it be known Calvinist are very mission-minded they only address it in other ways then you.