Has anyone else ever just been unsure about Calvinism and Arminianism?

[Internet Theologian]

I was unsure and unsettled about my non-Calvinist doctrine for years and knew something was amiss in that shallow teaching. Then I was unsure about Calvinism when I heard of it, but not adamantly opposed, just curious and had a plethora of proof-texts would arise to mind to counter or question really this teaching. But I kept reading my Scriptures after confrontation with TULIP and through them, I am no longer uncertain or unsure of the truths of Calvinism/Doctrines of Grace. Now I am convinced and convicted that both Arminianism and all other forms of non-Calvinist (so- called) doctrine are in error.

 

[JonC]

I would not use such words as "Calvinist" or "Reformed" or "Arminian." The bible doctrine of Particular Redemption existed long before Calvin, the Protestant Reformation, or James Arminius.

Also those words tend to stir up strife. As Keith puts it, "more heat than light." They are subject to much misinterpretation and have, due to the long standing debate, been loaded down with specious and extraneous baggage.

Unfortunately, those who either do not understand Particular Redemption, or don't care to study what it is actually all about, would rather parrot the mindless "Calvinism bad." "Calvinism evil." "Me good. Me not evil Calvinist." They seem to have abandoned reasoned apollonian study with dionysiac emotional chaos.

Particular Redemption gets to the heart of the matter (at least as Baptists are concerned…If I recall correctly, the term “Calvinism” was coined by Lutherans because of sacramental differences, not soteriological ones). But I think that the problem with the term “Calvinism” is also that there are some who hold a superficial summary of the “Doctrines of Grace” as the gospel itself.

A couple of decades ago I had rejected “Calvinism” because of this summary. I was majoring in religion at a Baptist university and had several conversations about the topic. The doctrines that were presented to me could be defended scripturally, but I thought they also placed God in a fairly small box. Their view of God and redemption was such a summary that I couldn’t fathom it being completely accurate.

After college another friend invited me to continue the discussion via email with the agreement that we not try to talk the other into a position but instead we openly explore Scripture. This continued for about 6 months into seminary and we eventually lost contact (Cal/Non-Cal was more an undergrad debate than a seminary debate so other topics occupied my time). But I kept up the study and determined Particular Redemption biblical.

My point is that so many start with a summary of “Calvinism” and then go to scripture to support that position. The result is often what I consider to be correct doctrine built upon the sand.

 

[StefanM]

My point is that so many start with a summary of “Calvinism” and then go to scripture to support that position. The result is often what I consider to be correct doctrine built upon the sand.

For me, what happens is that, on balance, I see a Calvinistic (or whatever your preferred term is) bent to Scripture. So, I end up tentatively holding to a Calvinistic perspective, but then I think about the other side. But some of the counter-arguments are philosophical objections, admittedly.

I pray that I will be able to keep a biblical approach above all else and that God would help me to understand a better way to address the philosophical issues.

 

[JonC]

I pray that I will be able to keep a biblical approach above all else and that God would help me to understand a better way to address the philosophical issues.

I think that that is important. In my opinion it is better to hold an incomplete understanding of how God effected salvation that is derived from Scripture than a complete understanding which is only supported by Scripture.

 

[Van]

Anyone else?

And, for the record, include on the Arminian side those who believe everything except for the loss of salvation. Include on the Calvinist side those with a Calvinistic view of election, even if all 5 points are not believed.

I did not read the rest of the posts, but did read the op and following up to this post.

Before I had studied the doctrines, I assumed the Calvinist view was biblical. But when I first started posting on the internet I met these Arminian folks who disagreed, and some of their arguments seemed to accurately reflect scripture. So I stopped posting and started studying.

After a lot of study and a lot of prayerful meditation, I realized both views were flawed. But at that point I did not see a way around the problem. Then I read an article about corporate rather than individual election. This was the key that unlocked for me, an understanding that meshed with all scripture.

The new view is based on understanding Ephesians 1:4 is referring not to our individual election before creation, but Christ's individual election as God's Redeemer. And of course, when God chose His Redeemer He had a plan to redeem. Thus all those Christ redeems were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world.

As I said this key allows God to choose us individually through faith in the truth, 2 Thessalonians 2:13. This meshes with John 3:16 where the "world" refers to fallen mankind.

In summary, I am a one point Calvinist, once saved always saved (1 Peter 1:3-5).
I am a two point Arminians, Christ died for all mankind, and we are chosen conditionally.

My study has demonstrated to me at least, that total spiritual inability of men of flesh is bogus, 1 Corinthians 3:1. And my study of irresistible grace or the gift of faith is bogus, Matthew 23:13.

My study also took we away from the Arminian view that we are chosen individually before creation based on foreseen faith. My view is we are chosen for salvation through our faith which means during our physical lifetime, not before creation.

Finally, we are called through the gospel of Christ. Some people, the first soil of Matthew 13 cannot understand it, thus they are indeed suffering from total spiritual inability. But they were not born in this condition, they hardened their hearts with the practice of sin. If we understand the gospel, like the 2, 3, and 4 soil of Matthew 13, we are drawn to Christ for we have beheld Him high and lifted up, John 12:32

This view is the only one that fits with all scripture.

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't intend for this to be a discussion of the merits of each side but rather the experience of weighing them.

At times in my life I've waffled between Calvinism in some form and Arminianism in some form.

Right now, I just don't know. I can see both ways, but I'm just not sure which is correct because I see both perspectives in the Bible. I know they can't both be true, but I'm wondering if anyone else has been in this state for very long.

seek the scriptures, and try to bring in everything taught on these issues...

Also good to pick up a standard reference text for each perspective...

And realize that one can hold to either viewpoint, and be a Christian...

 

[glad4mercy]

I don't intend for this to be a discussion of the merits of each side but rather the experience of weighing them.

At times in my life I've waffled between Calvinism in some form and Arminianism in some form.

Right now, I just don't know. I can see both ways, but I'm just not sure which is correct because I see both perspectives in the Bible. I know they can't both be true, but I'm wondering if anyone else has been in this state for very long.

I came a hair away from becoming a Calvinist, but the issue that prevented me was the "God predetermined all events, good and bad."

I know about compatibalism, and I agree with it, but I cannot bring myself to believe that God infalliby decreed beforehand everything that happens, including sin. (perhaps I am misinterpreting the Calvinist position?) I know that He sometimes allows and even foreordains evil for His purposes (like what when He predetermined beforehand that Christ would be slain by wicked men) but I do not believe He predetermined every sin, like when a believer is careless and does something stupid. I also know that sometimes he permits evil and sometimes He restrains it according to the fulfillment of His etermal purpose

Maybe I misunderstand the concept. When it is said that God predetermined all events, even evil, is the decree of an evil event by permission or is it causative in Calvinism

I believe (know) that God is Omniscient, and His Omniscience is perfect, therefore immutable, but I think that compatiballism means events already determined from God's eternal perspective but also contingent from our temporal perspective (may not be a correct definition of the term, but that is my perspective on it)

I used to classify myself as a CLASSICAL ARMINIAN, but I'm not sure I fit that category anymore. I never really agreed with more modern strains of Arminian. Now I am not sure if I am a moderate Arminian or a moderate Calvinist. I think I am somewhere in between the two systems, (pretty much always have been)

So what does that make me?

 

[TCassidy]

I came a hair away from becoming a Calvinist, but the issue that prevented me was the "God predetermined all events, good and bad."

Except that is not one of the tenets of Calvinism.

I cannot bring myself to believe that God infalliby decreed beforehand everything that happens, including sin.

That's because He didn't.

I do not believe He predetermined every sin

Neither do Calvinists.

Maybe I misunderstand the concept.

No "maybe" about it.

When it is said that God predetermined all events, even evil, is the decree of an evil event by permission or is it causative in Calvinism

Don't confuse the decretal will of God with the permissive will of God.

 

[rsr]

Growing up, as I look back now, I was a typical Southern Baptist four-point Arminian.What little I heard of (Augustinianism, Calvinism, Doctrines of Grace, you take your pick) was from a young man our church licensed to preach (and later became a Baptist pastor). He was immersed in Spurgeon and Matthew Henry (yes, I had the Henry commentary but seldom bothered to read it; Gill would have been much more profitable). I thought his ideas were interesting, but didn't really delve into them.

In fact, I didn't think much about the question at all until I joined the Board. I was, to put it bluntly, totally ignorant on the matter. It was only after I began reading about Baptist history that I learned many early Baptists, and Southern Baptists in particular (no, that's not a pun) held to doctrines I once dismissed as preposterous. Gradually I came to believe that they best fit the evidence of Scripture and reason.

I choose not to be dogmatic about my understanding of the Scriptures, but I believe — as any Arminian who knows anything about the subject will agree — is that salvation is all from God and not from anything I have done or will do. I believe that election is individual and not based on some broad category — the infamous "God looking down the halls of time and seeing those who will accept Christ."

I did not come to this position easily and without much anguish. There were times I wanted to chuck the whole thing. Sometimes I still do. I read Spurgeon and I read Wesley. As much as I admire Wesley, I think Spurgeon has the better of it. My favorite author, C.S. Lewis, loathed "Calvinism." Yet as much as he railed against it, his conversion was textbook "irresistible grace."

"You must picture me alone in that room at Magdalen, night after night, feeling, whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. That which I greatly feared had at last come upon me. In the Trinity Term of 1929 I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England."

I would never boast that I am among the elect, for God only knows what a miserable sinner I am. I confess that I cannot even know that I am among the elect, except through what I believe are God's dealings with me as His child. I would never presume to know the mind of God or his purposes. For now, I can only trust in the blessed hope that Scriptures lay out for his children.

More than you wanted to know, certainly, but you asked for it.

 

[SovereignGrace]

I came a hair away from becoming a Calvinist, but the issue that prevented me was the "God predetermined all events, good and bad."

I know about compatibalism, and I agree with it, but I cannot bring myself to believe that God infalliby decreed beforehand everything that happens, including sin. (perhaps I am misinterpreting the Calvinist position?) I know that He sometimes allows and even foreordains evil for His purposes (like what when He predetermined beforehand that Christ would be slain by wicked men) but I do not believe He predetermined every sin, like when a believer is careless and does something stupid. I also know that sometimes he permits evil and sometimes He restrains it according to the fulfillment of His etermal purpose

Maybe I misunderstand the concept. When it is said that God predetermined all events, even evil, is the decree of an evil event by permission or is it causative in Calvinism

I believe (know) that God is Omniscient, and His Omniscience is perfect, therefore immutable, but I think that compatiballism means events already determined from God's eternal perspective but also contingent from our temporal perspective (may not be a correct definition of the term, but that is my perspective on it)

I used to classify myself as a CLASSICAL ARMINIAN, but I'm not sure I fit that category anymore. I never really agreed with more modern strains of Arminian. Now I am not sure if I am a moderate Arminian or a moderate Calvinist. I think I am somewhere in between the two systems, (pretty much always have been)

So what does that make me?

God uses primary and secondary causes to bring His will to fruition. There is not one thing beyond His control, nor is there any one thing that comes to pass that He did not decree, even sin. But, you need to study primary and secondary causes.

 

[glad4mercy]

Except that is not one of the tenets of Calvinism.

That's because He didn't.

Neither do Calvinists.

No "maybe" about it.

Don't confuse the decretal will of God with the permissive will of God.

Jut to be clear, I did not come here to argue against Calvinism. I came here to hear a clear definition of the one part of Calvinism I don't understand from a Calvinist.

"God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."

I am in general agreement with this, but lack understanding of one part

a. I would never question the most holy and wise councel of God. If Calvinism is correct about God, I WANT TO BE CONVINCED.

b. I know that God is not the author of sin.

c. I know that God is FREE in whatsoever He does. No one can say to Him "what are you doing"

The part I am seeking explanation for is the apparant contradiction (I say apparant because it only appears to be contradictory TO ME , not that it is contradictory) in your affirmation that God ordains EVERYTHING that comes to pass while similtaneously denying that He ordained acts of sin. Would you please clarify this for me?

I am not a hard headed person who wants to argue and doesnt want to listen.

To say that God ordains EVERYTHING and then say that He did not ordain sin is contradictory. If He did not ordain sin, He did not ordain everything.

So do you agree with Calvin and the Westminster Confession that God infallibly ordained WHATSOEVER comes to pass? Would this not include acts of sin?

I am not attacking Calvinism. I am trying to find the missing piece in my understanding of it. I know that God did not ordain sin, therefore I cannot believe He ordained EVERYTHING. Am I missing something? If so, what is it?

 

[glad4mercy]

Growing up, as I look back now, I was a typical Southern Baptist four-point Arminian.What little I heard of (Augustinianism, Calvinism, Doctrines of Grace, you take your pick) was from a young man our church licensed to preach (and later became a Baptist pastor). He was immersed in Spurgeon and Matthew Henry (yes, I had the Henry commentary but seldom bothered to read it; Gill would have been much more profitable). I thought his ideas were interesting, but didn't really delve into them.

In fact, I didn't think much about the question at all until I joined the Board. I was, to put it bluntly, totally ignorant on the matter. It was only after I began reading about Baptist history that I learned many early Baptists, and Southern Baptists in particular (no, that's not a pun) held to doctrines I once dismissed as preposterous. Gradually I came to believe that they best fit the evidence of Scripture and reason.

I choose not to be dogmatic about my understanding of the Scriptures, but I believe — as any Arminian who knows anything about the subject will agree — is that salvation is all from God and not from anything I have done or will do. I believe that election is individual and not based on some broad category — the infamous "God looking down the halls of time and seeing those who will accept Christ."

I did not come to this position easily and without much anguish. There were times I wanted to chuck the whole thing. Sometimes I still do. I read Spurgeon and I read Wesley. As much as I admire Wesley, I think Spurgeon has the better of it. My favorite author, C.S. Lewis, loathed "Calvinism." Yet as much as he railed against it, his conversion was textbook "irresistible grace."

"You must picture me alone in that room at Magdalen, night after night, feeling, whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. That which I greatly feared had at last come upon me. In the Trinity Term of 1929 I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England."

I would never boast that I am among the elect, for God only knows what a miserable sinner I am. I confess that I cannot even know that I am among the elect, except through what I believe are God's dealings with me as His child. I would never presume to know the mind of God or his purposes. For now, I can only trust in the blessed hope that Scriptures lay out for his children.

More than you wanted to know, certainly, but you asked for it.

Thank you for your post. I will say that my conversion was undeniably monergistic. God replaced my hard heart with a soft heart instantaneously and revealed Himself to me in Grace when I wasnt seeking Him. It is also undeniably His Power and Grace that is keeping me. I understand many of the tenets of Calvinism experientially, but struggle with some of the spoken and written content, like the part I quoted above.

Blessings

 

[glad4mercy]

God uses primary and secondary causes to bring His will to fruition. There is not one thing beyond His control, nor is there any one thing that comes to pass that He did not decree, even sin. But, you need to study primary and secondary causes.

Agreed, but still does not answer the question above. But I will do more reading on the subject

 

[Internet Theologian]

I for one am not nearly, as one has confessed, on the verge of chucking the Doctrines of Grace, interesting conversation nonetheless. Perhaps Proverbs 23:23 is a good passage to consider. Also, 1 Thessalonians 5:21.

I will add this passage as to further some thought on the way the OP is heading and for glad4mercy:

“You speak as one of the foolish women would speak. Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?” In all this Job did not sin with his lips. - Job 2:10

If anyone pretends to understand all concerning the so-called 'problem of evil' they're probably fibbing and presumptuous. God has revealed what He desires us to know through His Word. It is apparent he has decreed all things that come to pass, or, He simply would not be God. I am content that we do not have a monopoly on God, and have it all figured out.

 

[JonC]

If anyone pretends to understand all concerning the so-called 'problem of evil' they're probably fibbing and presumptuous. God has revealed what He desires us to know through His Word. It is apparent he has decreed all things that come to pass, or, He simply would not be God. I am content that we do not have a monopoly on God, and have it all figured out.

I agree.

I think that this is one thing that many of us has struggled with in reasoning out the “Doctrines of Grace”. If God is completely sovereign (and He is) then how can we account for evil in the world?

Towards the end of seminary (and I did not go to a “Calvinistic Seminary”) I came to fall squarely within the Calvinism camp. What satisfied my concern about the “problem of evil” was the fact it was only a problem if man was at the center of what was considered “evil”. If man is at the center then God has done “evil” (Isaiah 45:7; Amos 3:6; Lamentations 3:38), but not sin. If, however, God is at the center of all things, then it is impossible for God to author evil. What constitutes evil? Is it an act or intention against man (as when Scripture says God caused "evil"....Isaiah 45:7; Amos 3:6) or an act or intention against God (when Scripture says God cannot do evil...James 1:13; Habakkuk 1:13)? When I came to believe it was the latter that was impossible for God, I realized that God can indeed be sovereign, true evil can exist in the hearts and actions of man, but God cannot be the author of that evil even if He has decreed that it occur.

So, Glad4mercy, it may not help you but that's how I think of the "problem of evil".

 

[Revmitchell]

I don't intend for this to be a discussion of the merits of each side but rather the experience of weighing them.

At times in my life I've waffled between Calvinism in some form and Arminianism in some form.

Right now, I just don't know. I can see both ways, but I'm just not sure which is correct because I see both perspectives in the Bible. I know they can't both be true, but I'm wondering if anyone else has been in this state for very long.

No, I have always been sure that both are wrong.

 

[glad4mercy]

I for one am not nearly, as one has confessed, on the verge of chucking the Doctrines of Grace, interesting conversation nonetheless. Perhaps Proverbs 23:23 is a good passage to consider. Also, 1 Thessalonians 5:21.

I will add this passage as to further some thought on the way the OP is heading and for glad4mercy:

“You speak as one of the foolish women would speak. Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?” In all this Job did not sin with his lips. - Job 2:10

If anyone pretends to understand all concerning the so-called 'problem of evil' they're probably fibbing and presumptuous. God has revealed what He desires us to know through His Word. It is apparent he has decreed all things that come to pass, or, He simply would not be God. I am content that we do not have a monopoly on God, and have it all figured out.

The Job passage is completely irrelevant. I am not questioning God, I am examining Calvinism. Like I said, if someone can answer my question reasonably and scripturally, I will receive it with open arms

quote- It is apparent he has decreed all things that come to pass, or, He simply would not be God

How does your conclusion follow from the premise.

Omniscience, Omnipotence, etc are necessary attributes of God. But how is determinism essential to a right understanding of God

And the fact that I realize I don't have it all figured out is why I am asking questions

I approach you all with a question and you all have a golden opportunity to answer someone who is COMPLETELY open minded to what you have to say, and this is the best you can do?

 

[glad4mercy]

I agree.

I think that this is one thing that many of us has struggled with in reasoning out the “Doctrines of Grace”. If God is completely sovereign (and He is) then how can we account for evil in the world?

Towards the end of seminary (and I did not go to a “Calvinistic Seminary”) I came to fall squarely within the Calvinism camp. What satisfied my concern about the “problem of evil” was the fact it was only a problem if man was at the center of what was considered “evil”. If man is at the center then God has done “evil” (Isaiah 45:7; Amos 3:6; Lamentations 3:38), but not sin. If, however, God is at the center of all things, then it is impossible for God to author evil. What constitutes evil? Is it an act or intention against man (as when Scripture says God caused "evil"....Isaiah 45:7; Amos 3:6) or an act or intention against God (when Scripture says God cannot do evil...James 1:13; Habakkuk 1:13)? When I came to believe it was the latter that was impossible for God, I realized that God can indeed be sovereign, true evil can exist in the hearts and actions of man, but God cannot be the author of that evil even if He has decreed that it occur.

So, Glad4mercy, it may not help you but that's how I think of the "problem of evil".

Thank you for the answer. I have no doubt that God is Soveriegn, and I have fully realize that He is not the author of sin. I fully believe in the Sovereignty of God.

Nevertheless, decreeing that evil occur and predetermining every event that ever occurs are two very different propositions are they not?

Are all the various choices of individuals decreed infallibly in eternity? If not, how can it be said that God decrees whatsoever comes to pass.

I fully realize that nothing can thwart God's purpose and He accomplishes His Will in everything that happens, but that is not the same as decreein/ordaining everything that happens, is it?

 

[Revmitchell]

quote- It is apparent he has decreed all things that come to pass, or, He simply would not be God

How does your conclusion follow from the premise.

Omniscience, Omnipotence, etc are necessary attributes of God. But how is determinism essential to a right understanding of God

It is not. It is clearly a wrong understanding of the Sovereignty of God. God is completely sovereign even when He does not decree something. The problem with Calvinists is if they lose this doctrine they lose the whole thing. All of Calvinism will fall apart.

I just scratched my head. It cannot be proved nor is it even reasonable that a decree went out from God that I would do that. Further, such an idea is foreign not only to scripture but to justice. If God decreed that man would sin then He is the author of evil. My God is not the author of evil. Their God may be but the one true and living God is not. There would be no justice for man to cause men to sin and then punish man for the sin God caused, decreed, and created. Such an idea is blasphemous and should have no place in orthodox Christianity.

 

[Revmitchell]

Nevertheless, decreeing that evil occur and predetermining every event that ever occurs are two very different propositions are they not?

Yes but you cannot have one without the other.